User talk:Zoupan

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


Marin Getaldić[edit]

Stop revrting my eddits on this article I added new information about his familly and also added valid source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelen-oko (talkcontribs) 20:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Zoupan advocates Milosevic's Greater Serbia[edit]

It is shameful that a person like you, Serb nationalist and supporter of Milosevic's Greater Serbia is even allowed to edit articles about Croatia and people of Croatia. If you continue to impose your ideas of Greater Serbia and continue to ignore the facts, you will be reported to administrators of wikipedia.

Serbs and Croats where at war and it seems that some people of Serbia did not change. Administrators of wikipedia should banned you from edditing articles about Croatia and people of Croatia for obvious reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Serbia collaboration - Serbian monasteries[edit]

In the absence of other editors who would be willing to participate your idea is very good. I will contribute as much as I can.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Its a deal.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I made mistake and started with Bijela which is on your list. Sorry, I will continue with my list. Btw, isn't it better to sort monasteries per eparchies instead per countres?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Правичност applied also. What do you think about suggesting one monastery article for creation to him? Since he is new editor I think that one article about currently redlinked monastery which is covered with lot of sources for the beginning would be enough.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Klisina looks like good idea. As far as I can see, there are plenty of sources on it. I will certainly try to do bring new articles to DYK status. That is not an easy task and it would be very important to have more editors participating. But maybe after/if first couple of articles reach GA status some editors would be tempted to join in.
Another important note: I am not very competent for religious topics so occasional review of my work would be appreciated. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Serb clans[edit]

Hi, Zoupan,

The intro paragraph for 'Serb clans' had multiple issues and a lot of irrelevant information. I removed this irrelevant information. Why did you change this back to the previous version? --Bezvardis (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Please stop changing back to the badly written version of the paragraph. If you have any reasons to suggest that what you have included in the first paragraph, should be included there, please clearly state these in the discussion page. Please also reference your arguments to exact pages and quotes of the sources. Also it would be good to have sources that are less than 100 year old. --Bezvardis (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

UNICEF Ambassadors[edit]

Hi, hope you're well. this is yet another reminder of why WP:SERBIANNAMES needs taking via RfC to guideline status. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Minority rights violations in Kosovo[edit]

A while ago, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persecution of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo, you said the subject was mentioned in sources, but didn't address the issue of improper synthesis. Would you be interested in working on that subject in a less contentious scope? I noticed we don't have a human rights in Kosovo article yet, and a lot of that content sounds like it might fit there. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, when I have time. You are right.--Zoupan 11:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Jelena Gruba, Bosancica[edit]

Bosnian Cyrillic has existed since the 10th century, 400 years before Jelena (a BOSNIAN queen) lived. The modern Serbian Cyrillic which you are using on her wiki only came into existence 5 centuries AFTER she died. The Serbs on Wikipedia have a tendency to Serbize everything and everybody. and the name Jelena obviously isn't Bosnian - Bosnians were Catholics and Christians before they became Muslims and they were Pagans before all that. So Catholic and Muslim names are used in Bosnia - Jelena Gruba was a Catholic so her name obviously isn't Muslim... which is what I think you meant when you said her name isn't Bosnian.--DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Word. In contrast to the Bosnians, who used a native variant of the Cyrillic script (dubbed "Bosancica") since the 10th/11th century, the Serbs employed the common wider early Cyrillic during the middle ages. Claiming Bosnian Cyrillic did not exist when Gruba ruled is, well quite frankly, preposterous, as is suggesting that Bosnian Cyrillic somehow was a "Serbian" invention "that did not exist on its own". Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 00:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Well yes, of course, it needs improvements. Most articles on wikipedia are unfortunately still far from impeccable. The actual point was that Bosnian Cyrillic, whatever its "academic" categorization as influenced by this or a corruption of that, was a script variant native to Bosnia and Herzegovina and in use at least since the 11th century. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 23:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 16:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Serbia[edit]

When you wrote "Let's bump this collaboration" I thought it meant let us put Montenegrin monasteries on hold. Anyway, I agree there are more important matters for the project, like dealing with articles which needs cleanup and improving the quality of Vital articles. I am willing to collaborate with you or anybody else who might be interested. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

What do you think about improving the class of all stub rated articles with Top importance for WPS?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Serbian Chetniks in Macedonia[edit]

This site says that Isa Boljetinac was Serbian Chetnik СРПСКОТО ЧЕТНИЧКО ДВИЖЕЊЕ ВО ПРИЛЕПСКО Web archived. Have you found other sources which also support Isa Chetnik career?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I think that there could be a rational explanation for a little different appearance on older and newer photos. All photos of Isa are post 1912. In that period he was leader of katchaks and member of the government. It was not unusual for people to put on some weight in older ages after being appointed to high position in state. At 1908 image of Chetniks he might look older because he had much more difficult life, fighting all around. Still, without additional sources your position is more likely to be correct. Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

List of Serbs of Croatia[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Zoupan. You have new messages at Talk:List of Serbs of Croatia.
Message added 12:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities and Community of Serbian municipalities, Kosovo[edit]

Hello, I noticed you moved "Association of Serbian municipalities, Kosovo" to "Community of Serbian municipalities, Kosovo". There is a dispute between me and User:Qwerty786 over the content of these articles regarding the Community before and after the Brussels Agreement (2013). This dispute started from our talk pages, then I posted on the articles' talk pages and now has gone on to the dispute resolution noticeboard. I don't ask you to personally get involved in this, as your opinion could be considered to be non-neutral.

However, even though I tried posting on both Wikiproject:Serbia and Wikiproject:Kosovo talk pages in order to somehow get more opinions and reach a consensus, or at least get some suggestions on dispute resolution, I got no replies. Is there some way, in your opinion, to get more opinions on this matter, for example, on whether the articles should be split and, if yes, on how this should be done? Would an RFC help? Is there some way to attract more attention from the Wikiprojects? Any change may also affect other relevant articles. Heracletus (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Kumanovo Uprising[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Kumanovo Uprising at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! 97198 (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Moves of Ottoman grand viziers[edit]

Hey, thanks for moving some of the articles of the Grand Viziers of the Ottoman Empire to more correct names (e.g. "the Bosnian", etc.), but make sure you also change the links in the templates they're included in, specifically the Grand Vizier template. Ithinkicahn (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Kumanovo Uprising[edit]

Last call to supply a valid QPQ review for this nomination, which means doing a full review of another nomination, not merely supplying an ALT hook for one. If you don't reply by the end of the month, the nomination will be closed, so I hope you do respond before then. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Serbs of Croatia[edit]

Hi Zoupan, after seeing some your edits on Morlachs, and similar connected articles, I had to revise them (more Morlachs, minor others), because were written from an nationalistic point of view. Those articles shouldn't have it, at least not obviously, in this case almost exclusive connection with Serbs. However, by what I saw, some sources you edited were alright and interesting, and made me think if would be interested to search for sources (reliable, if possible with original cite) about Serbs, and edit the section "Ottoman conquest and Habsburg Empire" in Serbs of Croatia? For example, the letter of Emperor Ferdinand to ban Keglević, probably is not the only one document from 16th and 17th century directly mentioning Serbs in Dalmatia and whole Croatia. Those centuries were crucial for Serbs ethnicity in Croatia, and should be further expanded and pinpoint issues like migrations, different religious faith, social terms or ethnonyms, lack of national consciousness of people from those centuries, later national revivals etc.--Crovata (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

P. Kone[edit]

Thanks for your contributions. It's sad that Arbxxxx's translation from Albanian was wrong translation by purpose in order to push his pov.Alexikoua (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I've filled a sockpuppet investigation about Arbxxxx, it seems certain that he edited both logged and unlogged in order to avoid 3rr.Alexikoua (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Josif Pančić[edit]

I'm sorry what a re you talking about.Disruptive editing to accoridng to who?To you?You removed all of my edits just because you don't like it?You are Serbian if i'm correct?So you think i will be blocked because i put the links which prove that he converted from Roman Catholicism to Orthodoxy and that he was born as Josip Pančić not Josif?Is that right?I've put some foreign sources to prove that and you removed that(because you didn't like the sources) and put just some serbian sources which are questionable..If i may ask you for what i would be banned..Please tell me?How did i vandalise that topic..Did i just remove some sentence and/or did i not pt source in..Or you just didn't like that sources?And then i'm making disruptive edits???!!!You do realize that i could report you and that you are risking a ban if i decide to go to war with you over this matter..Please explain your edits to me! Scrosby85 (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

No i don't have a problem.Because it was not me who removed the sources..You liked the sources for 6 months what's changed?Website pages are not reliable sources?You are joking right?But reliable sources are some questionalbe serbian writers which says he was Bunjevac by origin right?Serbian philological is site is not reliable source?What are you talking about?Do you really want that we go to Administrators? Scrosby85 (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


Stop. Stop now. If you want to move an article on a controversial topic, the proper method is WP:RM. You know that. bobrayner (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, 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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
I see you've started doing it again; making controversial moves without discussion, and then editing the redirect to stop other editors undoing it. Stop it. bobrayner (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


Zoupan, please, why I am writing 'please', because beleive and see You as a good editor, and found several other well written articles edited by You. Yet, the edits you done on article about Morlachs, and as do mostly about Serbian history and culture, I don't see as some suspicious, with possible national or personal intentions, but as lack of knowledge about the subject. The edits were quiet wrong, and it looks incredible for me you're still insisting without seeing your mistakes. You emphasize the term Morlach was from 16th to 17th century used for Serbs or Croats, when it was from Latin documents from 14th century describing Vlachs. You emphasize Morlach connection with Serbs or Croats, or basically saying they were Serbs or Croats in the 16th to 18th centuries, only because some belonged to Orthodox Church or Catholic Church, or with Serbs only because they spoke a South-Slavic language of Shtokavian dialect? Do you understand how delusional and unacademical such claims are? The article is written objectively, in such a way, the public, especially a laic, would follow the term through its history, understand how was used for Vlachs, and afterwards as stated in work Travels in Dalmatia from 18th century by Fortis, they were speaking Slavic language, and because of migrations, people came from various parts of the Balkan, and the name passed to other communities, how they were of the Greek-Orthodox and Roman Catholic faith, and that the name [didn't] belonged to only one ethnic group, i.e. Vlachs who didn't manage to make a national identity, or later Croatian or Serbian, yet according to the religious affiliation, they assimilated to these two ethnic groups.

