User talk:Nikgudz

Re: Oko izbora i stranaka

Pozdravi i tebi! Da, do sada sam uradio dosta inovacija na stranicama stranaka, ministarstava, izbora i mnoge sam stvari sam napravio. Drago mi je sto ti se to dopada, uvek je dobro kada se drugi korisnik pohvalno izrazi o tvom radu. I ja sam primetio dobre stvari koje si ti uradio oko stranaka, njihovih izbornih rezultata, ispravki netacnih procenata na stranicama izbora, i to je odlicno. Nazalost, niposto ne mogu da se slozim sa tobom oko acting leaders-a. Kao i kada se radi o vrsiocima duznosti drzavnih funkcija, protivim se njihovom odvajanju i u slucaju vrsioca duznosti stranackih funkcija. Niposto se ne slazem sa njihovim prebacivanjem na zasebnu listu. Smatram da preglednost uopste nije ugrozena ako su oni ukljuceni u glavnu listu, a najvaznije je to da su ti v.d. funkcija (i drzavni i stranacki) u jednom trenutku zaista imali punu kontrolu, u nedostatku (ili odsustvu) pravih, izabranih lidera. Od svih nasih stranaka, bas u slucaju SPS i SRS je kljucno da v.d. lidera budu u glavnoj listi. De fakto kontrola nad tim strankama je bila bas u rukama tih ljudi (u slucaju SRS to je i dalje tako), zbog dugogodisnjeg pritvora Milosevica i Seselja u Hagu... Ne bih ni pokusavao da opisem koliko sam bio neprijatno iznenadjen tvojim izmenama na listama stranackih lidera (u slucaju SRS cak si skinuo i originalni plavi color template radikala), i molim te da to vise ne radis. I, dobronameran savet - vidim da imas obicaj da se izlogujes i uredjujes clanke kao IP, i savetujem ti da to izbegavas. Na Vikipediji, ako korisnik ima otvoren nalog, uopste se ne gleda blagonaklono ako se on izloguje i uredjuje kao IP (to dovodi do raznih zabuna, otvaraju se razne mogucnosti za manipulaciju, itd). Nastavi svoj rad oko izbornih rezultata, i na clancima stranaka i na tabelama izbora, to sto si do sada uradio je vise nego pozitivno. Zelim ti sve najbolje, i srecan rad! (User:Sundostund) 12:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

