User talk:Inoslav Bešker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Hello Inoslav Bešker, and Welcome to Wikipedia!Bouncywikilogo.gif

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.


Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Inoslav Bešker, good luck, and have fun. --GregorB (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Hidden racism[edit]

Please review what I wrote at Talk:Nenad Puhovski once again, and I'm sure you'll come to a completely different conclusion about my position on the matter. If you just click on User:Joy, you will also come to a completely different conclusion regarding the use of a nickname.

Please remember to assume good faith from others, in particular when there's a chance you misread something :)

But, on to the director's origin issue - the reason why your, and partially my own, interpretation isn't able to simply override User:Eversman's is that we are quoting the WP:BLP policy and they are quoting the equally valid WP:V policy. It is verifiably true that Nenad Puhovski has Jewish ancestry. That detail could be insignificant, but we seem to have significant coverage of it, so we can't just pretend the issue is not there.

Instead, we need to phrase it in a way that is appropriate in the context of a biography and to avoid the impression that it's promoting anti-Semitism, while keeping the referenced sources.

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You should also notice another angle - the other user isn't actually promoting a racist, anti-Semitic angle - to the contrary, they are in effect promoting the person's Judaism. In any case, encyclopedia articles should be free of advocacy of any kind. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

reply #2[edit]

Regarding the matter of whether information about ethnicity/nationality/religion is appropriate in biographic articles of people who don't purposely involve themselves in such matters - this is a very general discussion and you are suggesting a solution that doesn't seem to match the general practice in much of the English Wikipedia.

Quick example: Pablo Picasso's article explains his early life and origins in considerably more detail than the case we're dealing with here. I'm pretty sure that for the typical English Wikipedia reader, the factoid that Picasso had spent four years in A Coruña as a child is as insignificant as the factoid that Nenad Puhovski had an Italian person among his ancestors - but the former information is referenced and if you tried to argue it should be omitted because it's inconsequential in general, someone could simply counter that by saying it fits into the context (e.g. he drew his first sketch there), it's referenced to a reliable source, and therefore there's no reason to remove it. This is the so-called "inclusionist" mindset, and it's fairly popular among editors here, and certainly it's considered legitimate. You are perfectly free to argue against it, I'm just saying it is not something that's frowned upon as such and you can't dismiss it.

Regarding the specific argument of calling Nenad Puhovski "a Jew", I'm actually in complete agreement with you. The edit I made simply mentioned Jewish people as one of many of his ancestries, just like he himself explained in the interview, and in the exact same order I believe. I thought that that was a good compromise - keeping true to the person himself as the source. Only later, that other, anonymous user, came up with an LA Times commentary that explicitly called him a "half-Jew". You can verify this timeline in the article history page - see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nenad_Puhovski&action=history In any case, I protested against that bit at the talk page, but didn't take action - yet. You made a good argument there and I think I'll edit it back to the more neutral version.

Regarding what you wrote about promoting Judaism, it seems you have once again ascribed this behavior to myself, rather than to the anonymous user who made those changes. I suggest you copy&paste much of that opinion to Talk:Nenad Puhovski, so that they can see it instead.

Just for the record, I too live in Croatia and know from numerous examples how difficult life can be to various minorities when confronted by elements the far right. The argument that we should not cause additional suffering to a member of any kind of a minority by exposing or publicizing private details about them that nutcases in real life will then use against them - it makes perfect sense to me and it's also in line with Wikipedia policy. However, in this case, we're well past that point - Nenad Puhovski already explained to the general public in that badly-titled Nacional interview that he already suffered abuse for these reasons. Trying to simply remove or obfuscate this information from his Wikipedia article won't do any good - the bad guys already know about it. So given that the information is already out there, we can at least try and to the right thing by linking to the said interview, where people can read his valid, in-context description of those circumstances and events. Yes, the title is sensationalist, but the content seems to be fine.

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

reply #3[edit]

I think you misunderstood me - Talk:Nenad Puhovski is the discussion page linked to the article called "Nenad Puhovski". It is not a personal talk page of the topic of the biographical article themselves, rather it can be used to discuss the article content, the biography text. (In fact, it's explicitly against policy here to use a talk page to discuss anything else.)