I pinpointed Mile Dakić because such sources, like his work The Serbian Krayina: Historical Roots and Its Birth from 1994, can't be used as a source, reliable source, sourcing such a claims, when was released at the time of War in Croatia, and especially when Dakić participated in govermental bodies of SAO Krajina. Also, the Croatian Encyclopedia is more than a reliable source, not only because is an encyclopedia, but because of this sentence "Pokušaj srpske historiografije da naziv Morlak uporabi kao istoznačnicu za pravoslavno (a time i srpsko) stanovništvo u zaleđu dalmatinskih gradova nije znanstveno utemeljen" (engl. The try of Serbian historiography to use the term Morlach as synonym for Orthodox (and this with Serbian) population in inland of Dalmatian cities isn't scientifically based). Also, after my mention of Mile Dakić, you commented "Mazuranic is a Franciscan priest. Mažuranić has political motives. Ivan Mužić is a Catholic extremist and nationalist., makes me think if there is more than just a lack of ignorance. Not that there is nothing to makes them unreliable, if yet, their work only sourced one etymological interpretation, and early history of 14th and 15th century, and not some controversial nationalistic claims.--Crovata (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no need for false accusations, there is no wrong intentions from my side, and it's up to you to see why are you not accepting my warnings for using unreliable sources for controversal or unexplained claims, and writing prone to nationalism. The actual majority of your contribution was copyediting from beforehand edited articles, and the use of sources was sparse, what doesn't matter because you had such sources. The "yours" last revision was on May 7, 607545683, with 9,741 bytes, while rewritten by me, 611797848, with new material on June 6 around 21,202 bytes, yet several times like on June 8, 612031978, you reverted it to your previous revision, removing 11,460 bytes of information, and not with sources which only partially mention Morlachs and the text highlight the connection with Serbs, but from scientific sources specifically studying Morlachs and Vlachs, with citatations found in those books and papers, explaining the etymology, its chronology, and more. To further avoid edit claims which identify the term Morlach, or elsewhere, with specific national identity, religion and vice versa, without understanding, or explaining in the article, the historical circumstances until late 19th century, I highly recommend you to read the work of Zef Mirdita and Ivan Mužić on Vlachs.
I never neglected the term Morlachs was used for the community in the Dalmatian hinterlands of the 17th century, but how it was principally used for that specific period of time is just an subjective opinion, mostly because of time difference, misleading the objective narration of the term. Wikipedia basics for an editor is to primary know about you're editing, and as such there is no need the section "External links" with the link to Morlachs on Croatian Encyclopedia be removed, or as says the "tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion, and it wasn't used for detailed observation.
Also, the sentence "In the summer of 1685, Cosmi, the Archbishop of Split, wrote that Stojan Janković had brought 300 families with him to Dalmatia, and also that around Trogir and Split there were 5000 refugees from Turkish lands, without food - seen as a serious threat to the defense of Dalmatia. Grain sent by the Pope proved insufficient, and the Serbs were forced to launch expeditions into Turkish territory." was removed as there is no mention of Morlachs, and those families and refugees could have nothing to do with them. As Janković is mentioned, I remind you how on his article, 605958038, you identified Morlachs as Serbs.
Then, "In the 1851 census of Dalmatia, the Morlachs, citizens of Ragusa and inhabitants of the Dalmatian coast and islands declared themselves Serbs." as already mentioned, find other source for this census, and when you do, clarify why at the time of Croatian national revival, in the Kingdom of Dalmatia (part of Austrian Empire), only once in history the whole population of Dalmatia was declareed as Serbs and not Croats.
The statement by Boško Desnica, "after analysing Venetian papers, concluded that they always mentioned the script and language of the Morlachs as "Servian"", actually almost whole paragraph followed by "Lovrić made no distinction between the Vlachs/Morlachs and the Dalmatians and Montenegrins that were also mentioned (peoples of Croatia and Slavonia were not mentioned), and was not at all bothered by the fact that the Morlachs were predominantly Orthodox Christian.", is written in such way to mislead how Morlachs were actually Serbs. The original quote doesn't say or note they spoke Serbian language, yet the Venetian ignorance for correct Slavic idioms, as Desnica said, not wrongly sourced on 360-361 page, but pg. 356, "language, idiom, characters/letters are always accompanied by the adjective Serb or Illyrian(...)Undoubtedly the Venetians did not differentiate among [the Slavic-speaking] tribes/peoples, and all these three terms were applied equally to one or another tribe". I constantly remark, for such a vague and complex period of time, it can't be cited only one part of the original citation, and from only one source, twisting the original meaning for personal opinion. We both know that's violation of any criteria. I really wish to continue the discussion, a constructive discussion, and we could go analyzing sentence by sentence, but perhaps somewhere else, like sandboxs talk page about the article.--Crovata (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"Duchy of Pannonia"[edit]

I noticed you moved Braslav of Pannonian Croatia and Ratimir of Pannonian Croatia to Braslav, Prince of Pannonia and Ratimir, Duke of Pannonia, resp. Given the discrepancy, and that the last move of the article Pannonian Croatia or Duchy of Pannonia indicates it wasn't a principality, I think this needs to be resolved properly first. Please see Talk:Duchy of Pannonia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Mahmut's mother[edit]

Regarding your edit for the mother of Mahmut II in the List of the mothers of the Ottoman sultans (Aimée du Buc de Rivéry) please see the previous discussion on the same issue. Thanks Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Gulbahar Hatun[edit]

What are you going to do? Vandalize wikipedia again. Ayse Hatun was nephew of Mukrime Hatun and wife of Bayezid II, that would be incest(first cousins). Mukrime Hatun was married to Mehmed II the Conqueror, two years after the birth of Bayezid II, while Gulbahar Hatun was married one year before the birth of Bayezid II. Wikipedia doesn't allow cites as sources. While Gulbahar Hatun has more sources and reliable ones.What'sUp123 09:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources needed.

What'sUp123 09:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Kosovo Serbs[edit]

Thanks for adding references to the article "Kosovo Serbs" however references 3 (Finlay1854)and 7 (Stephenson2000) are broken. When you get some time, could you fix it please? Regards IJA (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

1879-1880 in Plav and Gusinje[edit]

Hi Zoupan,

The sources emphasize that there were two separate battles, in Novsice and Murino. Velika conflict is treated as an integral part of the Battle of Novšiće. Regarding the Battle of Murino, no doubt it was a separate battle which merits a separate article. Since it was a battle subsequent to the Battle of Novsice, I presented it in one section of the article about the Battle of Novisce as some kind of aftermath (which I think is not mistake).

Therefore my answer to your question is that I don't think Murino and Novsice should be merged while Velika does not merit its own article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Montenegrin Cap[edit]

Hi there, I'd like to know your thoughts on Montenegrin cap, and the Herzegovinian-Montenegrin cap differences. Because I was planning on creating a page for the Herzegovnian Cap and do not want to make a redundancy. Critikal1 (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Categories with gender[edit]

I believe this sort of gender-categories: Category talk:Women of the Republic of Venice are unnecessary. The gender is clear from the names any way, and in this way, no consideration is given people with gender-problematic and LGBT-categories, who may not wish to be labeled with a certain gender. Please consider this before you make a category such as this. consideration is not unimportant. In this case, "Category: People of the republic of Venice" is quite enough: we can recognize the gender from the names any way, so it is not necessary to create a gender category. If i remember correctly, Wikipedia actually advises against making gender categories when they can be avoided. I understand that you have no malice what so ever: perhaps you are simply interested in women's history, such as I myself, and therefore find this sort of categories useful and practical, such as I myself do. But; there are more important things to consider, and we must see to it that all groups of people are welcomed and being made to feel they are treated with consideration at Wikipedia. I hop you do not take offence, but may consider this. Perhaps out of consideration, you may decide to think that Category: People of the Republic of Venice are sufficient enough, and not create other categories like this one. My very best wishes--Aciram (talk) 12:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


Hi! You've done a great job expanding the article about him. I've read it and made a few tweaks, but I would advise you to ask a copyeditor to go through it too. The grammar is slightly off here and there, and the style could be improved as well. Normally it wouldn't be an issue, but I see that you have nominated it for GA status. Surtsicna (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I have requested CE now.--Zoupan 13:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


There are probably more of these towns wrongly categorized as Dacian, I haven't really checked this. You might dive into Category:Dacian towns if you wish. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Serb Uprising of 1596–97[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Stefan Vladislav of Serbia[edit]

I did some prose improvements, but I wasn't overly bold, either, since I didn't want to mess up the article's newly attained GA status! --Biblioworm 17:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Jasenovac Research Institute[edit]

The Institute is a controversal source, see the discussion here Talk:Jasenovac concentration camp/Archive 1#Cracked the Jasenovac Research Institute, individual case web links Lažni popis žrtava Jasenovca and Surname Rotim, and as for my proof see surname Poropat at the victim search Poropat, the villages Trstenik, Dane, Lanišće, Vodice, Jelovice are in Ćićarija area (see also Ćići where the surname is mentioned) in Istria, and they died in war as Partisans defending against the fascists and nazis of Italy and Germany.--Crovata (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You are right, the database is not for Jasenovac victims, but overall victims of genocide and fascism in Yugoslavia 1941–45, according to the disclaimer.--Zoupan 16:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


I see that Serbian fascism and pseudohistoricism is still alive and well on Wikipedia. But please, for start, can you elaborate how on Earth can Vojislavljević dynasty be Serbian dynasty if Stefan Prvovenčani (the First-crowned) was considered the first Serb king by his contemporaries and historians alike? Time-travelling? Sideshow Bob 15:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You are very aggressive. Take it easy. First of all, the Vojislavljević dynasty is a Serbian dynasty, part of Serbian history, historiography, etc. This is commonly known. Second of all, do you seriously think that by bringing up Stefan Prvovenčani and time-travelling that it would in some way refute the fact that the Vojislavljević dynasty is/was Serb? Judging by your edits, you would like for the dynasty to be called "Montenegrin" but that would be anachronism.--Zoupan 15:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not a matter of what I like, but of simple historical truth. Just because Serbian nationalists outnumber neutral people on English wiki, this does not make your historical forgery less problematic. I was just making a simple parallel - if Serbian statehood begins with the Nemanjić dynasty, and Stefan I is crowned the first king of the Serbs in 1217, how can a man who reigned from 1050 also be a Serb king? Would you please answer this simple paradox for start? I am the one that is reverting to NPOV (neutral term "Southern Slav", instead your false "Serbian" claim), so please stop your vandalism and discuss the issue first.--(UTC) Sideshow Bob 17:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