==

E lepo što si odgovorio. Znače pohvale zaista i ovo sa neprijavljivanjem ću ispraviti, nikakav problem, jednostavno često zaboravim da se ulogujem. E sad što se tiče editovanja. Ne znam šta je bilo to sa bojom SRS-a problem? Podseti me. Znam da sam primetio da su boje različite na stranici stranke (ova boja #004878) i označavanja mesta u parlamentu u odnosu na ovu boju za lidere gde su upisani, i mislim da to ne treba da bude tako. Slažem se da su u SRS-u bitni u istoj listi navedeni v.d. (mada i oni bi trebalo nekim oznakama da se obeleže a ne onako da stoje crtice). Međutim, recimo kod SPS-a sam uveren da je irelevantno i zato bi trebalo da budu na posebnoj listu. Tu su 2 figure bitne, Milošević i Dačić, ovi ostali zaista su samo ikebana, složićeš se, ma šta formalnno pisalo. Naročito što piše da je Dačić predsednik od 2003. a to je ipak netačan podatak. Isto mislim da je irelevantno da se piše da su umrli na dužnosti kod godine kraja njihovog predsednikovanja, jer je to stvar biografije koja postoji za svakog lidera partije. Takođe ako si primetio dodao sam na stranici svake partije da li je posle izbora činila opoziciju ili bila vladajuća. Međutim, nisam našao jedan poseban slučaj koji se desio kod nas 2 puta 1992-1993. i 2004-2007. a to je da stranka nije u vlasti ali podržava manjinsku Vladu (SRS 1992-1993) i (SPS 2004-2007). Kako mislim da bi bilo bolje označiti i te slučajeve posebnom bojom i tekstom u odnosu na klasičnu goverment-oposition podelu možda imaš neki dobar predlog. Srdačan pozdrav i hvala! (User:Nikgudz) 22:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kod SRS si uklonio plavi color template, a on je taj koji treba da oznacava boju vodja radikala. Posto se bavis strankama, izborima itd sigurno znas da boja oznacavanja mesta u parlamentu veoma cesto nije ista kao boja koja oznacava lidere, i to tako treba da bude. Plava je zvanicna boja radikala, a ako bi njom oznacio mesta u parlamentu ne bi se jasno videlo, tako da te dve boje treba da budu razlicite i molim te da ne diras color template. Mislim da su v.d. lidera SRS oznaceni na dobar nacin (crtice cine italik i na taj nacin izdvajaju vrsioce duznosti od izabranih lidera, a tu su i fusnote), i to takodje ne treba dirati. Situacija i u SPS i u SRS je identicna - lideri u Hagu, funkcioneri u Srbiji vrse duznosti predsednika. Ne slazem se da su v.d. lidera SPS neka "ikebana", nije na nama da sudimo o "irelevantnosti", oni su bili zvanicni v.d. lidera stranke i moraju da budu deo iste liste kao i zvanicni lideri. Dacic je postao v.d. predsednika 2003 (kao sef Izvrsnog odbora, cini mi se), i to je ostao sve dok nije formalno izabran 2006. Cinjenica da su neki lideri umrli na duznosti je po meni veoma bitna (to se ne desava svaki dan), i taj podatak treba ostaviti kao dodatak liste. Sto se mene tice, liste stranackih lidera sada izgledaju super, i treba da ostanu takve. Sto se tice slucajeva podrske manjinske vlade, umesto klasicne government-opposition podele jednostavno stavi "Supported minority government". Posto vidim da poziciju "Government" oznacavas sa zelenom, a "Opposition" sa crvenkastom, neka pozicija "Supported minority government" bude bez boje. Sve najbolje, i zelim ti srecu u daljem radu! (User:Sundostund) 22:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sad tek videh da si plavu boju radikala (color template) upotrebio i za oznacavanja mesta u parlamentu. Odlicno, ja sam mislio da se mesta nece videti dobro sa plavom bojom, ali izgleda super. Kod radikala se samo drzi plave, to je ipak njihova formalna boja. Isto si uradio i sa SPS, i drugim strankama - upotrebio si njihov color template da oznacis mesta u parlamentu. Po meni, to izgleda odlicno. (User:Sundostund) 22:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valjalo bi da se uploaduje neka slika gde je Đilas u prvom planu a ne ova sa mikrofonima, loša je i za onaj box za izbore. Šta misliš? (User:Nikgudz) 21:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Svakako, slazem se. Najbolja bi bila neka slika sa njim u krupnom planu, kao Vuciceva slika. Ova sadasnja je losa i za listu gradonacelnika Beograda, i listu predsednika DS-a. (User:Sundostund) 21:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samo ja sam pokušavao ali nešto nije išlo. Hteo sam ovu ( http://eizbori.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/dragan-djilas.jpg ) Mislim da bi bila odgovarajuća.(User:Nikgudz) 23:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iskreno, ni ja nisam neki strucnjak kad je u pitanju uploadovanje slika. Velika vecina slika koje sam do sada uploadovao je uklonjena iz ovog ili onog razloga... Samo znam da mora da se pazi na to da li je slika u javnom vlasnistvu (zbog autorskih prava), i da je najbolje uploadovati je direktno na Commons. I, da, ova koju si nasao bi bila dobra, ako je u javnom vlasnistvu. (User:Sundostund) 23:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evo postavio sam je na stranicu za izbore 2014, nadam se da neće praviti problem. (User:Nikgudz) 01:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sad sam pogledao, izgleda dobro, ali vec su oznacili da ima neki problem (nema dovoljno informacija o poreklu, ili sta vec). Vidi da li to mozes da nekako sredis, jer je oznaceno da ce je ukloniti za sedam dana ako se ne daju dodatne informacije. Potpuno ista stvar i sa ovom novom Seseljevom slikom koju si postavio. (User:Sundostund) 02:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Au kakvi smarači. A kakve informacije? Šta misliš da je neophodno? (User:Nikgudz) 02:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Koliko ja shvatam, treba postaviti odgovarajuci tag da bi bilo jasno da je u javnom vlasnistvu (copyright status). Pogledaj malo detaljnije, i ispravi to ako mozes. Inace, ista je stvar i sa novom Labusovom slikom. Ne znam koliko novih slika si postavio veceras, ali ih sve pregledaj jer je verovatno svuda ista situacija. (User:Sundostund) 02:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pa samo te tri...Baš su dosadni, pa šta je u javnoj svojini osim sajtova vlade, ministarstava, javnih ustanova... Ne razumem tu rigidnost, misle da će neko da ih tuži za slike stare preko 10 godina ili šta već :( Pokušaću nešto mada ni sam nisam pametan šta je sporno. Izgleda da treba pismenu saglasnost da im šaljem za svaku sliku, overenu pečatom :D (User:Nikgudz) 02:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slazem se da su na Vikipediji, posebno na Commons-u, jako rigidni sto se tice pravila o autorskim pravima. Ponekad sve to lici na paranoju, nimalo nisam odusevljen time, ali tako je kako je. Najmanje problema ima sa slikama koje su snimljene 1910-ih, '20-ih, '30-ih jer su jako stare, autorska prava su davno istekla i automatski su u javnom vlasnistvu... Sto se tice novijih, definitivno je najbolje preuzeti ih sa sajtova vlade, ministarstava, javnih ustanova (aktuelna slika Djilasa je u vlasnistvu Skupstine Grada Beograda, Seseljeva u vlasnistvu Haskog tribunala i obe su u javnom vlasnistvu). Sadasnja Seseljeva slika nije toliko losa, a ako hoces neku drugu obavezno je skini sa sajta Tribunala. Djilasove slike potrazi na sajtu Skupstine Grada, velika vecina slika iz perioda kada je bio gradonacelnik bi trebalo da su u javnom vlasnistvu. Sadasnja Labusova slika takodje nije losa, a ako postavljas neku novu probaj da nadjes neku iz perioda 2004-2006 kada je bio vicepremijer, ta bi morala da bude u vlasnistvu Vlade Srbije i samim tim u javnom vlasnistvu. (User:Sundostund) 14:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