I actually remember seeing the same incident myself - I asked them to verify their identity at User talk:Npuhovs1 but they didn't seem to respond to my offer to help.

I see now that we have a pattern here and I'm going to bring it up with fellow administrators on a noticeboard, so that we provide a systematic solution that will prevent these half-truths to be forced upon this biography. I'll post the link when it's done.

Regarding the comparison between Nacional and Wikipedia, I see your point. It's a tough case to interpret because this specific article is both a reliable and an unreliable source here - they have an unreliable title yet the content is reliable for a biography - it directly quotes the person involved and doesn't seem to misrepresent them. Other than in the title, and it's impossible to 'divorce' the title from the reference. It's a most unfortunate combination that prevents what would otherwise be an easy solution to the problem.

I'll go type up that summary complaint now. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Odgovor[edit]

Poštovani gospodine,

Hvala na komentaru i na citatu. Mislim da imam to negde zabeleženo, možda ne u izvornoj verziji, a čini mi se da sam čitao ranije i na internetu. Znaju taj podatak i neki drugi koji pišu ovde, ali većini korisnika cilj je da traže izvore i navode ono što njima odgovara.

Svakako, kad su znamenite ličnosti u pitanju, mnogi bi ih rado svrstali "u svoje", ako nađu bilo kakvu "nacionalnu" vezu.

Kao što Vam je poznato, koncept nacije ni u prošlosti, a ni danas, kada govorimo o savremnom konceptu, nije bio isti na Balkanu, i u Italiji, Francuskoj, na Zapadu. Italijani su to jednostavno rešili, smatrajući da italijanska nacija postoji od kad postoji italijanska država, a to je od 1861. Mada svakako da postoji neki kontinuitet identiteta i da se on prihvata i van Italije.

Primenjujući to na Ruđera i na njegovu porodicu s majčine strane, oni nisu tada mogli biti Italijani, ali su bili romanskog porekla. Oni nisu bili izvorni Dubrovčani, već kako piše na više mesta, doselili su se iz Bergama. I ovi očeva porodica nije izvorno iz Dubrovnika, već iz Hercegovine, a po nekim izvorima, još dalje u prošlosti, iz Crne Gore.

Ipak, identitet naroda na Balkanu je mnogo stariji po tom našem shvatanju, jer i ako prihvatimo kao tačnu tezu o dolasku Slovena na Balkan, po tim izvorima, mi smo već došli kao Srbi i Hrvati, svakako kao Sloveni, ali ne samo kao Sloveni. Dakle, već smo imali i ta imena, bila ona samo plemenska ili narodnosna. Ali je bilo tu i drugih srodnih plemena i pitanje je do kad su ona opstala. Međutim, kroz vekove, pa do bliže prošlosti, imali smo potrebu da se ujedinimo i zaokružili smo to jugoslovenskom idejom. Glavni problem je što nije stvorena jugoslovenska nacija, kao što je to slučaj sa italijanskom, francuskom, nemačkom, rumunskom, grčkom itd. I zato je, nažalost, jugoslovenska ideja propala. A da nije, danas ne bismo raspravljali o identitetu Ruđerovom. Bio bi Jugosloven. Doduše, i ovako je Južni Sloven, ali to nije dovoljno ni Hrvatima, ni Srbima, očigledno. Je li pleme srpsko ili hrvatsko, to je ključno pitanje.

Bošković svakako jeste Dubrovčanin, pa i Dalmatinac (u rimsko doba je taj pojam označavao mnogo širu teritoriju nego danas). Ali, i tim što je Dalmatinac, nažalost, ništa neće pomoći da se odrede prema njemu. Dlamatinac, opet može biti Hrvat, Srbin ili Italijan, tradicionalno, istorijski, autohtono. Ali i ako izuzmemo te nacionalne kategorije, opet će moći da se tumači, barem dvojako. Da li to "Dalmatinac" podrazumeva "Sloven" ili "Roman"? Da li je govorio dalmatinski ili dalmatico? Podrazumeva sve to zajedno, ali verovatno se ne može tačno odrediti, upravo zbog toga što je Ruđer bio to što je bio - Dubrovčanin zapravo, sublimirajući sve ono što Dubrovnik jeste bio.