What is the historical truth, according to you? According to historiography, the Vojislavljević dynasty was Serb. Mihailo was the first Serb king (as King of Slavs), but not the first King of Serbia, which was Stefan (as King of Serbia). Calling the dynasty "Southern Slav" is completely inaccurate.--Zoupan 20:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Historical truth is that not all, if any, medieval Southern Slavs at the time of Vojislavljević dynasty foundation can be called "Serb" because Serb statehood began with Nemanjić dynasty. The Vojislavljevićs were Slavic and Roman Catholic, and are the first of four Montenegrin (Dioklian-Zetan) dynasties, having nothing to do with Serbs, apart from belonging to a wider ethnic group of Balkan Slavs. Hence, calling them "Serb" is historical revisionism based on political beliefs, rather than objective state of affairs. Sideshow Bob 11:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course not all South Slavs at the time were Serbs, however, the fact remains that the Vojislavljević were part of the Serbs (and Slavic). You are making the mistake that Catholicism means non-Serb, when for long, the Serb tribes straddled between the West and East, only to be consolidated under the Orthodox church later. Saying that they "had nothing to with Serbs" is an obivious anti-Serb comment. I think this discussion ended a long time ago. No one has ever disagreed with the importance of the dynasty to the history of Montenegro. Continue at the article talk page.--Zoupan 12:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

An invitation to join the WikiProject Republika Srpska[edit]

WikiProject Republika Srpska
Project Icon
Hi, Zoupan, you are graciously extended an invitation to join the WikiProject Republika Srpska! WikiProject Republika Srpska is a WikiProject whose aim is to improve the quality and coverage of articles related to Republika Srpska and the Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina. 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 Republika Srpska currently covers a total of 1,043 articles and 58 other related pages on the English Wikipedia.

We look forward to welcoming you to the project!

--Anulmanul (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of 1582–83 defter of the Sanjak of Scutari for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1582–83 defter of the Sanjak of Scutari is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1582–83 defter of the Sanjak of Scutari until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 15:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina (G. Bregović)[edit]

The general reply on the issue can be read here; what you think about it, and if he should be removed from the list, as I don't know many notable Bosnian Serbs to replace him, could you do the work?--Crovata (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Do not change the numbers of official souces[edit]

Please do not use estimations while there are official numbers.I know that some serbs boycotted the 2011 Kosovo population census but this does not mean that there are 140,000 or 100,000 serbs in Kosovo.If you have reliable sources ,please use them.If you do not have any,please do not use unreliable estimations! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suksesi (talkcontribs) 17:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Warning removal[edit]

Your removal of this warning was within your rights, but please note that: (a) Notwithstanding your edit summary, "this user, a sockpuppet, was indef banned - my accusations do not lack evidence," the warning was about your use of insults, not about accusations of sockpuppetry. You do not have the right to be insulting or incivil to anyone, even someone who is, or who you may suspect of being, a sockpuppet. (b) Also note that removal of a warning from your talk page is deemed to be an acknowledgement that you have read it, see OWNTALK. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Posts like this:
Why are you so ignorant? It is meant to show a realistic number, don't you think? That's what estimations are for (look up the word, estimation).--Zoupan 12:25 pm, 21 February 2015, last Saturday (3 days ago) (UTC−6)
Are incivil and may be considered to be a personal attack. In either case it is [not] appropriate on WP. Please adjust your behavior and become a better editor. Thanks.-- KeithbobTalk 20:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)-- KeithbobTalk 17:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I understood his behaviour as ignorant (see Zakoni (talk · contribs) and Suksesi (talk · contribs)), that's why I was frank and asked him; he may have not understood what "estimation" was (as English is not his first language), so I linked it. I do not see the comment as insulting, but I understand that the conversation may be viewed of as incivil. Thank you, I certainly will.--Zoupan 21:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Glad to hear the incivility was unintentional and that you will be more careful in the future. Thanks for all your contributions to the project! -- KeithbobTalk 17:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Warning icon Zoupan please stop warning people and "threatening" them so egotistically. You erased my revisions to my edits and required citing the references. I have been awaiting patiently to gather my material. You have went to far my generating false accusations and reporting mis-notions by reporting to admin on issues that are small and could have been resolved quietly. This is very childish. Note that you actions are revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities; don't flatter yourself. Once again, I implore you to not allow your nationalistic bias views to cloud your judgment; it can ruin the credibility and the collaboration to make pages on wiki better.Duro se po vim ! (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Modifying Article as "editing" need to be properly sourced through remission of the regulations and bylaws adhered by wikipedia[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm IllyrianDodona. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Mirnes Pepić, but you didn't provide a reliable source. Your "edits" have been removed for now due to erased information.

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as they can be deemed biased and objective. Thank You Do, Sdo... Ketu per gjithmon ! (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello I am Bato Lumbardhaj. I have performed a search with the contents of Mirnes Pepic, and it appears that you seem to be erasing information based on nationalistic views. Please refrain from performing edits without reading the regulatory guidelines set by wiki. Bato The Illyrian (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Information icon Even though I appreciate some of the "clean up" you have done on the Idriz Toskaj page, I have cited the "citations" that you had required. Thank You for making me a better wiki member. With that being said, I noticed that you had revised and once again erased content in which you didn't like or appreciate because it did not fit your nationalistic beliefs/interests. These actions are very contradictory and hypocritical considering that the last past few weeks you have been pestering me about "warring" and editing without citations... yet here we are, you just edited my page, that I created, doing the same thing. This has to stop. I have not reported you to the admin board, but if you continue on this destructive path of editing my pages I will report you and asked for your editing to be blocked. Cheers mate. Duro se po vim ! (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Boris Kalamanos[edit]

Besides the already cited sources at Talk:Boris Kalamanos, do you have any other further information, especially by modern historiography which mentions and discuss the old scholarly POV how Borić and Kalamanos were the same person? Perhaps we could bring all this quotes together again and finally conclude (reach a consensus) the discussion.--Crovata (talk) 07:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015 - invalid assertions[edit]

Information icon Thank You for your inquiry Zoupan. I have responded back to your fruitless assertions that are invalid. You will find my answer on the admin noticeboard Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents . I advise you that in the future to communicate openly in order to resolve issues versus taking a very "sneaky" approach by coming up with assertions with no facts. This sends a strong statement as to the type of character is performing edits on wiki articles. Cheers mate. Bato The Illyrian (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 1455 defter of the Branković lands[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 1455 defter of the Branković lands requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Nha Trang Allons! 15:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Bulgarian-Serbian war[edit]

Hello, Zoupan! It is very nice that you have created articles about the Bulgarian-Serbian wars of 839-842 and 853 and I have added some links and clarifications to the first one; later I will see the other one as well. However, I would suggest that you move the pages as "Bulgarian-Serbian War of ..." because the correct adjective of Bulgaria is Bulgarian, not Bulgar. At the time the Bulgarian army included both Bulgars and Slavs, so the term Bulgar is misleading, because we both know it stands only for the Bulgar people. Regards, Gligan (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Serbianization of historical Bosniaks[edit]

Do not try Serbianizing or robbing Bosniaks of their heritage, name and ethnic identity by referring to Bosniaks as "Bosnian Muslims" without sources. Several sources specifically use BOSNIAK, but you are trying to twist that. Stop or I WILL report your nationalistic edits.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 06:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The term "Bosnian Muslim" is offensive as it uses "Muslim" as an ethnicity, reminiscent of the Yugoslav-era Islamophobic propaganda and Serbian nationalism that culminated in the 1990s Serbian attack on Bosnia and Herzegovina. The term "Bosnian Muslim" is dated and offensive. The politically correct term is Bosniak.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 06:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

That is not true. As I commented on your talk page, take a look at the parent categories of Category:Ottoman Bosnian Muslims. For instance, is a Devşirme automatically a Bosniak? What about non-Slavic Muslims in Bosnia? You see, the problem is nomenclature; the Ottoman Bosnian Muslims were indeed the precursor to the Bosniaks, I do not oppose that, but I do oppose the category bombing (four vague categories instead of one?) - the category name is concise. This has nothing to do with Yugoslavia or offensive terms. The politically correct term for the modern Bosnian Muslims is Bosniaks, but the term cannot be used for the Ottoman Bosnian Muslims (or Ottoman Bosniaks, if you will) as noted.--Zoupan 06:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Mitja Velikonja (2003). [/books?id=rqjLgtYDKQ0C&pg=PA68 Religious Separation and Political Intolerance in Bosnia-Herzegovina] Check |url= value (help). Texas A&M University Press. pp. 68–. ISBN 978-1-60344-724-9. The Bosnian Slavic Muslims only began to develop their ethnic distinction in contrast to Ottomans in the mid-nineteenth century.“ However, because they belonged to the ”religion of the Turks,” they called themselves Turci, Turcini, or Bosnjaci. 

DAB page Siege of Belgrade[edit]

Did you read my first edit summary? This page is a disambiguation page, see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation_pages. The point of this page is that a reader can see what relevant articles we have with related content. It shouldn't list anything that doesn't already have its own article. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Zoupan. You have new messages at Talk:Gazi Hüsrev Pasha.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

March 2015[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Samo into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Prince-Bishopric of Montenegro[edit]

Can you explain how these conflicting edits should be considered "vandalism"? I spent a good minute trying to decipher what is going on. From what I can tell, we have multiple editors (not just the IPs) on both sides of the debate. That sounds like a content dispute. Meanwhile the talk page hasn't been touched in over two years. MusikAnimal talk 18:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jasenovac concentration camp. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection.--Rovoobo Talk 12:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Artistic images of mediveal principalities[edit]

Hi Zoupan. I noticed you added a source in the image of the Principality of Arta (as well as in similar images) [[1]]. I wonder what makes this kind of images historical and not just a product of artistic reconstraction. The work under the title "Heraldika Skipatare" and the link to a forum can hardly considered enough to warrant the historicity of these images.Alexikoua (talk) 07:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I added those in order to trace the historicity/fiction; one user claimed "I created this work entirely by myself" but in fact, it was downloaded from a forum – invalid reliable source. I would delete all claimed coats of arms which are not found in old armorials, including this one, which is used in 5 en-articles, and still not sourced since 14 March.--Zoupan 08:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I thought that this is irrelevant with history. Moreover, it appears that they were placed as a product of personal obsession of 2-3 users all these years. I'm going to remove this unhistoric staff immediatelly.Alexikoua (talk) 09:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


How is displaying their origin "biased"? I merely provided a sufficent amount of evidence that supports the claim that the original tribes were Croatian. If you want to see baised then take a look at the other pages maps. Putting up "Greater Serbia" maps that was made on paint is hardley nuetral nor historical accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prophet of Truth and Knowledge (talkcontribs) 14:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of Turkish in non-Turkish settlements[edit]