E hvala na savetima, baš sam tu i krenuo da potražim, shvatio sam da je sve ostalo neizvesno. (User:Nikgudz) 14:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evo sad sam postavio sliku preuzetu sa sajta grada i opet ono piše. Kakvi manijaci. (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dragan_Djilas_2.jpg) (User:Nikgudz) 15:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zaista zbunjujuce, obe slike (postojeca Djilasova i ova tvoja nova) u vlasnistvu Skupstine Grada, jedna stoji bez ikakvih problema a drugu odmah po postavljanju oznace za uklanjanje za sedam dana. Trebalo bi da su obe sa sajta Grada u javnom vlasnistvu? Voleo bih da ti dam neki korisniji savet, ali stvarno nisam pametan... Probaj da nesto ispravis ako je moguce, i za sada pokusaj da resis samo pitanje Djilasove slike - i Seselj i Labus imaju relativno dobre postojece slike, samo je Djilasova bas losa i trebalo bi naci neku novu. (User:Sundostund) 16:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Najnovija Djilasova slika koju si postavio na stranicu za izbore 2014 je vec uklonjena (nazalost), tako da sam morao da vratim onu staru. (User:Sundostund) 21:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vidim, valjalo bi da nekog uposlimo ko je već to kačio, da okači prikladnu za onaj box. (User:Nikgudz) 22:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Posto ce izbori sada biti aktuelna tema, ne sumnjam da ce se vec neko pojaviti ko ce postaviti novu Djilasovu sliku, mnogo bolju od postojece i pogodnu za izborni box... Ako tebe nije izdalo strpljenje (a nimalo te ne krivim ako jeste), probaj da nadjes jos neku sliku. Ja sam se sa tim stvarima petljao pre nekoliko godina, i znam koliko je sve to frustrirajuce. (User:Sundostund) 23:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nesto mi je palo na pamet. Moguce je da, iz postojece Djilasove slike, "odsecemo" onaj deo koji nam treba (njega u krupnom planu, bez mikrofona). To je takozvani "crop", ili "extract". Evo primera - ova slika Birendre, kralja Nepala (File:King Birendra of Nepal.jpg) je "cropovana" (isecena) iz ove, vece slike (File:King Birendra adorning a medal to Major General Nara Bahadur Burathoki.jpg). Samo je potrebno navesti da je manja slika, "isecak", napravljena iz vece slike (koja ima sredjenu situaciju oko autorskih prava). Obrati paznju kako je to uradjeno na ovoj manjoj slici gde je sam kralj, bez kraljice i generala... Nakon isecka stvara se manja slika, a veca takodje ostaje na sajtu. Nadam se da ce ovo pomoci, samo to mi trenutno pada na pamet. (User:Sundostund) 02:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meni je to palo napamet. Pokušaću. (User:Nikgudz) 02:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evo im nešto smeta (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dragan_Djilas_1.jpg#.7B.7Bint:filedesc.7D.7D). Oni su zaista van svakog razuma i pameti. (User:Nikgudz) 02:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zaista sumanuto da i sa "cropom" imaju neki problem... Nema veze, Bojan je sredio stvar. Ja cu sliku koju je on postavio da ubacim i na Djilasovu biografiju, spisak gradonacelnika Beograda i clanak o DS-u. (User:Sundostund) 11:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kostistila bi mala podrška pošto uporno pokušavaju da opet razdoje URS I G17 tj njihove rezultate na izborima iako se većina pre par meseci složila da to ne treba činiti. Hvala unapred :) (User:Nikgudz) 14:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opet potrebna podrška. Jedan korisnik uporno pokusava da rezultate i procente predstavi bez belih listića pa je sad otvorio diskusiju na stranici. Koristila bi podrska da se priznaju procenti RIK-a a ne neki procenti koji iskljucuju bele listice i nevazece, pa se onda stvaraju neki novi kvaziprocenti :) Evo i linka:

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Serbian_parliamentary_election,_2016#Method_of_counting ) (User:Nikgudz) 15:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, as well as blindly reverting edits, you are now WP:CANVASSING? Please stop behaving like this. Number 5 7 13:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Đilas