Mislim da se logikom XX ili XXI veka, ni iz njegovih pisama, ni na osnovu veroispovesti, ne može izvući pouzdan zaključak. Govor dubrovački pripada istočnohercegovačkom narečju, koje čini osnovu književnog srpskohrvatskog, a tako i srpskog, odnosno hrvatskog. A vera je, upravo, glavni osnov naših razlika, koje će se vremenom produbljivati zbog toga. Ne suštinski, ali ideološki i politički. Mislim da je vera tačka sukoba i kod Ruđerovog porekla, tako da ne verujem da će se tu naći rešenje. Između ostalog, Srbi se trude da dokažu kako su mu preci s očeve strane bili pravoslavni, a Hrvati da nisu. A zapravo, ni jedno ni drugo nije dokaz porekla.

Srdačan pozdrav! Ljuboni (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Jezik[edit]

Hteo sam samo da dodam nešto što sam zaboravio, a tiče se jezika. Sam je Ruđer u svom dnevniku ("Giornale di un viaggio da Costantinopoli in Polonia") ostavio zapis koji je to njegov jezik. Ne mogu sada da pretražujem celu knjigu, ali kada govori o jednom bugarskom selu, na koje je naišao na svom proputovanju, on piše:

"La lingua del paese è un dialetto della lingua Slava la quale essendo anche la mia naturale di Ragusa ho potuto farmi intendicchiare da loro e intendere qualche cosa di quello che dicevano... Per quanto ho potuto ricavare quella sera parlando la mia lingua..."

Dakle, za njega je slovenski jedan jezik, njegov jezik, a njegov je dubrovački narečje, kao i govor tih Bugara koje je sreo. Ljuboni (talk)

Dubrovački[edit]

Zapravo, da budemo precizni, dubrovački slovenski on definiše kao narečje, (što jeste i danas, tj, deo narečja istočnohercegovačkog), ako sam ja dobro preveo, a ako nisam, Vi me ispravite.

Pretpostavljam kada kažete "koji danas definiramo kao hrvatski", mislite na hrvatske lingivste ili stručnu javnost, kao što ga ovdašnji definišu, sasvim prirodno, kao srpski, i "zajednički". Naravno, ima i onih gledišta koja će, dubrovački govor (kao i celo narečje) smatrati srpskim, možda upravo kao protivtežu hrvatskom stanovištu da dubrovački govor proglasi isključivo hrvatskim, a samim tim i svu književnost dubrovačku, pisanu na slovenskom, smatra hrvatskom. Što je, na kraju krajeva, deo iste ove "priče" o identitetu i jeziku Ruđera Boškovića.

Da, hvala, poznat mi je taj članak. Zanimljiv je i ima značajnih podataka.

S poštovanjem, Ljuboni (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Jezik[edit]

Poštovani, Mislim da se dobro razumemo i suštinski slažemo. Ja nisam bio upoznat s Vašim radom, ali sada sam se donekle upoznao i mogu reći da mi je zaista zadovoljstvo što imam priliku da "razgovaram" s Vama, makar na ovaj način.

1) Južnoslovenska grupa jezika gledala se kao jedan jezik u određenom periodu, a tako i danas mnogi gledaju “srednjejužnoslovenski dijasistem”, kao jedan jezik.

Mislim da ste odmah "uboli poentu" pomenuvši Kongregaciju/propagandu za širenje vere i, po mom skromnom mišljenju, Kongregaciji, tj. Rimokatoličkoj crkvi možemo posebno "zahvaliti" za viševekovno razdvajanje, a zatim i sukobljavanje između južnoslovenskih naroda. Da, kako bi Katičić mogao trubiti da je Kašiću ilirski sinonim za hrvatski? I ne samo Katičiću i Mikalji (ili Micaglia - to ste Vi napisali), već kako bi mogao trubiti da je to i Giovanniju Boteru (koji je stariji i od Kašića i od Mikalje), jer mislim da ta "izreka" potiče od njegove slične izreke, a on je napisao: "Nel culto divino vsano la lingua Seruiana, ch'è quasi Toscana tra gli Schiavoni." http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/1788/1640boterorelazioni2.jpg A zbog čega se nešto delimično citira, jasno je.

