This user has page mover rights on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:No such user

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Request for your feedback, on an AE regarding ECIG Articles.[edit]

Hello, you are a recent editor of Electronic Cigarettes, I am asking for your input to an Arbitration Enforcement Request AE. Found here. If you have time I would appreciate your input. The items in question are listed out 1-8. Here:
Thank you Mystery Wolff (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Mystery Wolff, I will abstain because I simply don't know. I'm not a "regular" e-cig editor, more like a lurker, and my edits were mostly gnomish in nature. I'm not inclined to comment one way or another just based on my superficial impressions from reading the AE and the talk page. No such user (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate that, No such user, if only others who are commenting would use that rationale, instead of just wanting to skim with a TLDR accent and then conclude the banhammer is the only hammer or process tool. Cheers Mystery Wolff (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zlatibor, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Zlatar and Veliki Rzav (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) 10:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Re : Rollback[edit]

Hi there! Thanks for the suggestion. I presume you are a rollbacker? I know it is given to trusted users, etc, and I have been actively positively contributing for the past year or so. I was also interested in applying for the pending changes reviewer as well. Do you know anything about that? The thing is, before I started taking Wikipedia seriously, I was somewhat of a vandal myself so to speak... I once was blocked for 3 months about a year ago for a big edit war (It was later revoked, but still shows in my block logs). If an administrator were to look at my recent edits in the past 8 months or so they would be pleased, but if they look back to when I just started, it may tarnish their view... Do you think this may be overlooked and I should still apply (I rally have made a full 360 as an editor from where I was in the early stages). Thanks for your feedback. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi again. I requested for pending review rights and told the administrators what I told you, and they granted me permission :). I inquired with another admin about rollback and they said it probably isn't right for me yet since I don't focus on reverting vandalism, I just revert when I come across it. So for now I'll just stick with pending review. There are some in my watch list like Andrea Pirlo, recycling, and Ferrari. Question: I noticed some users when they revert edits it says "reverted edit(s) by so and so to last version by so and so". When I reverted a pending edit on recycling's page it let me have the option to make my edit summary that. However, on regular pages the regular edit summary for a revert appears. Even for reverting multiple edits at one time; I assume that's a rollback thing you can do if you have that right? Is it possible to make the summary I put in quotes appear all the time? It can't be just for pending review pages since I've seen that edit summary for other users on non pending review pages... Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support[edit]

Peace dove.svg Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Yugoslavia national Basketball team[edit]

Please stop deleting the notable players section, it took me hours to collect and correct all this information. It is not something unique, many wikipedia sports team pages have such sections. The content is is not unsourced, in every player's page you can find the sources for their accomplishments.Clicklander (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


Stop edit Belgrade photos...i will report you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

NSU is right. The article has been bombarded with photos, it should have further photos removed definitelly. You stop adding all those photos. Ends up making the article look like a mess and it is not productive in any way. FkpCascais (talk) 12:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


Hi, if you could spare some time to look at the Talk:Josip Broz Tito. There is a RfC now, again, Silvio1973 started the same RfC that failed less than a month ago. It is hard to work with such user who does not appreciate other people opinions, or ignores the fact that his RfC failed. It would be great if you could make any contribution. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tuvixer: Took a look, and concluded it's too much of a pissing contest for my taste, so I think I'll pass this round. You need a peacemaker there. Whoops, not that one, rather this one :) No such user (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I hope Peacekeepers will not be required. xD Tnx anyway :) --Tuvixer (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Doner kebab[edit]

Hi, why is it not in the Meat category? (Joking apart!) Cheers DBaK (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@DBaK: because it is already in Category:Lamb dishesCategory:Meat dishesCategory:Meat. Per WP:SUBCAT, an article "should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it" — otherwise, high-level categories would get polluted quite quickly. (I was cleaning up Category:Meat and recategorized a few other dishes). No such user (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Aha, brilliant, thanks! Cheers DBaK (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Help please![edit]

Hi, I saw your post on my move for the Coast Salish People and Salmon. The our goal was to incorporate my and my partners section of salmon onto the Coast Salish People wiki page, as this is for our biology project and that is where our professor will be grading our work. I apologize for the big mess, but I'm having trouble moving our section as you can see. Is there any way you can help me out? Thanks

Warm Regards, Becky

Territory of Military Commander in Serbia[edit]