Ubačeno. Nisam našao krupniju vertikalnu. -- Bojan Talk 02:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mnogo ti hvala, Bojane! Ova koju si nasao je odlicna. (User:Sundostund) 11:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha Hvala za upload, ovo je sa onog sajta www.flickr.com sa kog često dozvoljavaju slike. I ja sam se razmišljao o njoj, međutim kad sam video da je piše izbor za bolji zivot-Boris Tadić i da nije on u krupnom planu delovala mi je malo bzvz. No svakako je mnogo bolja od one široke prethodne. Valjda će se pojaviti neka i u krupnom planu :) (User:Nikgudz) 13:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ustvari mogao bih da isečem ovu, dobro deluje, samo on u krupnom planu. Pa Bojan samo da mi da dozvolu ili tako nešto da to bude cakum-pakum što se kaže. I tu isečenu za onaj box da upotrebimo, a ova neka ostane svuda drugde jer je odlična. Šta mislite? (User:Nikgudz) 13:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ne znam da li bi dozvolili secenje slike, kako su krenuli da tumace pravila, i to bi na kraju odbili i uklonili. Sto se mene tice, moze i da ostane ovakva kakva je, ili da se isece. Samo se pribojavam da to ovi sa Commons-a nece prihvatiti. Ova slika je sto puta bolja od one koja je bila do sada, naravno ne bi bilo lose da nema ovog slogana iz kampanje 2012, ali ako krenemo da cackamo dalje, secemo itd mogu da je uklone i da onda mora da se ispocetka trazi nova. Ti i Bojan se dogovorite, meni odgovara bilo sta, samo da ne moram ponovo da vracam onu siroku sliku. (User:Sundostund) 14:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To i ja kažem, ova je mnogo bolja od prethodne a i novija je. Ako može da se iseče odlično ako ne, sve je bolje ngo onda široka. Najbolje neka Bojan da mišljenje, ipak je on operativno najviše zaslužan :) (User:Nikgudz) 15:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meni svejedno. -- Bojan Talk 05:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Onda hajmo da uložimo još taj mali napor i napravimo manju verziju. Meni nije teško, naravno, samo bolje možda Bojan to da odradi jer već ima dozvolu za onu sliku. Ne znam kad bih ja uradio da li treba neka specijalna dozvola i od koga pošto su na Commonsu prilično paranoični... (User:Nikgudz) 13:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ako vas dvojica hocete, nema problema. Kao sto rekoh, odgovara mi bilo sta, samo da ne gledam opet onu staru, siroku sliku... Ako ce se vec nesto raditi na novoj Djilasovoj slici, to bi trebalo da uradi Bojan jer ocigledno ima najvise iskustva u tome (User:Sundostund) 15:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slažem se. (User:Nikgudz) 15:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evo čini mi se da smo konačno rešili pitnaje optimalne slike za izborni box što se tiče Đilasa. Izgleda da su prihvatili onaj moj isečak... Eh da, hteo sam da pitam da li možda znate kako da se ove boje ispod slika lidera u izbornim box-ovima promene na stranicama izbora iz 2000. (da bude svetlo siva ispod DOS-a umesto svetlo plave) i 2003. (Siva ispod G17 Plus umesto bele)? (User:Nikgudz) 03:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rešio probleme :) (User:Nikgudz) 15:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zdravo jos jednom! Izvini sto nisam mogao da odgovorim ranije, imao sam neke privatne stvari da obavim zadnjih par dana. Drago mi je sto su konacno prihvatili ovaj tvoj isecak za Djilasovu sliku. Mislim da je to najbolja slika do sada, prikazuje ga u krupnom planu, kako i treba. Ja sam je upravo postavio na mestima gde bi i trebala da bude... Nije bilo nikakve logike da taj isecak odbijaju do sada, jer je to deo slike koja ima potpuno jasnu situaciju oko autorskih prava. Zao mi je sto nisam stigao da ti pomognem oko boja u izbornim box-ovima, drago mi je sto si to uspeo da sredis sam. (User:Sundostund) 15:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ništa strašno, sve se dalo srediti, naročito mi je drago što sam pronašao i dopunio sve izbore slikama mandata iz parlamenta. (User:Nikgudz) 19:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mislim da je sjajno to sto si dopunio clanke o izborima sa slikama mandata iz parlamenta. Primetio sam takvu grafiku na clancima o izborima u nekim drugim zemljama, i dobro je sto sad to postoji i na clancima o izborima u Srbiji. (User:Sundostund) 22:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I, moram da te pitam u vezi boje G17 Plus na clanku o izborima iz 2003. Definitvno se slazem da je trebalo maknuti belu boju, ali staviti sivu? Mislim da bi bilo najbolje da se koristi isti color template kao i za URS (na kraju krajeva, URS je i formiran kao naslednik G17 Plus). (User:Sundostund) 22:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pohvale prijaju, nije mi bilo teško, malo sam se doduše namučio da nađem u jendom članku Vremena iz 2001. ko koliko mandata DOS-a dobija, al ostalo mi je bilo zadovoljstvo. E ja sam isto mislio za G17 Plus, a onda sa shvatio da su ih na ovim slikama što sam ih dodao sa mandatima obojili sivom bojom, pa hajde kao da ima veze sa time i zato što su imali sivim slovima ispisano G17 na logu stranke. Ne znam, i ja se i dalje dvoumim oko toga da li da stavimo boje URS-a pošto su sledbenici ili da ostavim sivu kao što su ih označavali na mandatima za Skupštinu... (User:Nikgudz) 00:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitivno mislim da bi trebalo staviti color template URS-a u izborni box. Na clancima o izborima u drugim zemljama, veoma cesto se desava da boja partije u izbornom boxu bude drugacija od boje koja tu partiju oznacava na mandatima u parlamentu. Slobodno stavi boju URS-a, oni su direktni naslednici G17 Plus, ideologija i politicka pozicija su im iste tako da ovaj color template URS-a odgovara na oba mesta. (User:Sundostund) 00:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.. To je to ja bih rekao. (User:Nikgudz) 01:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeste, to je to. Samo sto ti nisi bio stavio tacnu "sifru" za boju iz URS-ovog color template-a (3BB9FF), nego neku slicnu nijansu (00B7EB), ali nije bitno, to sam sad prepravio. (User:Sundostund) 01:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Odlično, nisam mogao da nađem tačnu šifru pa sam ocenio da je ova identična. (User:Nikgudz) 01:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A evo učinio sam i nešto po pitanju Miloševićeve slike. Nadam se da je ova prikladnija u krupnijem planu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_general_election,_1992). (User:Nikgudz) 03:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeste, dobra je. Generalno, Milosevicevih slika ima dosta i ja jos nisam video neku za koju bih mogao da kazem da je bas losa (kao sto je losa ona siroka Djilasova slika)... Dobro je sto si dodao i ovu, izgledace OK u izbornim boxovima. (User:Sundostund) 14:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dobre su ti i ove nove slike Labusa, Dinkica i Dacica. Cudi me da su ih ovi na Commons-u prihvatili :) (User:Sundostund) 14:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nadam se samo da ih neće skinuti, sve sam našao na sajtu naše Vlade, pa ne bi trebalo da bude problema. Izgleda da je ključna stvar priložiti onu deklaraciju (link) kao da je sa javnog sajta i po zakonu RS...Ne znam kako oni dalje to proveravaju al zasad je sve ok. (User:Nikgudz) 14:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valjalo bi ako umeš da mi pomogneš oko partije na ovoj stranici (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_parliamentary_election,_2000). Neće da prihvati ime Party of Serbian Unity iako stranica njihova postoji...Pa sam nešto nakalemio i snašao se, ali nije to to. (User:Nikgudz) 03:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sredio sam stvar. Da bi prihvatili ime partije, nije dovoljno da o njoj postoji clanak, vec mora da ima ovo - template meta/shortname (u slucaju SSJ, to je Template:Party of Serbian Unity/meta/shortname). Upravo sam ga napravio, do sada nije postojao. Da jeste, automatski bi ti prihvatili ime Party of Serbian Unity u izbornom boxu. (User:Sundostund) 21:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)‎[reply]