2) Ovde ne bih imao išta da dodam, veoma mi se dopada kako ste to napisali.

Ali ovde bih dodao da na južnoslovenskom području imamo (uslovno) četiri sistema: kajkavski, čakavski, štokavski i istočni (od staroslovenskog, koji itekako imaju veze sa štokavskim). Da li je staroštokavski akcenatski bliže čakavskom? Možda i jeste. Može se razgovarati o tome. On je, ako tako posmatramo, možda bliži i kajkavskom i nekim drugim dijalektima slovenskih jezika, jer mu je akcenat dinamički. Dok se ne bih složio da je refleksijom jata bliži čakavskom. On je ekavski, uz određene sličnosti čakavskom, tj. ikavskom. Štaviše, on je zadržao neka ekavska obeležja, kojih nema u ostalim ekavskim govorima ("neje" umesto "nije", "radeo" umesto "radio", "bole" umesto "boli" itd.). Tako je i zetski ijekavski, uz prelazne ekavske refleksije. I po tome se vidi da svi ovi dijalekti predstavljaju prirodni dijalekatski kontinuum. Torlački ili prizrensko-timočki ili prizrensko-južnomoravski (u zavisnosti od nomenklature, a i klasifikacije) je deo staroštokavskog, a po akcentu je sličan kosovsko-resavskom, koji se proteže od Metohije do Banata, a takođe se ubraja u staroštokavske.

Kao neko kome su i prizrensko-timočki, i kosovsko-resavski i zetsko-južnosandžački maternji govori, ja Vam mogu govoriti i o nekim stvarima koje znam i o mom subjektivnom osećaju govora. "Torlački" nije baš precizno definisan pojam i ne zna se tačno šta on podrazumeva i obuhvata i to ne samo u jezičkom smislu. On deli određene sintaksičke elemente sa bugarskim, i određenije sa zapadnobugarskim govorima. Međutim, ne samo što nema član, nego ima mnoge karakteristike koje ga povezuju sa zapadnoštokavskim govorima, i ima neke svoje specifičnosti koje ga povezuju sa zapadnobugarskim dijalektom, koji se po istim tim karakteristikama razlikuje ne samo od književnog bugarskog, već i od svih ostalih bugarskih dijalekata. Tu je prvo "Jat granica" koja je sama po sebi izoglosa. Citiram: "The yat border is the most important Bulgarian isogloss. West of that isogloss, old yat is always realized as /ɛ/ (a continuation of the Ekavian Serbian dialects)." Tako se u zapadnobugarskim dijalektima kaže: млеко (mleko), хлеб (hleb), дед (ded), бел (bel), црвен (crven), kao i u ekavskim srpskim, za razliku od ostalih dijalekata i književnog, gde je: мляко (mljako), хляб (hljab), дядо(djado), бял (bjal), червен (červen). Naravno, postoji još razlika i još sličnosti. Međutim, kao što je to predstavljeno na ovoj karti (gde su doduše, srpski, hrvatski i bošnjački odvojeni), ti prelazni bugarski dijalekti uz samu granicu (ovde su označeni istom bojom kao i srpski), a zatim i šire do Jat granice (predstavljeni drugom bojom), predstavljaju deo onih govora kojim govori jedan značajan deo stanovništva u Srbiji , a i na samom severu Makedonije (što je opet teritorija gde i danas živi u najvećoj koncentraciji u Makedoniji srpsko stanovništvo - Severno Povardarje, Skopska Crna Gora, Kumanovo, sa istorijskim kontinuitetom). http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Dialectos_de_las_lenguas_eslavas_meridionales.PNG

Zetsko-južnosandžački je opet "spontani" prelaz između ekavskih i ijekavskih govora (od Metohije, preko Sandžaka, Zete do Boke), zadržavajući delom staroštokavski akcenat i neka obeležja, spajajući ih sa novoštokavskim. Uz to je karakteristična i jotizacija (đevojka, sjutra/śutra, gđe/đe), koja je prisutna i u susednim starohercegovačkim govorima. Tako sam slušao neke Sandžaklije koji koriste određene ijekavizme i Podgoričane i Zećane koji koriste ekavizme.