Why do you insist on adding Turkish names for non-Turkish settlements in Kosovo? This is redundant (and unconstructive).--Zoupan 15:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Non-Turkish settlements cannot be considered as a reason. As I said on the summary, Turkish language officially recognized regional language for Municipalities of Kosovo like Albanian and Serbian!! Maurice Flesier (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Last warning![edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Gračanica, Kosovo shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Maurice Flesier (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. You are the one edit-warring. Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.--Zoupan 17:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


He even created an out of process sockpuppet Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zoupan which I put up for deletion. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Milko Bjelica[edit]

I need to ask you why you made this edit[2]. The accusation in the summary is false because I did mean to be constructive for one and I explained what I did. All we know from sources about Bjelica is that he comes from Serbia but this does not grant him automatic 100% Serbian nationality without consultation of sources. Montenegrin President Filip Vujanović is the same. I believe that in sporting infoboxes, the vague term "nationality" refers to the subject's country of representation rather than ethnicity or citizenship. As you're also probably aware, the rule of sporting federations ordinarily forbid athletes from competing for a different country once he has made his mark with one (except in curcumstances of political change). If you know "nationality" to mean something else and Serbian is correct then we need to be specific within the box itself by adding to it. As it looks, it is just confusing. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Oranges Juicy: I think that my comment is backed up by the actuality of matters. His grandfather was born in Montenegro, and through this he was given Montenegrin citizenship and therefore able to represent that country ("this does not grant him automatic 100% Serbian nationality" is a terribly wrong conclusion I must say). As for his nationality, "Serbian / Montenegrin", "Serbian, Montenegrin" is only right. I do not agree that it is confusing. I think it's time to have the template edited, see Template_talk:Infobox_basketball_biography#National_team_parameter. What do you think? --Zoupan 09:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Following the four examples at the template talk, it looks as if we are talking citizenship here, and that is fitting because it is the most common description of nationality. However it looks to me as if they are all unsourced. So apart from his choosing to represent Montenegro, we only assume he is a Serbian national abeit justified. Since that cannot truly be challenged, I think a system of numbered footnotes would be helpful, one by each entry. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 10:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Assume? Serbian nationality law. You mean annotation?--Zoupan 10:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I know the nationality laws of the ex-republics, you are talking to someone originally from Mostar here. It was the way I phrased it. Serbian nationality law + born in Serbia = WP:OR. I know it is stupid to assume that there can be any exception here but the site still requires sources be spelt out. But yes, I meant annotations, and not just for Bjelica, perhaps for all basketball players with more than one nation. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I seriously doubt WP:OR can be attributed to this. Frankly, you do not need his identification card. The nationality law is what it is. Greetings to Mostar.--Zoupan 10:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I wish! I've been in Great Britain (England) since 2000 but I will be going home in August, to that I look forward, and it will be greetings then to all of Herzegovina, and everywhere else surrounding (no politics with me)! Nobody can seriously mount a challenge to Bjelica's Serbian nationality based on those known facts but I still favour an annotation-based system in those scenarios. I'll duplicate parts of this post to add it to the talk section for continuity reasons. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello again, by the way what happens for persons such as Radoslav Nesterović? You have Slovenian and Greek but nothing on Serbian yet that is his ethnicity according to the article (and his name since Slovene doesn't use ć in its own words). --Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Oranges Juicy: good note. As he only played in Serbia 1992–93, I don't think Serbian nationality is necessary in the infobox.--Zoupan 05:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
No? To be honest I didn't even know that much, I was only looking at his ethnicity. So just to clarify, the nationality section of a basketball player infobox requires citizenship details only, however many that is. I've got it now. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Sevastokrator Kersak[edit]

Hello Zoupan, as a basis for an WP-article, I am interested in what Б. Ферјанчић: Севастократори у Византији. In: Зборник радова Византолошког института 11, 1968, p. 188-189, writes about this figure who was commander of Stefan Dusans cavalry. Unfortunately, I get merely a slight guess of the content because of my lack of knowledge of the Serbian language. Can you please help? Would be fine! PDF is available online ( Greets-- (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 Kumanovo clashes[edit]

Please, wait. Didn't see your edits gonna put them back immediately, so be calm. Sorry, about that.- Phill24th (talk). 19:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Though, on a second thought. I have the same summary as yours. - Phill24th (talk). 19:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


@Phill24th and 220 of Borg: I'm thoroughly confused with all the moving of pages and copy/paste. Let's all have the discussion here before things get moved/copied again. Phill24th, as already mentioned on your talk page, we don't copy/paste to do a move. The problem is, the copyright Wikipedia uses (CC-BY-SA) says one must attribute all authors of the text. With copy/paste, you aren't attributing and it looks like just you made the edit. I haven't a clue what the spelling should be, but atleast agree what the title of the article should be before moving it again. Bgwhite (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Гошинце (Gošince). Support attack.--Zoupan 05:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Re the above, the page is (currently) at Gosince attack, but the terms Goshince/Gošince are also used, I at least made it internally consistent here and was reverted here.
And the infobox title shoud match the page title. i.e. it shouldnt say "Gosince border post attack" There is a need for the page to be consistent, I don't care which used, but its ridiculously un-encyclopaedic to have 3 different spellings on the one page. The sources seem to use all three! 220 of Borg 03:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Use Gošince. Ш ш = Š š.--Zoupan 04:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

"irrelevance" in the article? Please clarify....[edit]

I would kindly ask you to reflect and consider that a part of the article that you deleted stated a scholarly position about the presence of Albanians in the region. There are many precedents regarding the matter such as Northern Epirus which gives a through mention about a ancient Greek presence in the region, even though the term "Northern Epirus was a political one coined in the Balkans and thereafter. Should not the article contents start from the Balkan wars onwards as the term and concept of "Northern Epirus" (not the historical region of Epirus) is recent. I would like to remind you that yes the article is about Albanians in the Sanjak of Nish. There are two scholarly positions regarding the matter. One is the Serbian one about Albanians being settlers and the other held by non Serbian and non Albanian linguistics is that Albanians were present in the Morava valley in the early medieval period. Another article which deals with persecutions is the Greek genocide article. There is a section in there giving details about the ancient presence of Greeks. Why is it allowed for that mention there, while a source that states something about Albanians of the Morava valley is deleted. What makes some sources more privileged then others ? To reiterate, this source, a non Balkan, Western source which is mentioned in the Origins of the Albanians article, is somehow not fit to be in an article about Albanians from the Morava region, even though it mentions Albanians and the Morava valley. Clearly John Fine mentions a scholarly position that holds that a Albanian presence may have been present in the region in the early medieval period in the Morava valley. How is it that only one scholarly position (the Serbian one) is allowed while the other is not. Look you can be dismissive, but i want clarification for the change, one that is outside nationalistic bounds of "irrelevance" or that "It is not suitable for a proto-Albanian/proto-Romanian theory". Your view there would constitute what wikipedia policy calls Wikipedia:No original research. It states the following:

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

"Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, needs a reliable source."

"The prohibition against original research limits the extent to which editors may present their own points of view in articles."

Which is the current reason of "irrelevance" and "It is not suitable for a proto-Albanian/proto-Romanian theory" you have given me.

"By reinforcing the importance of including verifiable research produced by others, this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view. Consequently, this policy reinforces our neutrality policy. In many cases, there are multiple established views of any given topic. In such cases, no single position, no matter how well researched, is authoritative. It is not the responsibility of any one editor to research all points of view. But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority."

I was following policy by incorporating a important view as it relates to the population mentioned in the article.

Also Wikipedia policy regarding Neutral Point of View states the following:

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views."

The Albanian presence in the Morava valley scholarly position is not a minority view, but quite present within Albanian studies by outsiders regarding the Albanian language and its ethnogenesis. Again the article does mention the Morova valley. The settler position, one held in Serbian historiography is ok to be mentioned (is only a majority viewpoint in Serbian circles) if the non Balkan reference and (Western) source which mentions both Albanians and the Morava valley is allowed to stay. Otherwise one remaining and the other is POV pushing. If a sufficient answer is not given, one that is based on the sources, (John Fine is a credible medieval scholar, and he cites Georgiev, who is non Serbian and non Albanian. provide me a academic source that discredits either Fine or Georgiev and i will be convinced) then as per wikipedia policy i will try to resolve this with you through discussion. If sufficient (credible, non-nationalistic) sources are not provided and you are dismissive your deletion will be challenged. If you continue in a disruptive manner after that, as according to wikipedia policy, I will to go to third party dispute resolution on the matter.

Resnjari (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

"No. Ottoman Albanians (and Persecution of Ottoman Muslims) and a theory about proto-Albanian/proto-Romanian contact zone are two different things."

No, because it relates to the presence of Albanians in the region. The academic source mentions the Morava valley and Albanians. As per other articles about genocide and persecution (e.g: Greek Genocide, Armenian Genocide and so on there are mentions of previous pre-Ottoman information about settlement. When i wrote this section first off, i started off the article from basically 1878 as it related to Peresctuion of Ottoman Muslims. It was Antidiscriminator who decided to place the settler sentence in the section. He decided to go down that road, not me. My view was that that sentence should not be there as it opens up these issues. However since we are at that point now, i must state that it has been pointed by non Balkan Western historians such as Noel Malcolm (book: Kosovo, A short history) that the Albanians being settlers is a hypothesis and position that Serb historiography holds. If that scholarly position is allowed to be there and as per wikipedia policy on neutrality, so must the other. You state "Your synthesis is clear also from the fact that you inserted a source which has nothing to do with the events or even Ottoman history." I could also ask, what does the issue of Albanians being settlers according to you have to do with the article as it discusses persecution not settlement then ? "I think Antidiskriminator's explanations of your behavior are enough to see what your intentions are." His explanations were quite offensive accusations of being caught "red handed" and was very dismissive by referring to my position in a very disparaging manner unbecoming of an editor. He did not once want to engage in dialogue of good faith based solely on the sources. My exchanges are there for all to see. I have nothing to hide and they are on his talk page too. I followed Wikipedia policy to the grain, as i continue to do. However i am curious though, what are these "intentions" you speak of Zoupan? Please elaborate. I will remind you of Wikipedia policy about Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It states the following "As a matter of polite and effective discourse, arguments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." By you trying to suppose my "intentions", you are personalising the argument. I have concerns about your looking at the issue and in engaging with me in good faith in comments such as "None of your copy-pasted policy outtakes actually relates to this issue. Your edit is biased." Really? It talks about Albanians and the Morava valley and their possible medieval presence. The source is a credible medieval Western scholar John Fine who overviews Georgiev's works and states that "These are serious (nonchauvinistic) arguments and they cannot simply be dismissed." And yet your dismissing them as not being relevant to the article at hand. That passage talks about a possible Albanian presence in the Morava valley. The article does talk about the Morava valley, does it not? The sentence about settlers also talks about Albanians and their presence at a latter date. Both scholarly positions talk about an Albanian presence, though thier conclusion regarding the matter are about it being during different times in history as being the case. Hence the accusation "Your edit is biased." is based on what ? Moreover wikipedia policy on dispute resolution stipulates that:

"When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page.