Super, taman da ne bude niko neopravdano zapostavljen u izbornom box-u :) (User:Nikgudz) 23:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ovaj neki lik "Elect Partei" ili kako već se potpisuje, stalno dodaje neke gluposti i ruši stranicu za izbore 2014. dodajući neke ad hoc podatke za koje mi ovde znamo da nisu istina (tipa SNS da je imao 84 madata, prepravlja infobox bez ikakve potrebe, boldovana slova dodaje gde im nije mesto) pa bih te zamolio da obratiš pažnju i da ga ako se to još jednom desi upozorimo (samo kako se upozorava to i dalje ne znam :) (User:Nikgudz) 15:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Evo sad opet gledam, on prekraja neke koalicije po svom nahodjenju, partije, i ostali mu brišu podatke a on i dalje gura neku svoju priču. Kako ga sprečiti? (User:Nikgudz) 03:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pre ili kasnije ce ga neko upozoriti ili blokirati ako ne prestane da stavlja netacne podatke. Obraticu paznju na njega... Sto se tice prijavljivanja, to se radi ili na WP:ANI, ili na WP:3RR/N. Do sada sam nekoliko puta tamo stavljao prijave, ali na srecu ne toliko cesto. Ta mesta izbegavam koliko god mogu (to ti je kao da ides na sud ili u policiju u stvarnom zivotu), i nemam preteranog iskustva u tim stvarima. (User:Sundostund) 14:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)‎[reply]

Haha pa eto vidim da nema toliko "nasrtaja" od juče, pa se nadam da će se izbeći takva situacija. Hvala u svakom slučaju. (User:Nikgudz) 16:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

E da, posto vidim da ti konacno prihvataju slike na Commons-u (i jako mi je drago zbog toga), moram da te pitam za neke stvari, pa ti ako mozes uradi. Da li bi mogao da napravis sliku Nebojse Rodica kao "isecak" od ove slike - File:Nebojša Rodić & Chuck Hagel.jpg? Do sada, na Commons-u nije bilo nikakve Rodiceve slike, a on je ipak ministar odbrane, tako da bi trebalo staviti njegovu sliku. I, da li bi mogao da na sajtu Haskog tribunala nadjes slike Dragoljuba Ojdanica i Nebojse Pavkovica, poput ove slike Momcila Perisica - File:Momčilo Perišić.jpg. Ni njihovih slika nema na Commons-u, a bili su jako bitne licnosti svojevremeno (Pavkovic je bio nacelnik Generalstaba, a Ojdanic i ministar odbrane i nacelnik Generalstaba). Na sajtu Tribunala bi morale biti njihove slike, poput ove Perisiceve, i bilo bi jako dobro da clanci o njima imaju i slike. (User:Sundostund) 16:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)‎[reply]

Važi, znam sve njih i dobro ih se sećam. Potražiću neke da budu pristojne ovih dana pa obaveštavam šta sam i koliko uspeo. (User:Nikgudz) 18:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evo tražeći slike na razlicitim sajtovima, opet na stranici za izbore vandalizam od strane onog člana, podaci krajnje iritantni. Što je najgore počeo je da menja podatke i na prethodnim stranicama. (User:Nikgudz) 01:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Da, sad sam video. Ako se to nastavi, prijavi ga ili na WP:ANI, ili na WP:3RR/N. Na kraju krajeva, vec ce ga neko prijaviti... Kao sto rekoh, ja se ne snalazim bas najbolje u tim vodama. Za skoro cetiri godine rada ovde, na srecu, nisam cesto morao da idem na ta mesta. (User:Sundostund) 01:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)‎[reply]

Evo 2 predloga, (http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php?id=97106) i (http://www.srbija.gov.rs/vesti/vest.php?id=99340). (User:Nikgudz) 02:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ovo su ti neki pogresni linkovi, jedan ne radi a na drugom je neka skroz leva tema. (User:Sundostund) 02:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meni se otvaraju. Doduše moram na reload (refresh page). Pokušaj ako imaš drugi browser (cugl hrom ili mozilu). Inače slike su za Rodića. (User:Nikgudz) 02:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)‎[reply]

Meni ne. Uvek koristim Firefox... Na jednom linku kaze da je nepostojeci clanak, a na drugom je neki clanak o obnovljivim izvorima energije iz 2008. Nije bitno, ako ti vidis slike za Rodica, slobodno stavi neku od njih. Ne sumnjam da ce biti u redu, imam poverenja u tebe :) (User:Sundostund) 02:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evo linka za sliku ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neboj%C5%A1a_Rodi%C4%87.jpg ) pa ostavljam tebi da je ubaciš gde bi valjala da bude :) (User:Nikgudz) 02:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)‎[reply]

Ubaceno. Odlican izbor, super se uklapa :) Ako uspes da nadjes slike Pavkovica i Ojdanica, bice super (njih najpre trazi na sajtu Haskog tribunala, one bi morale biti u javnom vlasnistvu). (User:Sundostund) 02:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Važi to ću u toku dana sutra potražiti, nije problem. I ako ti nije teško, pošto cenim da znaš ove naše koji imaju dosta iskustva sa vikipedijom, da ih alarmiraš ukoliko bude bilo problema sa onim o čemu smo gore pričali, da ne prijavljujem olako nekog pa posle prolazim kroz "sudski proces" :) (User:Nikgudz) 02:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)‎[reply]

OK, obraticu paznju na to... Ako bude problema, obavesticu Bojana (koji nam je pomagao oko Djilasove slike), cini mi se da on ima vise iskustva u tim stvarima. (User:Sundostund) 02:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On ponovo stavlja netacne podatke, ja sam ga revertovao na clancima koje je prepravljao (upravo sam video da je vratio svoje izmene), tako da mi se cini da ces morati da ga prijavis. Sto se tice Bojana, video sam da si ga ti vec obavestio o ovome pre par dana, tako da je on vec upoznat sa celom stvari. (User:Sundostund) 17:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evo vidim i posle ponovo, pa sam ja revertovao...Kakav manijak. Ne mogu da shvatim da 5 ljudi mu govori jedno a on drugo. (User:Nikgudz) 18:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)‎[reply]