Inače, treba napomenuti da ikavskih i ijekavskih refleksija ima i u ekavskom, a da ih je bilo mnogo više u prošlosti, jer je ekavština u Srbiji, pogotovu u zapadnim i središnjim delovima, Beogradu i Vojvodini novoštokavska. Kao što ima ekavskih i ikavskih u ijekavskom.

3) Dubrovački dalmatski kao romanski nije upitan.

Svakako, kvantitet ne određuje kvalitet, te to što se današnji govornici dubrovačkog uglavnom deklarišu kao Hrvati, nije argument da se smatra isključivo hrvatskim, s obzirom na autohtone Srbe Dubrovčane, kojih i sad ima nekoliko procenata od ukupnog broja stanovnika, do 1991. ih je bilo još više, a u prošlosti, znatno više. A taj je govor njihov maternji govor.

Što se Vašeg poimanja dubrovačkog tiče, mislim da bi Vam hrvatski jezikoslovci silno zamerili, jer koliko sam upoznat, oni tvrde sve suprotno od ovoga što ste naveli. Naravno, pitanje jezika nikada nije samo jezičko pitanje, a Vi ste to lepo obrazložili na početku. Kao što sam Vam govorio o onome što znam i što subjektivno osećam o mojim maternjim dijalektima, tako uvažavam i vaša gledišta i osećaje.

Ja ne znam da li je u hrvatskom standardu (od 1991.) rađena neka nova klasifikacija i da li je promenjena nomenklatura, znam da je u srpskohrvatskom i srpskom dubrovački, govor ili poddijalekt istočnohercegovačkog dijalekta, srpskohrvatskog (tj. srpskog i hrvatskog) jezika. To nije moje lično mišljenje, već sam izneo onako kako je zvanično.

Mislim da nema ničeg spornog da ima nekih refleksa zetskog. Međutim, ako je on za Vas suštastveno zetski, onda postoji diskontinuitet sa susednim govorima, što ne mora da bude sporno samo po sebi. Ja nisam dovoljno kompetentan da se bavim tim pitanje na naučnoj razini. A ono što sam čuo u Dubrovniku kada sam bio tamo (poslednji put pre godinu i po), bio je govor koji je najsličniji govoru Boke Kotorske (imajte u vidu da je hrvatski standard izvršio određene uticaje u dubrovačkom, a srpski u bokeljskom), kako sintaksički, tako i leksički (uz veliki broj romanizama, koji se smanjuje), a što se akcenta tiče, ja ga zaista čujem kao istočnohercegovački, a ne zetski.

Dubrovačka renesansna i barokna književnost deluje kao aktivna u obe baštine i izučava se na svim nivoima (osnovna škola, srednja škola, fakultet).

Iskren pozdrav, Ljuboni (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit]

Poštovani, Vi govorite o staroštokavskom na području Slavonije i Bosne, i to nije ništa sporno (nesporazum je možda samo u tome što ste Vi mislili na zapadne staroštkovske govore, ali niste to posebno naznačili), a ja sam govorio o istočnim, vezano za pitanje "torlačkih govora", za koje ste rekli da ih "Ivić trpa u štokavski". A oni su staroštokavski. Mislim da je tu nastao nesporazum.

Kao što rekoh, ja nisam dovoljno kompetentan da govorim o tome kao profesionalac. Verujem da je govornik samog Dubrovnika u užem smislu, različit od onog, čak i iz najbliže okoline; a razlike su i druge, recimo staleške, što takođe utiče na rečnik. No, mi ipak ne možemo čuti "Držićev" akcenat, te možemo govoriti o specifičnostima govora vezanim za druge aspekte.