You may recall recently removing my translation into Serbian from the named article. Obviously since you were the second editor to do this in a short time I had to stand back. I'm involved in a discussion at Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia#Translation and if you'd like to comment, you are welcome. I appreciate it provokes "TLDR" but you may wish to scan the key points listed by us two interlocutors. The reason I say this is because your reasons for removing the translation were based on housekeeping guidelines, not to clutter whereas Peacemaker67 opposes it as no "reliable source" has been found to confirm the original name I entered. Two contrasting reasons, one says it is not needed, the other says the one listed is not reliable. This is why I put this debate to you. -OJ (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC) other thing, Nedić's Serbia and all other variations of the two words, I notice in 2011 you directed the article to Serbia under German occupation before 2012 when other people started mucking about on the article and turning it into Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia pushing other intended articles onto other page titles. As such, would you object if I were to move the page to the VNS page since this is the entity associated with Nedić, the Military Commander page is an overview for the pre-Nedić entity as well. Thanks. --OJ (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC History of South America[edit]

Hi No such user, you may wish to comment. Kind regards -- Marek.69 talk 01:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Re:Red-necked wallaby[edit]

Hi No Such user - the reason for my addition of the wallaby page to Category:Waimate District is that it is the one part of New Zealand where the wallaby is abundant, and as such has become an unofficial symbol of the Waimate District (which has the slogan "Wallaby country"). There are quite a number of signs featuring wallabies around the Waimate area, and if you mention Waimate to people around NZ, wallabies are usually the first thing that people think of. Sadly it's been a while since I've been through that part of the country, so I don't have any photos of my own to prover it, but these give some evidence... Grutness...wha? 09:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Grutness: I kind of inferred that, but I still don't think it's an appropriate member of the Waimate District category. I'll start a discussion on the talk page, just, I'm currently busy IRL. No such user (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Page mover granted[edit]

Wikipedia page mover.svg

Hello, No such user. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. When you move a page, please remember to correct any double-redirects and make link corrections where necessary. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, post here, or just let me know. Thank you, and happy editing! Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


Hello. Where does it say there should be no italics for Cyrillic? I can't find it in the MoS. Rothorpe (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC) ...Oh, I suppose you mean that the lowercase T ought to look like an m... Rothorpe (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Rothorpe: I'll reply on the article talk page, maybe someone else would chime in. No such user (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Staro Selo, Plovdiv Province[edit]

"are we ever going to have an article on a former 17th century village?"

Certainly not, if that is what it is, with its commonplace name. So: see it through, and remove the redlink which still points to it. I found out about the place in Plovdiv from a bad {{dn}} link to Staro Selo in the article Kosovo, Plovdiv Province. It was a pain to sort out, and no-one should have to do that again. I'm no expert on Bulgarian geography to know what places might be notable or not - even if I did manage to find bg:Белочерковски манастир for the English article. Narky Blert (talk) 02:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Narky Blert: Fair enough [1], but I had no idea where that redlink came from. In any case, I took a look at Google maps in the area, and there's no trace of Staro Selo, it's all forest. Another strange thing is that Kosovo, Plovdiv Province is mere 3 km as the crow flies from the monastery, so they didn't have to travel long to resettle. Maybe that was meant to refer only to the "old village", not to the place actually named Staro Selo. Who knows. No such user (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
That's a common trouble with names like Staro Selo - did the original editor, or their source, actually mean staro selo? TY for checking the map, that's another minor mystery cleared up. Narky Blert (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


About this - this article is under discretionary sanctions. This is very much a PA - it is a direct comment on contributor rather than content. Please self revert. I am about ready to file an AE and I would rather not pull you in. Jytdog (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Providing you notice of the DS:

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Electronic cigarette topic area, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Jytdog (talk) 08:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

If you are not aware, this article went to Arbcom because people are passionate and they allowed their passion to spill into patterns of continued personal attacks that got in the way of getting any work done. This is what DS are for - to keep people on good behavior. As I said, please self-revert. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 08:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

SR placenames[edit]

There was a discussion here.--Zoupan 19:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

We follow normal guidelines as per WP:PLACEDAB. Please move the articles you edit to the normal type names.--Zoupan 19:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

European Single Market[edit]