Ja sam ga opet revertovao na stranici za izbore 2014, ali sumnjam da ce to ista pomoci. Nisam znao da ga je vec 5 ljudi opominjalo! Obavesti svih 5 o ovome sto on radi, i onda ga prijavi. (User:Sundostund) 21:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A možda sam pogrešno shvaćen. Nisam znao da ga 5 ljudi opominje već sam video da mu je više ljudi revertovalo ono što je radio ukljucujuci i nas, pa sam zakljucio da tera neku svoju priču i to vrlo bezobrazno iako ga više ljudi odvraća od toga. Poslao sam Bojanu opet poruku nadam se da će reagovati. (User:Nikgudz) 22:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)‎[reply]

I ja sam "urgirao" kod Bojana da pomogne ako ikako moze, a i obavestio sam dva admina (jedan je Mark Arsten, a drugi Future Perfect at Sunrise), pa neka oni razmotre situaciju. Definitivno ne zelim da uletim u "edit war" sa ovim tipom, to je jedna od stvari koje treba izbegavati u sirokom luku na Vikipediji. (User:Sundostund) 22:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fino, pa ćemo već videti šta se dalje bude događalo. Evo sad tražim slike za Ojdanića i Pavkovića. (User:Nikgudz) 23:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)‎[reply]

Sve sto sam uspeo da nadjem je ovaj dokument iz koga se ne mogu skinuti slike...ne bih znao kako to da "licenciram"...A i slike su male i loše. Ne znam šta ti misliš?(http://www.icty.org/x/cases/milutinovic/cis/en/cis_sainovic_al_en.pdf) (User:Nikgudz) 23:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)‎[reply]

Ako je to sve sto ima, morace da posluzi. Posto je sa sajta Tribunala, licenciraj ih isto kao sto je licencirana slika File:Momčilo Perišić.jpg. To bi sve moralo biti u javnom vlasnistvu... Ove tvoje slike su iz sudnice, kao i Perisiceva (i lice na njegovu sliku), i mislim da ce biti OK. Meni uopste ne izgledaju lose. I, ako ti nije tesko, usput skini i slike Sainovica i Milutinovica, vidim da ima i njih tamo (obojica su bili vazni svojevremeno, a nema im slika na Commons-u). (User:Sundostund) 00:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ovih dana ne stižem da se bavim vikipedijom zbog nekih obaveza ali nisam zaboravio na one slike. Čim stignem napraviću to kako valja. (User:Nikgudz) 23:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)‎[reply]

Nema nikakvih problema, sve je OK. Kad budes mogao, ti uradi. I ja imam privatan zivot i obaveze, a ovo mi je hobi, ne posao. (User:Sundostund) 15:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article order

Hello Nikgudz. Thank you for your contributions to the Serbian election articles, but I see that you have moved the results sections of some articles to the top of the page. I have restored the original version, which is in the standard order. Please don't undo these edits (particularly if it was you editing as the IP 77.46.217.201), as this is the usual way articles are ordered - they are generally presented in chronological order - i.e. background, electoral system, campaign, opinion polls, results, reaction, aftermath. I'm sure there are one or two exceptions, but the Serbian articles match the vast majority. Cheers, Number 5 7 21:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Number57. I appreciate your work on these pages, but I can not understrand why you moved my DOS notes on the Elections 2000? Notes under the picture of parliament are much clearer then those written in one line. Thank you for your suggestions. (User:Nikgudz) 23:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The reason I moved the notes was because the notes used a referencing system - you removed the second part of the references, but left the first part (the [a], [b]) in the table. You are more than welcome to turn the existing text into bullet points on different lines if you wish, but please leave in bits in {{ }}. Cheers, Number 5 7 22:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, but than can you fix it please? (User:Nikgudz) 23:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed it. Also, I noticed that the total of the parties listed does not equal the total number of seats (if you add up all the parties, they have 163 seats, but the alliance had 176 - where are the extra 13? Cheers, Number 5 7 22:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. Yes I also noticed that and I am trying to find some more informations about DOS seats right now. (User:Nikgudz) 23:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And also I consider looking at some elections (like 2012,2008) that results should bi right after the introductory sentence. Because many other less important passages are before results and seats, and that (result tables and seats) I think, is what must be of the greatest importance for visitors too see at beggining. Do You agree with me? (User:Nikgudz) 00:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. As I said above, the standard order is chronological. The results should of course be mentioned in the introduction, but the results table is towards the end of an article. 23:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I solved the mistery :) (User:Nikgudz) 01:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Milan Jovanović (footballer born 1981), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Forward (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not incorrect

No, the list is not incorrect. The one I edited falsely represents the terms.

Almost none of the coalitions that ran in the 2012 elections are the same on this one. The Serbian Renewal Movement was in coalition with the Liberal Democratic Party, while the Social Democratic Party of Serbia was with the Democratic Party. Both of these are now in coalition with the Serbian Progressive Party. Comparing current lists to similar ones two years makes none sense at all, especially when we will be marking MP changes - it'll seem as if a coalition had won far more seats that it actually in reality did (i.e. the calculation will for the Progressives, who are expected to make a significant progress in this election, will be based off of 73, instead of the coalition's real MP total, which is 84 - and thereby misleading the reader about the actual seats increase).