That is what i have done.

"To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page. If you are reverted, continue to explain yourself; do not start an edit war."

I am doing this with you now, as i did with Antidiscriminator, but he was very dismissive. How can one engage with someone when they resort to problematic language of "red handed" to say the least amongst other things. However i still tried in good faith to enter a dialogue with him.

"Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia. Discussing heatedly or poorly – or not at all – will make other editors less sympathetic to your position, and prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. Sustained discussion between the parties, even if not immediately successful, demonstrates your good faith and shows you are trying to reach a consensus. Try negotiating a truce or proposing a compromise through negotiation."

I am doing this with you now. Yet you may continue to refer by dialogue of good faith (as per wikipedia policy) as "copy-pasted policy outtakes", i am trying to engage you in good faith to resolve the matter. My proposal is either the sentence about settlers needs to be deleted, as you state that the article is about "Ottoman Albanians (and Persecution of Ottoman Muslims)" so as to keep with that line. Or that if the part about settlers stays then the part should read as i wrote it (in keeping with wikipedia policy about neutrality). I should also state that apart from the Armenian and Greek genocide articles, within the Persecution of Ottoman Muslims article there are sentences that serve as precedents regarding the matter which mention the presence of these peoples before they became part of the Ottoman empire. I quote these sentences making reference to a pre-Ottoman presence. On Crimea "Nomadic Turkic speaking peoples, later known as "Tatars" had inhabited the steppes of Southern Ukraine since the early Middle Ages. Most of them became Islamised after the 13th century. After the dissolution of the Golden Horde the Crimean Khanate was established in the late 15th century. They gained control of northern Crimea while the Ottomans took over the south." And also on the Caucasus "The native peoples of the Caucasus had been practically independent of outside powers during their existence. The east was Islamised rather early while in the west. the Circassians converted in the late 18th century. Russian encroachment on these peoples land began in the 16th century first with the settling of Cossacks in the lowlands." So if the settlers presence sentence stays, so should should the other bit. A restoration of the sentence as follows:

"There are two scholarly positions regarding the Albanian presence within the region. One is that Albanians settled Kosovo and then began to inhabit the wider Toplica and Morava regions in the second half of the 18th century. The other is that Romanians and Albanians lived in close proximity at one time during the early medieval period in the area of the Morava valley."

Best Regards

Resnjari (talk) 07:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

"It is an origin theory of Proto-Albanians. Please understand that I am not against any theories with scholarly backing in the suitable article, but the inclusion of it in the article about Persecution of Muslims. From what I understand, those Albanians hail (and claim heritage) from northern Albanian tribes (fisët), who were originally Catholic, and not Orthodox (which they would have been if they indeed inhabited the Morava valley continuously)."

I thank you for you reply and understand the complex issues at hand. This reply will be lengthy, but its best i outline the concerns properly which i think i have not done right. So bear with me. First off you are right about the article being about the persecution of Muslims, which begs the question why it is needed to have a sentence about Albanians being settlers? But since it was decided that a context setnance is to be added about the presence of Albanians in the region, the sentence based on Jagodic's article, his sources need to be discussed.

Jagodic writes: "The migration of Albanians towards the northeast started after the Serbs had moved into Hungary, in 1690 and 1737. Having settled in Kosovo, they began to cross the Golak mountain in the second half of the 18th century and to inhabit the mentioned area".

His sources are: "Bogdanović (D.), Knjiga o Kosovu (Livre sur le Kosovo), Beograd, 1986, pp. 85-126 ; Nikolić (R. T.), op.cit., p. 5. ikolić (R. T.), op.cit., p. 29 ; Vasiljević (J. H.), « Pokret Arnauta za vreme srpsko-turskih ratova 1876 i 1877/1878 » (Le mouvement des Albanais au temps des guerres serbo-turques, 1876 et 1877-1878), Ratnik, 59, 1905, pp. 493-494."

There are issues with the settler issue. I will cite the following from a Western Academic Frederic Ascombe who has done a critical analysis on the Serb position. Don't worry, he has a go at Malcom Noel too and the Albanian position. Please read, the following is from (Frederic F. Ancsombe (2006). “The Ottoman Empire in Recent International Politics - II: The Case of Kosovo”. The International History Review. 28:4.) pages: 767-772.

The third element of the nationalist vision of Kosovo is the story of the great migration of 1690. Less widely trumpeted than the battle of Kosovo Polje, it remains critically important. The status of the battle as the decisive blow to Serbian independence and the portrayal of the patriarchate of Peć as the seat of a Serbian church, requires that Kosovo itself be the pure Serbian heart of the independent medieval kingdom. Yet how could this be, given the predominance in Kosovo of Muslim Albanians?
The great migration reconciles romantic national history with awkward modern reality. It portrays the Albanian inhabitants of Kosovo as descendants of Ottoman-sponsored transplants who settled there after the expulsion of the Serbs following a failed revolt against the Ottoman regime. In essence, the great migration replays the battle of Kosovo Polje, with Serbs paying a martyrs’ price for resisting the barbarians. The story shows the Serbs, their sense of ethno-national solidarity undimmed after 1389 despite centuries of Ottoman rule, as a cohesive, heroic nation that dared to rise against daunting odds in a bid to win freedom from foreign oppression. The story also nourishes the belief that Serbs have long been singled out by Muslims for particularly brutal treatment: what other nation did the Turks drive out of its ancestral heartland? A tragic first instance of ethnic cleansing perpetrated against Serbs, it justified the retaliation in Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo in the 1990. The power of the episode is captured in Paja Jovanović’s painting, in 1898, of The migration of the Serbian People, 1690, among the most famous of modern Serbian works of art.
Most commentators on the break-up of Yugoslavia date the rise of nationalism in politics to September 1986, when the press printed parts of a ‘Memorandum’ written by members of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts that called on politicians to put the integrity of the Serbian people above all other considerations. The academy had previously set up a Committee for the Study of Kosovo that, in April 1984, launched an investigation into Serbian emigration from the province? Concern over Kosovo became more marked in January 1986, when more than two hundred intellectuals from Belgrade presented a petition to the Yugoslav and Serbian assemblies which claimed that a ‘long, fatal genocide’ against Serbs was taking place in Kosovo and demanded an end to abuses suffered since the great migration:
Histories and memories still alive tell us that the exodus of Serbs from Kosovo and Metohija (western Kosovo) has been going on for three centuries. Only the mentors of those who are pushing out Serbs have changed; instead of the Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungary, Fascist Italy, and Nazi Germany, this role is now filled by the state of Albania and the ruling institutions of Kosovo itself. Instead of forced Islamization and Fascism — Stalinized chauvinism.
Živorad Mihajlović, the Serbian author of a book on the incidents that had triggered the petition, provided illuminating comment on one notable case, the supposed impalement of a local Serb on a beer bottle by Albanian thugs. ‘Here we are dealing with the remains of the Ottoman Empire. In the time of the ‘Turks, Serbs were being impaled, too, though even the Turks were not the ones who did it, but rather their servants — Arnauts [derived from the Ottoman for Albanians: Arnavud]. In sum, the ‘long, fatal genocide had begun with the great migration and the introduction of Albanians to Kosovo.
Could the revolt and migration of 1689-90 have happened as described? The Ottoman archives hold no ‘smoking gun’, neither a document that refers baldly to a mass exodus of Serbs from Kosovo, nor one stating that the great migration did riot take place. It is nevertheless possible to assess circumstances from the time and place that attest to or preclude the validity of the story. Do the details accord with what is known of attitudes and actions current in the late seventeenth—century Ottoman Empire? How did the Ottomans view different ethnic groups and the task of managing the empire’s population as a whole? The remainder of this article answers these questions by explaining what is known about the circumstances of the great migration, and by linking them to the Habsburg invasion of 1689.
As in the case of the battle of Kosovo Polje, few of the facts about the story of the great migration are incontestable. During the sixteen-year war (1683-99) between the Ottoman Empire and the Holy League (the Habsburgs, Poles, Venetians, and, from 1686, Russia), Habsburg forces captured Belgrade, Niš, Kosovo, and Skopje in 1689, to be driven out of all of them the following year. After the Ottoman recapture of Belgrade, the Habsburg forces withdrew across the river Danube to establish a new frontier in southern Hungary, the area that is now Vojvodina, Serbia. Thousands of refugees, including the Patriarch of Peć, Arsenije III, found shelter on the Habsburg side of the new border. So much, but no more, is certain.
According to Serbian national history, Kosovo’s Serbs rose up to join the advancing Habsburgs in the struggle to drive out the Ottomans. When the Habsburg army withdrew, 37,000 Serbian families left with them, or fled ahead of the reconquering Ottoman horde, in answer to an ‘invitation’ from the Emperor Leopold I to settle in Hungary. Their places in Kosovo were taken by Albanians, deported or encouraged to migrate from northern Albania by the Ottomans to ensure the permanent displacement of the rebellious Serbs. Catholics among the Albanians soon converted to lslam, and the settlers became staunch supporters of the ottoman regime. Thus, Kosovo’s Albanians are relatively recent immigrants, settled by the state to displace Serbs and to buttress Muslim rule.
Albanian national history a different view. Albanians claim descent from the lllyrians and Dardanians who inhabited Kosovo in the pre—Roman period, long before the sixth—century Slav migrations into the Balkans. According to this version of history, Albanians always formed a significant or majority group among Kosovo’s population, even during the reign of the Nemanjids, the Serbian dynasty who ruled from Kosovo in the thirteenth century. The Albanian view of the events of 1689-90 is that both the supporters of the Habsburgs against the Ottomans and many of those who fled to Hungary were Albanians. In the Albanians’ view, the Serbs arc latecomers to historically Albanian territory.
Noel Malcolm, who offers a detailed critique of the competing versions of Kosovo’s history, cites evidence to suggest that Patriarch Arsenije neither sided with the Catholic Habsburgs nor led the revolt against the Ottomans. He and others who fled with the Habsburgs merely distrusted that the Ottoman reconquest of Kosovo would be peaceful. Malcolm adds that Leopold I’s invitation of April 1690 is best known form the doctored form published in the nineteenth century, which disguised its original purpose of persuading Serbs everywhere not to flee their homes, but rather to rise up against the resurgent Ottomans. According to Malcolm, the number of refugees to Hungary (from Serbia as a whole, not merely Kosovo) was 30,000 individuals, not 37,000 families. Thus, in his judgment, the events that followed the Habsburgs’ invasion in 1689 more closely resembled the Albanian, rather than the Serbian, version of national history. Here is a remarkable reversal, as Malcolm, like other Western historians, had previously accepted the Serbian account.
Malcolm is criticized for being anti—Serbian, and for using his sources as selectively as the Serbs, though the more restrained of his critics only suggest that his arguments are unconvincing. Most of the documents he relies on were written by enemies of the Ottoman Empire, or by officials with limited experience of the Ottoman Balkans. Habsburg records are the most informative, but as both Malcolm and Rajko Veselinović note, Habsburg officials (even their ‘experts’ on the region) had little idea of who was where, doing what, in the Balkans. Their application of terms such as Rascian, Serbian, Greek, Albanian, Turkish, and Tatar to people and places was haphazard. Malcolm, like the historians of Serbia and Yugoslavia who ignore his findings, overlooks the most valuable indigenous evidence. Unwillingness to consider Ottoman evidence when constructing national history is exemplified by the Serbian historians who commemorated the three-hundredth anniversary of the great migration by compiling a compendium of previously unpublished references to Serbs in contemporary documents, all of them Habsburg in origin and none of them Ottoman.
Complicating assessment of ethnic histories of the great migration is the ill fit between modern ideas of ethnic or national identity and most aspects of pre-modern Ottoman life. As used here, ethnicity refers primarily not to genetics/descent, which can be a factor, but to culture, of which language and religion may be considered only parts. Ottoman officials usually did not specify the ethnicity of individuals or groups mentioned in documents; for state concerns (and probably for most of society), religious affiliation was more important. Yet the Ottomans were aware of the ethnic variety among the empire’s inhabitants: ethnicity did influence politics and other areas of public life. Metin Kunt identifies signs of ethno-regional solidarity among senior officials in the Ottoman administration, and the Ottoman regime recognized that ethnic groups were differentiated not only by languages but also by habits Nonetheless, the Ottoman evidence for ethnic solidarity is usually too sparse to support arguments about its practical effects.
In this case, however, Ottoman records contain useful information about the ethnicities of the leading actors in the story. In comparison with ‘Serbs’, who were not a meaningful category to the Ottoman state, its records refer to ‘Albanians’ more frequently than to many other cultural or linguistic groups. The term ‘Arnavud’ was used to denote persons who spoke one of the dialects of Albanian, came from mountainous country in the western Balkans (referred to as ‘Arnavudluk’, and including not only the area now forming the state of Albania but also neighbouring parts of Greece, Macedonia, Kosovo, and Montenegro), organized society on the strength of blood ties (family, clan, tribe), engaged predominantly in a mix of settled agriculture and livestock herding. and were notable fighters — a group, in short, difficult to control. Other peoples, such as Georgians, Abkhaz, Circassians, Tatars, Kurds, and Bedouin Arabs who were frequently identified by their ethnicity, shared similar cultural traits. This ethnic marker gives some hope of judging the overall accuracy of modern claims to Kosovo.
Albanians feature in pre-nineteenth-century Ottoman records because they repeatedly disrupted the peace. At a time when the state was engaged in a critical campaign for survival, Albanian lawlessness, be it simple banditry or active aid for advancing Habsburg armies, repeatedly caught the attention of the highest council of state in Istanbul the imperial divan. Events in Kosovo, the furthest point of the Habsburg advance, also drew intense scrutiny in the divan, as did the need after the Habsburg withdrawal to revive territories devastated by the ebb and flow of battle. Orders issued by the divan, acting in the name of the Sultan, give much information about Ottoman news, views, and policies at the time of the great migration. Further information can be gleaned from petitions and other information sent from the area. Taken together, these records show a state administration struggling for survival, eager for intelligence, and ready to take whatever practical steps might help to achieve elusive goals of restoring territorial integrity, well-being, amid domestic peace."