Hi. Could you please take a look over Talk:European Single Market#Requested move 29 June 2016? It was also a primary topic discussion, something you don't appear to have touched on in your closure. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jenks24: Do you mean, where should Internal market redirect to – to Single market or to European Single Market? I noticed that it was an issue in the debate, but that's a touchy subject which I purposefully left unaddressed. I don't think there's an evident consensus or answer from the debate. Do we have to have an answer on that? (Or did you mean something else?) No such user (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I mean is this topic (previously titled "internal market", now titled "European Single Market") the WP:PTOPIC for the term "internal market" or should the dab page be located at the base location? This was 50% of the proposal: "Internal market (disambiguation) → Internal market". And a decision needs to made about it one way or the other. Sorry I took a few days to respond. Jenks24 (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Replied at Talk:European Single Market. No such user (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits to Ultra-high-temperature processing[edit]


Thank you for your additions to Ultra-high-temperature processing. I may have indirectly tried to WP:EXTORT changes to the article but I appreciate the results. —  AjaxSmack  22:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


Thanks. I was about to self-revert when I saw your edit. Even Milo doesn't deserve the full Milo. You did good. DracoE 14:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@DracoEssentialis: Take care. And please, find yourself a better hill to die on. No such user (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
So many hills, so little time. ;) In the case of Milo, the chickens are still coming home to roost. Poor Kohs and his memory issues. Yup, I got WO-banned over protesting his Sublime Childishness' kohsying up to Milo and finding fault with his nasty comments about Jimbo's wife's looks. The good thing is that some of my friends over there are anything but forgetful. As for hills, fancy having a look through this list of terrible pictures and appraise the damage in article space? This here looks like a "good" candidate. See perfectly nice previous picture. What do you call a large gathering of Wikipedians? Too bad "an unkindness" is already taken. DracoE 15:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


Hi. You move PASOK "per RM". What does RM stand for? I am more on opposing your move but I would like to hear from you. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Magioladitis: RM = the requested move at its talk page, which I closed as an experienced user and page mover (but not an admin, if it matters). No such user (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Rautavaara: revision history[edit]

I can see that you feel passionately about this, and I am a great admirer of Rautavarra's work myself, too. However, I have never read an authority on Finnish music (or a major reference work) who claims that he is considered the greatest Finnish composer since Sibelius. If indeed the statement has any useful meaning at all (which I personally doubt) it needs to be qualified: some reviewers and fans might consider him thus, some would go for Kokonnen, Merikanto, Sallinen, Madetoja, Aho, and perhaps others. Some Finns indeed consider Rautavarra a "cult" composer of questionable value. I personally think it would be wise to go along with the more moderate evaluation of Suomi Wikipedia, which places him as a "universally acclaimed Finnish classical music composer." That seems to me judicious, and fair. Best wishes Zarzuelauk (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Zaurzuelauk:: Replied at Talk:Einojuhani Rautavaara, for others' convenience. No such user (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


Check this I believe the current Talk:TIFF/EP is the talk page for TIFF/EP, so I moved it back. Just FYI — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 23:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Frank Castle move.[edit]

Why didn't it happen? The move was requested and the only vote for it was to move it.*Treker (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@*Treker:: We do not decide issues solely by counting votes (see WP:VOTE): votes in any given discussion must be based on some kind of policy or guideline to carry weight. In this case, WP:CRITERIA of the Article Titles policy stipulates that The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects, and WP:Disambiguation that I cited states that process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous, most often because it refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia. Rest assured that, had any experienced editor seen that Requested Move before myself, they would oppose it in the debate.
Now, I see that you reopened the debate with Andy M. Wang's assistance. Your argument that Punisher is actually the primary topic of Frank Castle is quite reasonable, but it should have been stated in the nomination. Otherwise, people don't have crystal balls (I don't for sure) as to the reasons for the proposed move. Since the new debate has been started, with proper argumentation put forward, let it take its course. No such user (talk) 06:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for answering but another editor already explained it. Thanks anyway.*Treker (talk) 07:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

pageswap script for convenience[edit]

Hi No such user, by the way, just wanted to follow up on round-robin moves, since I know you've been doing them recently... I recently finished a script here (js) that semi-automates page swaps for time/convenience. Thought you might be interested in trying it out if you ever encounter the scenario. You'd simply click "Swap" and enter a page destination, the script performs the 3 moves as necessary (saves time having to manually go through the move form 3 times). (It doesn't correct redirects afterwards, that's still manual)

Anyway feel free to adapt this script as you see fit, cheers :) — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 02:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a ton, Andy. Yeah, those pageswaps are kind of painful, and I've performed quite a lot recently indeed (although I became well-versed in the mechanics meanwhile). I will try out your script. By the way, it could be advertised at the next WP:SIGNPOST's User Script report – pinging Evad37 to take notice, if possible. No such user (talk) 06:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping - Evad37 [talk] 06:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Reopen Gryphon RM discussion?[edit]