Yes, you can just freely take a look at the 2012 election article...the comparison to the 2008 elections was not made on the basis of this completely illogical comparison of electoral lists, but through calculation of all partners, accounting for every coalition change. Such is the case also with the previous Serbian election articles, as well as other elections... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElectPartei (talk • contribs) 18:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All that facts you have written here I alredy know. It is not the question what were the coalitions before this elections in 2014. It is question what were the coalitions in 2012. Just look at election boxes from the past and do not invent some new rules that did not exist. Please stop. You do not have a point here, it is obvious.(User:Nikgudz) 20:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the question what coalitions it were in 2012, because that data is known. It is even present in the former articles. Refer to the election boxes from the past. The coalition that won the most votes was SNS with 55, 8 with NS, 2 PSS, and 1 PS and all of the minor coalition partners each (the refugees, the entrepeneurs, NSS, BNS, DPM, RP, the Vlachs and the Renewal movement). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElectPartei (talk • contribs) 00:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hey thanks for uploading the various good quality images of Serbian politicians. Planned on doing it myself at some point but never got around to it. Thanks again. Poz. Buttons (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for your words, I'm glad that I helped to improve these election pages on Wikipedia by uploading better images :) (User:Nikgudz) 13:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Pomoc

Ne znam sta da vam kazem. Povrsno gledano, ne mogu da kazem da njegovi stavovi nemaju smisla. -- Bojan Talk 04:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uveren sam da je jasno u infobox-u napisano "last elections" i da to treba uzeti kao jasnu odrednicu bez nekog naročitog tumačenja. E sada svako od nas moze da izmisli neki nedostatak tome jer se koalicije, partije u vladi (ulaze-izlaze) i parlamentu lako menjaju. No tome svakako nije mesto u infobox-u vec u nekim drugim delovima stranice. Hvala na odgovoru. (User:Nikgudz) 04:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slika sa vladinih sajtova

Zato što su već jednom brisane a evo i rasprave [1] i ove tvoje će pre ili kasnije biti obrisane --Milićević (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Da. Baš šteta, naročito to tumačenje iz Vlade, poznajem pravo i ne vidim zašto i slike ne bi ulazile u tzv "javne materijale" ali dobro. Pokušaću sa media centra neke dobre da nabavim. Pa šta nađem :) (User:Nikgudz) 21:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To me jako cudi, da slike sa vladinih sajtova nisu u javnom vlasnistvu... Mozda slike sa Media centra i jesu jedino stabilno resenje. Inace, samo da znas - ElectPartei je uklonio ceo infobox sa stranice za izbore 2014, i otvorio raspravu na Talk:Serbian parliamentary election, 2014#Disputed Infobox. Kad budes mogao pogledaj, ja zaista nisam raspolozen za rasprave sa njim i revertovanja njegovih edita. (User:Sundostund) 15:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pogledaću da nekako nađem načina da se ostave te slike sa sajta Vlade. Njihovo tumačenje je zaista sporno pošto je Vlada nije ni u čijem vlasništvu pa samim tim i sajt i sve informacije i dokumenta pa i fotografije od javnog značaja (a nisu državna tajna) morale bi biti dostupne. Nećemo se raspravljati sa ElectPartei svakako, samo je bitno ostaviti glas na toj stranici za realnu opciju koja kaže da je URS sledbenik G17+ i da je kao partija postojala na izborima 2012. i samim tim je mozemo smatrati starom a ne novom. Naravno ako se slažeš sa ovim stanovištem. Na kraju krajeva, sumnjam da će u parlament ovoga puta, pa možda njihovo mesto u infobox-u bude otpalo. Videćemo. (User:Nikgudz) 20:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bilo bi jako dobro da slike sa sajta Vlade ostanu. Nema nikakve logike da te slike ne budu u javnom vlasnistvu. Naravno, necu da ulecem u blio kakve rasprave sa ElectPartei. Potpuno se slazem da je URS naslednik G17+, totalno je van pameti tvrditi da je to nova partija i da je nije bilo na izborima 2012. Jako mi je sporna i ideja da se sadasnja koalicija oko naprednjaka (u kojoj su i SDPS i SPO) prikazuje kao da je ucestvovala i na izborima 2012, i po toj logici naprednjaci imaju 84 mandata 2012, a ne 73 (kao sto jeste istina)... Ti odgovori na talk page-u onako kako mislis da treba, ja cu te podrzati. (User:Sundostund) 21:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evo napisao sam mišljenje :) (User:Nikgudz) 01:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Takodje. (User:Sundostund) 02:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of political parties in Serbia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Center and Centre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about New Party (Serbia)

Hello, Nikgudz,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether New Party (Serbia) should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Party (Serbia) .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Wgolf (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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)[reply]

Serbian Progressive Party

Hello Nikgudz,

One of Wikipedia's core policies is verifiability. All statements have to be based on reliable sources. It is not sufficient if a user claims that a certain statement is true or false (see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth). The sources I cited state that SNS is a right-wing party. If you claim that it is indeed centre-right, you have to provide new, reliable references (i.e. independent and of high quality, e.g. academic studies or books) that back your claims. You cannot just change a statement without changing the references for this statement. In your version, the infobox said "centre-right" while the references (nos. 9 and 10) both said that it's right-wing. That is not acceptable. Unless you provide new references for your changes, your edits may and will be reverted. Thanks for your understanding. Kind regards, --RJFF (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RJFF,

I provided the sources once, but I do not know why they were erased from earlier edits ---Nikgudz 17:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Percentages

Hello Nikgudz. Please don't change the percentages on the Serbian election articles. Standard psephology practice is to calculate the percentage won by parties using the valid votes only (i.e. not including the invalid votes). Cheers, Number 5 7 10:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. No, it can't be, we have officially precentage from RIK, as it was years before. Sorry, but blank votes were counted always. ---Nikgudz 14:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it is standard practice. Some electoral commissions (like the RIK) do include blank votes, but we should present results in the standard format as academic publications do. Please stop reverting. Cheers, Number 5 7 12:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is standard practice. And it is official. I wont stop reverting because you are presenting some invalid results. It will be like it was in every other elections in our country. I do not know why are yu destrying good work from all people who worked on the page these days... ---Nikgudz 14:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This is an appalling attempt at reverting, as you have reverted all changes made to the entire article by other users. Please restore these changes. Thanks, Number 5 7 12:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Sorry. ---Nikgudz 14:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian Progressive Party