My point Zoupan is this. Jagodic draws upon sources that are Serbian although outside scholars like Ascombe who are removed from the disastrous polemics regarding this issue have drawn attention that the settler argument is also one mainly based or steeped with nationalism. It has poltical motivations, same as with the "Illyrian" thing of the Albanians. Why did i cite John Fine ? Because he is not a Serb or Albanian and in his analysis he cites Georgev and states that his argument is a non-chauvinistic position that cannot be dismissed. Moreover Albanian academia is anti Georgiev, just in case there is an assumption about my "intentions". Its why i cited the neutrality issue. My personal opinion is that the sentence about settlers should be scrapped, as the above issues as pointed by Ascombe relate that it is problematic to say the least. The article is after about Persecution of Ottoman Muslims, not the demographics of Kosovo, or Kosovo history, or the page about Kosovo Serbs or even settlers. However, it wont be POV and it can stay if there is the addition of another sentence. But before i get to that, a few words on your comment on my talk page. You wrote:

"It is an origin theory of Proto-Albanians. Please understand that I am not against any theories with scholarly backing in the suitable article, but the inclusion of it in the article about Persecution of Muslims. From what I understand, those Albanians hail (and claim heritage) from northern Albanian tribes (fisët), who were originally Catholic, and not Orthodox (which they would have been if they indeed inhabited the Morava valley continuously)."

I agree that sizable numbers of Albanians did settle the Toplica and Morava regions just like they did in parts of Kosovo. However, the historical record gives details regarding a grounded Albanian presence also prior to the eighteenth century a century that Jagodic refers to as being the genesis of the Albanian presence. Ascombe again writes the following on pages:785-788 (there is a big map on page 786), that's why the extra page).

While the ethnic roots of some settlements can be determined from the Ottoman records, Serbian and Albanian historians have at times read too much into them in their running dispute over the ethnic history of early Ottoman Kosovo. Their attempts to use early ottoman provincial surveys (tahrir defterleri) to gauge the ethnic make—up of the population in the fifteenth century have proved little. Leaving aside questions arising from the dialects and pronunciation of the census scribes, interpreters, and even priests who baptized those recorded, no natural law binds ethnicity to name. Imitation, in which the customs, tastes, and even names of those in the public eye are copied by the less exalted, is a time—tested tradition and one followed in the Ottoman Empire. Some Christian sipahis in early Ottoman Albania took such Turkic names as Timurtaş, for example, in a kind of cultural conformity completed later by conversion to Islam. Such cultural mimicry makes onomastics an inappropriate tool for anyone wishing to use Ottoman records to prove claims so modern as to have been irrelevant to the pre—modern state.
The seventeenth—century Ottoman notable arid author Evliya Çelebi, who wrote a massive account of his travels around the empire and abroad, included in it details of local society that normally would not appear in official correspondence; for this reason his account of a visit to several towns in Kosovo in 1660 is extremely valuable. Evliya confirms that western and at least parts of central Kosovo were ‘Arnavud’. He notes that the town of’ Vučitrn had few speakers of ‘Boşnakca’; its inhabitants spoke Albanian or Turkish. He terms the highlands around Tetovo (in Macedonia), Peć, and Prizren the ‘mountains of Arnavudluk’. Elsewhere, he states that ‘the mountains of Peć’ lay in Arnavudluk, from which issued one of the rivers converging at Mitrovica, just north-west of which he sites Kosovo’s border with Bosna. This river, the Ibar, flows from a source in the mountains of Montenegro north—north—west of Peć, in the region of Rozaje to which the Këlmendi would later be moved. He names the other river running by Mitrovica as the Kılab and says that it, too, had its source in Aravudluk; by this he apparently meant the Lab, which today is the name of the river descending from mountains north—east of Mitrovica to join the Sitnica north of Priština. As Evliya travelled south, he appears to have named tine entire stretch of river he was following the Kılab, not noting the change of name when he took the right fork at the confluence of the Lab and Sitnica. Thus, Evliya states that the tomb of Murad I, killed in the battle of Kosovo Polje, stood beside the Kılab, although it stands near the Sitnica outside Priština. Despite the confusion of names, Evliya included in Arnavudluk not only the western fringe of Kosovo, but also the central mountains from which the Sitnica (‘Kılab’) and its first tributaries descend.
Given that a large Albanian population lived in Kosovo, especially in the west and centre, both before and after the Habsburg invasion of 1689-90, it remains possible, in theory, that at that time in the Ottoman Empire, one people emigrated en masse and another immigrated to take its place.

My point is that prior to the Habsburg war, there was a recorded Albanian presence in north west Kosovo and so on. It was recorded by a traveler who was meticulous in his recordings. I have not yet come across a Serbian source that attacks Celebi, maybe because as Ascombe states, Serbs ignore Celebi (so do Albanians !). However, there is more. You state that for the Albanian presence to be there, they would have to have been Orthodox. I agree and Serbian authors like M. Đj. Miličević in 1876 for example made the following remark about Orthodox Albanian speakers in the region. The following paaages is cited in Sabit Uka's work (Sabit Uka (2004). E drejta mbi vatrat dhe pasuritë reale dhe autoktone nuk vjetërohet: të dhëna në formë rezimeje. Shoqata e Muhaxhirëvë të Kosovës. p.21.) (i have also places a transation below):

"M. Gj Miliçeviq, lidhur me shkollimin e nxënëseve shqiptarë konstatoi: “Meqë shqiptarët nuk kanë shkolla të tyre, ata nuk mundën ta ruajnë besimin, por u përmbahen traditave. Ata shqiptarë që dinë shkrim e lexim, kanë mësuar: shqiptarët e besimit turk (S.U: ai i thotë të besimit islam) kanë mësuar në shkolla turke; ata të ligjeve-dokeve latine, diku në shkolla katolike, ndërsa ata të besimit grek (S.U: ai thotë të besimit ortodoks), diçka ngapak nëpër manastire, por tash së voni, në shkollat që serbët i kanë ndërtuar. [32]
[32] M. Đj. Miličević. Knezevina Srbija Knj. II. Beograd, 1876, f. 738."
"Since Albanians do not have their own schools, they could not keep the faith, but they uphold traditions. Those Albanians who know how to write, have learned: Albanians of the Turkish faith (S. U: he refers to Islam) have learned in Turkish schools; those of the Latin laws and social mores, in the Catholic schools, while those of Greek faith (SU: he refers to the Orthodox), well now and in the past, in Serbian schools that have been built."