I would like to reopen the RM discussion at Talk:Gryphon (disambiguation) to add evidence that was not available until the last couple of days. I modified the link from the dab page to use a unique piped link with disambiguator, "griffin (mythical creature)", that appeared on no other page in order to determine how many visitors to the former gryphon page were seeking the griffin article. Pageview stats for the three days the redirect was in effect show that only about one quarter the number of people clicking "gryphon" subsequently clicked through on "griffin (mythical creature)" to get to the griffin article (104 vs 420). This undermines the argument that most people clicking on gryphon are seeking griffin. —  AjaxSmack  03:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@AjaxSmack:. Yeah, I noticed that you added that link, but I thought that you had participated in the debate so I just removed it after the move. In principle, I don't have anything against reopening the debate (it had only a limited participation after all, but the long-term significance argument was pretty strong). However, such late-in-the-game arguments often create a procedural mess, so I'm unsure if it's better to reopen it (I don't feel like undoing my quite complex post-closure move) or if you should simply start a new one. Still, as you probably know from your own RM experience, the pageview count arguments (often involving popular culture topics) do not get strongly weighed against "long-term significance" ones, so I don't foresee that you will sway many people to revert the RM.
In sum, my proposal is that you start a new, clean RM if you feel strongly about the issue. Reopening this one could release some worms. No such user (talk) 07:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I think your analysis is sound. I'll consider a new RM.  AjaxSmack  22:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the largest portion of remaining pageviews goes to Gryphon (band) ([2]). Maybe it's worth a separate mention in the hatnote, at minimum. No such user (talk) 07:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Laura Pavlović, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dnevnik (newspaper) (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) 10:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

ECW Arena move[edit]

Hello, I'm confused as to why you found that there was consensus to move this page. The evidence given by the person requesting the move actually supported the previous name. If, years after the name has been changed, people still refer to it by the old name, that doesn't support an argument that the page should be moved. The PhillyMag source, which seems to discuss the most notable recent event (the RNC "counter-convention" held opposite the DNC), refers to the arena as ECW Arena. Within the article, it even says: "That venue is better known by its unofficial name from the 1990s and early 2000s: The ECW Arena." I don't understand how you can claim that the user that gave that link as proof has offered "substantial evidence". GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@GaryColemanFan: I specifically referred to "evidence given by TheNewMinistry and Cuchullain" – Cuchullain's search results from The Philadelphia Inquirer favor the 2300 title in the 12:2 ratio, demonstrating the If the sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name from WP:NAMECHANGES. For what it's worth, I get similar results at – the last reference to "ECW Arena" is from 2012, along with a few to "Asylum Arena"; from then on, "2300 Arena" takes on. As you know, Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, so what is currently written in the article does not carry much weight, especially as it is unreferenced. Yes, I do trust that the "ECW Arena" name is still in use, as even the nominator's links show (there is a heavy mixture of "ECW" and "2300" within the same article), but at some point we have to move along and accept that the rename has taken over. No such user (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
...and, also, Phillymag search provides 7 : 23 ratio in favor of 2300. No such user (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Frogtown, Los Angeles[edit]

Regarding your closure of the move discussion concerning the above article, I don't think there has been enough discussion and, if you will restore it, I will publicize the discussion. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@BeenAroundAWhile: I agree that the input was limited (as is the case in many RM discussions), so no clear consensus was achieved. However, I must say the evidence presented was limited, too. Since you seem to feel rather strongly about the issue, and it's a gray area decision anyway, I think I'll just move that article for you. We don't have to have a debate about every tiny detail here (although we tend to). No such user (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: Template:Eurovision Song Contest[edit]

Please refer to the two debates that were already discussed regarding the host cities section on this navbox (Template talk:Eurovision Song Contest#Remove cities and venues and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 13#Navigational boxes reform (again)). Project Eurovision a few years ago was very overzealous on its navboxes, they had them in an individual state, as in one for everything, rather than one for all. For example, thy had a navbox for the contests, for the countries, and also for the venues & host cities. The venue & host city template was deleted on 22 July 2012 due to the new amalgamated version. Further discussion took place and are now archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 6 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 7.