Artikulacija vokala je već druga priča. Mi možemo govoriti o razlici u govoru između dva susedna sela nekada, a kamoli o bilo koja dva udaljenija mesta. Nijanse mogu biti brojne. I Kotorani i Podgoričani će reći jedni za druge da govore različito i uistinu su artikulacije vokala različite. Mislim da ih svako ko ima makar prosečan sluh može prepoznati. Postoje i druge razlike. Ali i u Podgorici i u Kotoru se govori zetski, kao i na Cetinju, u Perastu... Pa ako postoje razlike između Kotora (grada) i Dobrote, koja nije čak ni predgrađe, već gradsko naselje, kako neće postojati na većim razdaljinama?! Ali postoje one veće razlike, kao što je između Perasta i susednog Risna, i tu je granica između dijalekata. Već se u Risnu govori istočnohercegovačkim i akcentuacija je sasvim drugačija. Dalje ide ka Herceg Novom, odatle ka Dubrovniku i Hercegovini. I po akcentu su Novljani i Dubrovčani mnogo bliži nego Novljani i Kotorani, pa samim tim i Kotorani i Dubrovčani. Po ostalim obeležjima su, rekao bih, dosta slični. Ili Vi ne mislite tako?

Kotoranin će reći da je bio "u Dubrovnik", a Novljanin "u Dubrovniku". Osim padeža i akcenat će biti na različitim slogovima.

Mislim da razumem šta hoćete da kažete. Pretpostavljam da govorite i o nekim obeležjima koja bi se najbolje shvatila da uživo čujemo govor. Ali ne znam da li bi to bilo dovoljno da opredeli određeni govor kao poseban dijalekt ili da ga svrsta u drugi dijalekt. Ali zaista mi je zanimljiva ta Vaša teza i sad ste me zaintrigirali.

S poštovanjem, Ljuboni (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Luciano Laurana[edit]

Ciao, per caso sai qualcosa in merito al fatto che Luciano Laurana accompagnasse i suoi progetti con scritti in glagolitico? Ho visto che sulla wiki croata non se ne parla: http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucijan_Vranjanin

Facendo ricerche con google ho trovato questo ma non chiarisce abbastanza la cosa (caratteri e linguaggio schiavone): http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924061776252#page/n51/mode/2up/search/baldi

Sai se le tavole in questione si trovano a Urbino? Scusami se ti scrivo in italiano ma in inglese ci avrei messo almeno il triplo del tempo. --Grifter72 (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Your article in Jutarnji list[edit]

Hello,

As you know, the recent controversy around the Croatian Wikipedia has attracted the attention of Jimbo Wales. He made a request for comments by Croatian editors in order to gather a more complete understanding of the situation. Since your September 16 article on the topic in Jutarnji list is quite relevant, we submitted translated excerpts from the article to Jimbo Wales' talk page. (I hope that's alright...) The translation itself is located here. You are, of course, invited to make further comments on this issue. GregorB (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Not at all - actually, the onus is on me to offer an apology for my colleague's somewhat unrestrained comments... :-) Hope you don't take offense - as I'm sure you understand, one acquires a full appreciation of a person's writing style upon translating of his or her text, rather than simply reading. :-)
Punitive measures are indeed the last option. However, right now it is difficult for me to imagine that any reasonable person would, upon reading what is currently posted at hr:Wikipedija:Kafić, still believe that Croatian Wikipedia is not beyond repair. If you haven't seen it yet, it's a singular experience... GregorB (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

An invitation to join the WikiProject Croatia[edit]

WikiProject Croatia
Hi, Inoslav Bešker, you are graciously extended an invitation to join the WikiProject Croatia! WikiProject Croatia is a WikiProject whose aim is to improve the quality and coverage of articles related to Croatia and the Croats. It is chiefly designed to help users collaborate on articles, but also to resolve open questions and disputes, to establish project-wide conventions, and to coordinate work on vandalism clean-up.

WikiProject Croatia currently covers a total of 13,990 articles and 5,618 other related pages on the English Wikipedia.

We look forward to welcoming you to the project!

--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tragurium (titular see), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Split. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Žabalj, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orthodox. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Europapress Holding, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cosmopolitan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Olivera Miljaković, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dafne (opera). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Inoslav Bešker. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Otto von Habsburg Prize[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Otto von Habsburg Prize requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.midas-press.org/en/OttovonHabsburgPrizeforJournalism/Pages/default.aspx. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Inoslav Bešker. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)