Miličević was aware of the existence of Orthodox Albanian speakers (though a small minority) in the region (of the Kosovo vilayet) and that they attended newly established Serbian schools. Serbs schools where only present in the Kosovo era during this time. Its only after 1878 that they go futher below into Macedonia and beyond. Miličević in 1876, while in the Toplica region during his travels made also the following observation and recorded the tradtions of the village of Ivan Kula, a village still existing in current day Toplica. The following is cited in another of Uka's academic works (below is also a translation of the passage):

Eshtë, po ashtu, me peshë historike një shënim i M. Gj Miliçeviqit, i cili bën fjalë përkitazi me Ivan Begun. Ivan Begu, sipas tij ishte pjesëmarrës në Luftën e Kosovës 1389. Në mbështetje të vendbanimit të tij, Ivan Kullës, fshati emërtohet Ivan Kulla (Kulla e Ivanit), që gjendet në mes të Kurshumlisë dhe Prokuplës. M. Gj. Miliçeviqi thotë: “Shqiptarët e ruajten fshatin Ivan Kullë (1877-1878) dhe nuk lejuan që të shkatërrohet ajo”. Ata, shqiptaret e Ivan Kullës (1877-1878) i thanë M. Gj. Miliçeviqit se janë aty që nga para Luftës se Kosovës (1389). [12] Dhe treguan që trupat e arrave, që ndodhen aty, ata i pat mbjellë Ivan beu. Atypari, në malin Gjakë, nodhet kështjella që i shërbeu Ivanit (Gjonit) dhe shqiptarëve për t’u mbrojtur. Aty ka pasur gjurma jo vetëm nga shekulli XIII dhe XIV, por edhe të shekullit XV ku vërehen gjurmat mjaft të shumta toponimike si fshati Arbanashka, lumi Arbanashka, mali Arbanashka, fshati Gjakë, mali Gjakë e tjerë. [13] Në shekullin XVI përmendet lagja shqiptare Pllanë jo larg Prokuplës. [14] Ne këtë shekull përmenden edhe shqiptarët katolike në qytetin Prokuplë, në Nish, në Prishtinë dhe në Bulgari.[15]
[12] M. Đj. Miličević. Kralevina Srbije, Novi Krajevi. Beograd, 1884: 354. “Kur flet mbi fshatin Ivankullë cekë se banorët shqiptarë ndodheshin aty prej Betejës së Kosovës 1389. Banorët e Ivankullës në krye me Ivan Begun jetojnë aty prej shek. XIV dhe janë me origjinë shqiptare. Shqiptarët u takojnë të tri konfesioneve, por shumica e tyre i takojnë atij musliman, mandej ortodoks dhe një pakicë i përket konfesionit katolik.”
[13] Oblast Brankovića, Opširni katastarski popis iz 1455 godine, përgatitur nga M. Handžic, H. Hadžibegić i E. Kovačević, Sarajevo, 1972: 216.
[14] Skënder Rizaj, T,K “Perparimi” i vitit XIX, Prishtinë 1973: 57.
[15] Jovan M. Tomić, O Arnautima u Srbiji, Beograd, 1913: 13.
It is, as such, of historic weight in a footnote of M. Đj. Miličević, who says a few words regarding Ivan Beg. Ivan Beg, according to him participated in the Battle of Kosovo in 1389. In support of his residence, Ivan Kula, the village was named Ivan Kula (Tower of Ivan), located in the middle of Kuršumlija and Prokuple. M. Đj. Miličević says: "Albanians safeguarded the village Ivan Kula (1877-1878) and did not permit its destruction." Those Albanians of Ivan Kulla (1877-1878) told M.Đj. Miličević that they have been there since before the Kosovo War (1389). And they showed where the bodies of the walnut trees were, that Ivan Bey had planted. Then there to Mount Đjake, is the castle that served Ivan (John) and Albanians used to defend themselves. There were traces not only from the XIII and XIV centuries, but the XV century where we see fairly multiple toponymic traces like the village Arbanaška, river Arbanaška, mountain Arbanaška, village Đjake, mountain Đjake and others. In the sixteenth century mentioned is the Albanian neighborhood Plana not far from Prokuple. [14] In this century is mentioned also Catholic Albanians in the town of Prokuplje, Niš, Priština and in Bulgaria.
When speaking about the village Ivankula, its residents state that Albanians were there from the Battle of Kosovo in 1389. Residents of Ivankula headed by Ivan Beg are living there since the XIV century and they are of Albanian origin. Albanians belong to three religions, but most of them belong to the Muslim one, after Orthodoxy and then a minority belongs to the Catholic confession.

My point is that Miličević states that he came across people in the village of Ivan Kula who where Orthodox and Albanian speaking and that along with thier Muslim and Catholic neighbours claimed a pedigree in the region from at least the time of Ivan Beg as they called him. There, direct is a recorded reference to Orthodox Albanian speakers in the area. Uka also cites other material by non-Albanian Yugoslav scholars of the day who stated that Arbanaška (which means Albanian from the Serbian Arbanas used before the nineteenth century) and Đjake (it means 'blood' in Albanian) as being Albanian place names in the Toplica from the medieval period. No theory there. Uka also cites Rizaj who states that Plana was a Albanian neighbourhood during the sixteenth century near Prokuple (citing a primary document) and that yes Tomić who states that there was a Albanian Catholic presence in the area in Prokuplje, Nis and so on, but it was present from the sixteenth century and not the eighteenth century. In light of this i hope you can understand my concerns about why having the settler sentence standing on its own being a big issue. Moreover the sources on which Jagodic draws upon, so does Uka, and Uka cites Serbs of the era who mention and even came across Orthodox Albanian speakers or at the very least where aware of their presence and of a long continuity in the era. I am also yet to find a source that counters either Miličević, Tomić or even Uka's works. Hence Uka is a good source for the following sentence proposal i am going to put up. The whole section is:

"There are two scholarly positions regarding the Albanian presence within the region. One is that Albanians settled Kosovo and then began to inhabit the wider Toplica and Morava regions in the second half of the 18th century. The second is that clusters of Albanian communities existed in the Toplica region during the late medieval period and probable Albanian clusters inhabited the Morava valley during the early medieval period."

Regarding this sentence "There are two scholarly positions regarding the Albanian presence within the region." that is neutral and true.

The first sentence underneath "One is that Albanians settled Kosovo and then began to inhabit the wider Toplica and Morava regions in the second half of the 18th century." can stay only if a second sentence is present. If you want this, it can go underneath and second view point sentence can go on top. However i have worded it this way "The second is that small clusters of Albanian communities existed in the Toplica region during the late medieval period (with Uka reference and inline citation of that paragraph so it is there) and probable Albanian clusters inhabited the Morava valley during the early medieval period."(John Fine reference)"

I have used the word "small clusters" as it means small groupings". And regarding using "probable it means "supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not proof (a probable hypothesis)", as Fine's discussion of Georgiev explains. You say it is a hypothesis, but it relates to the Morava valley and Albanians. In light of Ascombe pointing out that the settler argument has political overtones and that ignores other scholarly positions, i urge deep reflection on the matter (espeically in light of wikipedia's neutrality policy). If the settler sentence stands on its own it is POV pushing or outright POV. If you have a better alternative regarding the Albanian presence sentence (second one), we can work on it and i am very willing. I am no nationalist and no proponent of a "Pelasgian theory" or whatever. That would go against my very being as i am in post graduate studies and that would make a folly of what i am doing. Just to clear any misgivings, i was born and raised in Melbourne Australia, i have never been to Serbia but i do speak and read Serbian (can write e little) (whereas my family are from southern Macedonia: Tosk Albanians), i learnt it from friends and parents who can speak it quite well.

Best regards

Resnjari (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


Hello Zoupan, I have responded to you message on my talk page here. --AnulBanul (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot discuss the article at the moment, since I'm under the topic ban. But, I hope we will continue our discussion somewhere in late August. :)


--AnulBanul (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Ermin Melunović[edit]