Please see: Talk:Serbian Progressive Party#Serbian parliamentary election, 2008 —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox changes

Stop making those changes and discuss on talk. You cannot use the bar graphs as they mess up the infobox code. I am increasingly tired of dealing with your knee-jerk reverts, and if this continues I'm afraid I will end up having to request that you be blocked. Number 5 7 12:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We need pictures of leaders and not minority parties, that is in infobox below. Why are you so opposed of good things? You are stubborn without ANY reason. Nikgudz 14:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(a) We do not "need" picture of leaders – you want to have them, but there is no requirement for them; (b) we do need the minority parties because this infobox is supposed to list ALL parties that won seats (hence why it says "This lists parties that won seats" at the bottom). You need to understand that it is your viewpoint that these are good things, and other people do not agree. Please learn to follow the WP:BRD procedure and you will not end up in so many disputes. Number 5 7 13:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have changed the infobox again. Please revert your most recent edit, or I will request that your account be blocked. Number 5 7 13:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a sockpuppetry report against you here. Number 5 7 15:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...what a horror. I will cry... Nikgudz 18:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Block Notice

As a result of using an IP address to edit war and exceed the three revert rule, I have blocked your account for 3 days. Mike V • Talk 22:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What? IP address using to edit war??? Such a nonsense and paranoid behavior. You put yourself in possition of an instrument of those who think they can do whatever they want on wikipedia :/ Nikgudz 16:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Izbori

Pozdrav, Nik. Da, video sam te tabele, i ne mogu da kazem da mi se dopadaju. Ali, nije ni da mi toliko smetaju pa da zbog toga uletim u nekakve beskrajne rasprave (imao sam prilike da vidim neke dosta zamorne diskusije na tu temu). Koliko ja shvatam, te tabele su do sada bile uglavnom prisutne na clancima o izborima u Izraelu, i neki misle da ih sada treba prosiriti i na clanke o izborima u drugim zemljama. Licno, ne verujem da ce to uzeti maha, i cini mi se da ce dosadasnje tabele biti vracene tamo gde su promenjene (ukljucujuci i clanke o izborima u Srbiji). --Sundostund (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Da slažem se, samo ne vidim kako će biti vraćene s obzirom na teror koji prave ovo 2-3 terorista koji misle da su izmislili vikipediju. Ono je poništavanje svega što smo radili prethodnih godina i svodjenje na neku eksel tabelu. Užas. Uglavom zanima me na čemu baziraš taj optimizam koji bih boleo da je kod mene prisutan a u vezi vraćanja pređašnjih tabela? Nikgudz 19:05, 14 Seeptember 2016 (UTC)

Jednostavno - baziram ga na tome da je izgled novih tabela graficki daleko siromasniji nego kod starih i da ce zbog toga, pre ili kasnije, vecina korisnika resiti da vrate stare tabele. 2-3 coveka ne mogu da dugorocno nametnu svoje stavove ovde, uostalom videces to i sam... Kako god, ne nerviraj se puno oko ovoga. Sto se mene tice, vec rekoh - ne dopadaju mi se nove tabele, ali ih ne "mrzim" bas toliko pa da uletim u neki verbalni sukob ili "edit war" oko toga. --Sundostund (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nova demokratija / Liberali Srbije

Nik, moram da se konsultujem sa tobom u vezi necega. Naime, nedavno sam napravio "color template" Nove demokratije / Liberala Srbije, nekadasnje stranke Dusana Mihajlovica (mozes ga videti ovde - Template:Liberals of Serbia/meta/color), ali nisam siguran oko izbora boje. Ako imas neku sugestiju, ideju, itd slobodno promeni boju koju sam ja postavio. --Sundostund (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pozdrav. Nažalost, dugo nisam ulazio na wikipediju pa evo tek sada vidim. Slažem se oko boje, nema primedbi...Ali ne znam gde bi se mogla upotrebiti s obzirom da je stranka bila mala. Mene više brinu ovi naši izbori. I dalje stoje ove jadne i nikakve tabele, kao da je internet iz 1996. a ne 2016. dok eno na hrvatskim, slovenačkim, makedonskim i 90% drugih izbora sve normalno, stare tabele... Nikgudz 15:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Nikgudz. 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)[reply]

Ways to improve List of members of the National Assembly of Serbia, 1993–97

Hi, I'm Mduvekot. Nikgudz, thanks for creating List of members of the National Assembly of Serbia, 1993–97!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This article needs more references to substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Mduvekot (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve List of members of the National Assembly of Serbia, 2000–03

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Nikgudz, thanks for creating List of members of the National Assembly of Serbia, 2000–03!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Nikgudz. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Nikgudz. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Žigić

Your recent editing history at Nikola Žigić shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Giant Snowman 11:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Hello, I'm Paper9oll. I noticed that you recently removed content from Ivica Dragutinović without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry for not answering earlier. See this article - https://www.srbija.gov.rs/vest/52712/ugasen-fudbalski-savez-scg.php ... So it is clear that FRY, SCG and Serbia are the same country by UEFA and FIFA rules. Nikgudz 20:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Savo Milošević while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

I would like to ask Drmies why I can′t edit Wikipedia because another account is blocked? Nikgudz 18:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Nikgudz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "AmbElmer". The reason given for AmbElmer's block is: "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia".

Blocking administrator: ‪Drmies‬ (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: Confirmed sockpuppetry. I will go directly block this account. Yamla (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.