When the decision to amalgamate them together as part of a project reform in 2012/2013, all of them were merged together. The host city information is of vital data to the navbox, but we agreed that they should not be added to the individual city article, as that would be navbox-spam. If these navboxes are showing on a city article, then remove the box from those city articles. But do not remove the content from the navbox without opening up a new discussion to seek a change of consensus at Project Eurovision talk page. Wes Mouse  T@lk 08:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

And for the record this edit summary does not follow the procedure on WP:BRD. The content was merged into the template back in 2012. You removed it in January 2016 (that is the 'bold in BRD. I restored the content back, which is the revert' in BRD. Your latest removal does not follow the discuss in BRD. That action is warring. Wes Mouse  T@lk 08:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


Croation locations and language

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Thank you for quality articles such as Blue Lake, for care of language from the start, for a yes with reasoning, for defining yourself by contributions alone, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Move review for Osho[edit]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Osho. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Per discussion a review has been opened, not quite sure why its not showing in the right place? could you look at this please before going any further? Pandroid (talk) 11:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, No such user. 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)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

Good catch on Smederevo Fortress[edit]

I was so busy fixing the grammar I forgot to check the cite, and I've had some run-ins with Knightserbia before. :-/ Pinkbeast (talk) 11:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Pančić's Peak talk page[edit]

I noticed that you reverted my edit to Talk:Pančić's Peak#Maja Pançiq. Please, if my edit violated some Wikipedia policy or guideline, could you let me know what that is so that I do not make the same error again? Thanks. --Bejnar (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see, I accidentally deleted the end of the discussion block. Thanks. --Bejnar (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


Your edits on this article in 2012 made it, in my opinion as a native speaker, cover the essentials in the most splendid way. You did, however, ask for sources, and five days later a source was given. I today added a quote from that source, but wonder what more in the chapter that needs to get sourced.

Would you maybe like to take a new look on the article?
/Johan M. Olofsson (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Johan M. Olofsson: Thanks for the kind words, but I'm not the author of most of the prose – as my edit summary indicated [3], I only merged most of the text that had already existed in T-V distinction, written by someone else, and then tweaked it. I'm lazy to track who that someone else was, and I'm not sure if it's worth the effort now.
Back in the good ol' days of Wikipedia, standards for referencing were much looser, and people would just dump long paragraphs into articles, obtained by mixture of googling and personal knowledge. Today, at least one reference per paragraph is expected for the material to be accepted. However, that left a lot of "legacy" unreferenced material of varying quality waiting to be sourced... eventually. Du-reformen is among such articles. For example, Sokol is another long and pretty comprehensive article from the ol' days, but it has vast swaths of text without any reference, and thus most of its contents cannot pass WP:Verifiability test, one of core tenets of Wikipedia. However, it's generally harder to go back and reference old material than to write a new, properly referenced one from scratch – many statements, while apparently true and logical, were just added from the author's personal acquaintance with the matter and/or could be referenced only from multiple sources.
I added that tag to Du-reformen just to leave an indication that the material needs at least some sourcing. As I said, one reference per paragraph is typically expected. Swedish sources would be fine as well (and would be natural here because of the nature of the subject matter), although English ones, if exist, are preferred. For example, you can see how I improved Star vehicle just yesterday diff – added some sources to existing paragraphs, wrote a new sourced paragraph, but some material was left unsourced. I should have marked it with {{citation needed}}. Note that you're free to remove the tag yourself once you're reasonably happy with sourcing – of course, provided that you're willing to improve it. No such user (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind reply! :)
Preferably, I would like to contribute with accessible sources, i.e. readable on the web and in an easily understood language (say French or German, if not English). But I don't know if, or when, I would get the time ...and drive... to do so. Being brought up in "the old society", before 1968, I have never felt a need to read up on this topic, that I know by heart.
One could however suspect that the source given in September 2012 was the origin for the chapter on Swedish in the T/V-distinction article.
/Johan M. Olofsson (talk) 11:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

List of mountains in Serbia[edit]

I deleted that intro since I thought that it does not need to be included in the article. Article is "List of the mountains in Serbia" not "Topography/Relief of Serbia" for which that introduction is better suited and make more sense. However, it is still very much connected to the article so I agree to leave it like it was before my edit. Regards, Klačko

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

Dunav osiguranje[edit]

Thank you for fantastic arguments for not deleting article about Dunav osiguranje. Mihailo79 (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For defending good articles from deleting. Mihailo79 (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. ^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.