Zoupan, can I ask you sincerely between us to explain me what is that you want to prove there? Cause I will explain to you my points. The first one regarding the infobox I see you already found the discussion. Most football editors indeed prefer to simplify things in infobox, and then expand it in article body (first section, X Xovic born in X, SR X, then part of SFR X, started playing blabla). Then the second point regarding nationality. It is a long standing practice with footballers to have in mind: A) the national team they represent(ed) and B) place of birth. Where he plays actually doesn't matter, and knowing we are from ex-Yugoslavia I really cant understand why you potentiate that. We know very well the amount of Serbian and other ex-Yugoslav players that spent very few or none time playing in our region, but that doesn't mean they are not Serbian/Bosnian/Croatian, etc. Where they play is absolutely irrelevant. This particular case of Melunovic, he is obviously a Serbian Bosniak by nationality, but he played in Austria and Germany (you missed Germany, he didn't played his entire career in Austria as you claimed). Similarly, some time ago I had an issue with Bosnian Serb players, as they were often presented as Serbian, and often the reason was "Oh they played their entire careers in Serbia" but hey, when you make the study, you find out that about 7 out of 10 finish their career in Bosnia! So they are not Serbian players, but Bosnian Serb players who played some time in Serbia (and certainly not Serbian players finding their bread in Bosnia ;). That is why many football websites started adding BIH as first nationality to Bosnian Serb and Croat players despite they playing in Serbia or Croatia. I am Bosnian Serb, so don't think I am somehow ignoring them, I am just giving an exemple. Most of them indeed have both nationalities, Serbian and BiH. What I want to say is that beside some accidental birth (such as sons of diplomats born in countries their parents spent a few years working) the vast rest of cases is indeed linked to the place of birth. FkpCascais (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I took a look at your recent edits and I think I see where this comes from. For instance, I agree with the way you removed birthplace from the leed at this edit. But I don't agree with you with your recent edits at Iván Petrovich. He can perfectly be a "Serbian actor" despite having worked outside Serbia during his life. I worked all my life outside Serbia, but I am Serbian. FkpCascais (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: This discussion is about footballers for now, not having played for any national team. As for Bosnian Serb players having played most of their careers in Serbia (no national team), they could either be "Bosnian-born Serbian" (having played in Bosnia since independence, but most of career in Serbia?) or simply "Serbian" (career started after/not having played in Bosnia since independence?), one has to bear in mind that there was a war and that Bosnian Serbs are given Serbian citizenship per nationality law – the identification as simply "Bosnian" in the lead section would not be realistic for most of these players (note that country of birth is in infobox and categories, and possibly in prose in the lead section or personal life). As for Melunović, I think "Serbian-born" would be more accurate than "Serbian".--Zoupan 11:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
That is why we have been putting "Bosnian footballer" to those Bosnian Serbs that play for Bosnian national teams at some level (exemple Nikola_Popara), "Serbian footballer" for the ones that represented Serbia (exemple Miloš Čudić) and for the others that didn't represented any national team, we use "Bosnian Serb footballer" regardless of where they play. I totally disagree with you about the thing of where they play, they can play anywhere in the planet.
About Melunović, I don't understand your point. Why not "Serbian"? Because he is Bosniak? I don't understand your criterium. FkpCascais (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
He has never played football in Serbia; his notability is his football career.--Zoupan 14:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter where a footballer plays at club level. FkpCascais (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Neither has Tesla, but he is Serbian. ... Neither has Neven Subotić but he is Serbian. I totally disagree with your logic. He is certainly notable for being a footballer, but the nationality in this case comes as adjective. And all sources, including the ones from his former clubs which certainly know his nationality, say he is Serbian. Don't do that, in football nowadays doesn't matter where you play, as most players play out of their countries. Not like 50 years ago. FkpCascais (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Tesla belongs to the Serbian-American community. Subotić is ethnic Serb from the diaspora and played for the national team. Your examples are bad. I don't understand this "logic" about footballers. The lead section is meant to describe the person and what he is notable for – Melunović, in this case, is not notable for being a Serbian player, but a German one ("Serbian-born German"). I am just saying, there are plenty of lead sections which are failing to describe this matter.--Zoupan 14:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
And who says Melunovic doesn't belong to the Serbian community?
Just to make it simple regarding football: if you play for the German national team, it makes you a German footballer regardless of where are you born or your ethnicity or even at what country/is you play at club level. But playing in Germans clubs or league doesn't make you a German footballer. FkpCascais (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I haven't said that Melunović doesn't belong to the Serbian community, but the fact that he has played his professional career in Germany, having lived in Germany for over 8 years only makes him more German than Serbian in this respect of his lifework (his notability), thus my issue with that particular lead section.--Zoupan 15:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
It is totally irrelevant at what clubs and league footballers play. Millions of players play outside their country, many entire careers abroad, it doesn't affect their nationality. Playing 8 seasons in Germany doesn't make him a German footballer at all. Neither would 12. FkpCascais (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Still doesn't make sense to me. All international footballers should not be lumped together, of course, each should be revised accordingly. Now that you've made your view clear, and I've mine, could you direct me to a similar discussion on WP:FOOTY? Thank you, btw, your work on footballers is greatly appreciated.--Zoupan 15:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate a lot your work at history articles. You have done a tremendous effort. You are my idol on that area!
Sure, open the question there and we will see what editors will respond. FkpCascais (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh I just now re-read your comment, I misunderstood you. There is no discussion regarding this on footy simply because that was never discussed before, because, you may not believe me, but everyone surely knows clubs and league doesn't affect nationality. You will be the first one to question this. Playing for national team affects nationality presented in the lead. Playing in foreign clubs and league doesn't, unless the player switches nationality, of course, but without sources we cannot assume that never forehand, and even when players gain the nationality of the country where they play in and have both, often the original nationality is displayed as numer one anyway. The player continues being "Xian footballer" just with a mention that he gained nationality Y and starts not counting as foreigner in the league Y. FkpCascais (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Nnaemeka Ajuru is obviously a Nigerian footballer, despite having played 11 years in Serbia and one in Georgia. Thousands of African players play in Portuguese clubs their entire careers, they often gain Portuguese passport at some point, but they are always Congolese, Ivorian, Senegalese, Angolan, etc. And they also at some point play in some third country as well, as Ajuru did in Georgia, so he is certainly not Serbian footballer, but a Nigerian footballer that spent most of his career in Serbia and a Nigerian footballer that played in Georgia. Not sure how to explain this, but its really common sense in football. FkpCascais (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Milanka Opačić. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Milanka Opačić shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Tuvixer (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow. @Tuvixer: Take a look here.--Zoupan 21:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Balsic issue[edit]

Nemas pravo da izbrises tekst koj ima tacnu referencu! I'll report you!AlbertBikaj (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

AlbertBikaj If there is a issue, discuss it on the page before edit-warring.--Zoupan 17:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Balsic Family[edit]

Why do you delete my edits on the "Balsic noble family" when I am using references? The provided references makes it clear that Balsic family might have been albanian,vlach , french or serb so why did you delete albanian ? don't delete my edits ,if you don't like the fact that balsic family might have been albanian,french or vlach,then just go to another serb related page and do whatever they want!and if "theories of ancestry are already in section" then delete "serb" from the infobox ,not only albanian Rolandi+ (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It not for sure that Balsic family is serb, so stop your foolish editings for my editing they aren't disruptive as they are based on references.The infobox refers to ethnicity so it isn't "serb" for sure . Rolandi+ (talk) 08:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

There are three choices: 1.To put alb+vlach+french+serb on the infobox as the sources make it clear that the family ethnicity might have been serb/alb/vlach/french 2.To delete "ethnicity" from the infobox 3.To ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards

Choose your option ! Rolandi+ (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

1. No, because that would be undue weight to theories, when the family is clearly identified as being Serbian. 2. I do not see the point in removing the parameter. 3. Go ahead. If we were to follow your POV, there is plently of editing to be done to Albanian nobility.--Zoupan 19:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

If there is plently of editing to be done to Albanian nobility ,just do them! Rolandi+ (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Kosovo serbs[edit]

Your reference says : "Otherwise, according to government figures, about 11,000 refugees from Kosovo in Montenegro has the status of internally displaced persons. More than 3,000 Roma are living in a rundown Konik camp near Podgorica. " .It says more than 3000 are roma in Konak camp (near Podgorica), so others might be non-Konik camp (near Podgorica) Roma,bosniaks,muslims,serbs,montegrins!!!!!! Your reference is invalid!!!!! Also your reference about numbers in serbia is a broken link,so it isn't verifiable!!!Find another reference!!! Rolandi+ (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Link to numbers in Serbia fixed. Better to fix than to complain! --T*U (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

And what about total number's references?Also the "11,000 refugees from Kosovo in Montenegro" references says that "more than 3000 are roma in Konak camp (near Podgorica)", so others might be non-Konik camp (near Podgorica) Roma,bosniaks,muslims,serbs,montegrins!!!!!! Rolandi+ (talk) 09:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It's the last time I ask you to provide resources :what about total number's references?Also the "11,000 refugees from Kosovo in Montenegro" references says that "more than 3000 are roma in Konak camp (near Podgorica)", so others might be non-Konik camp (near Podgorica) Roma,bosniaks,muslims,serbs,montegrins!!!!!! Rolandi+ (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The second source for Montenegro: "Crna Gora je pružila (ili pruža) utočište za 18.047 interno raseljenih osoba s Kosova od kojih je većina izbjegla 1999., a manji broj njih 2000. (Izvještaj o registracijiraseljenih lica..., 2003). Među interno raseljenima trećina su Romi, a najviše ih je smješteno u romskim naseljima, gdje su izmiješani s lokalnim sunarodnjacima ... Ukupan broj raseljenih u Crnoj Gori je približno 26.500" This gives the number of at least 12,000 having left Kosovo as refugees and displaced persons in 1999–2000. The number of those that left later is not included. The number of 8,000 refers those which still have the status of displaced persons; the number of persons which have been given Montenegrin citizenship is unknown. Thus, Kosovo Serbs in Montenegro are at least 12,000. [/books?id=H93n0n3F5loC&pg=PA169 Parliamentary Assembly Documents 2001 Ordinary Session (First part), Volume III] Check |url= value (help). Council of Europe. pp. 169–. ISBN 978-92-871-4630-4. The number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) amounts to 188 000 in Serbia and 31 000 in Montenegro.' The overwhelming majority of them are Serbs --Zoupan 14:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


Go here: Rolandi+ (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Warning other editors[edit]

Can you please explain why this edit caused you to jump straight to a level 4 warning? [3] --NeilN talk to me 21:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: "Naser Orić is a hero". It is a provocative personal comment in article space. You noted this edit ("fixed typo and mistakes in the text"). I thought it was the appropriate warning, seriosly thinking that he would do it again (which he did).--Zoupan 22:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't disagree that it merited a warning, but jumping straight to a level 4 is excessive. This amounts to an "only warning" which should be reserved for severe or grotesque vandalism only. --NeilN talk to me 22:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I do agree. Thank you.--Zoupan 22:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


Hi Zoupan. You inserted a comment at Talk:Kosovo remarking that it had been his only edit. This is definitely the same editor that was contributing to the previous discussion on the category, here. Obviously many IPs jump about, so it may be in your best interests to remove the edit. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


Hi, I hope I gave some clarification of the confusion. Please see the talk page carefully: I believe that the confusion stems from the use in the article of the passage where Bizzi talks about Prizren, where Bartl rightly equates dalmatian with slavic. That cannot be the case for Kelmend, which is far from Prizren geographically. I'm sure that an honest and good faith contributor such as you will understand my words. Best. Ndihmesmjeku (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Bartl explains Bizzi's Prizren's passage, not the Kelmendi one. You can't extrapolate what Bizzi says for Kelmend, with Bartl's explanation on Prizren, otherwise it would be wp:synth. That sentence should be removed, since it has nothing to do with Kelmend, as I explained in the talk page, and is, as such, unrelated. It would be wonderful to have that sentence in Prizren though.Ndihmesmjeku (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Military Frontier[edit]

Hello, thank you for correcting mistakes in my edit. I would like to ask about the word "provincial" you added to my edit. What do you mean by it and which source does mention that aspect. Thank you. Also I saw another edit you made. It states that "Serbian Krajina was virtually identical to the Military Frontier's territory in modern Croatia". I see you put a reference but the paragraph doesn't make much sense now since the following sentences state that "this Serb entity also included some territories that were not part of the Military Frontier in the past, while large tracts of territory that had constituted the Military Frontier resided outside the Serb region...". How can it be virtually identical with "territories that were not part of the Military Frontier in the past" and a "large tracts of territory that had constituted the Military Frontier resided outside the Serb region" 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry, my very own source states provincial. I don't know how I neglected it. Thanks for your help. 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't delete my references[edit]

Don't delete my references .You added your edits but you don't like mine so delete them and you will be reported. Rolandi+ (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rolandi: You are already reported, thus I would suggest to follow wp:what wikipedia is, else I'm afraid you have no future here.Alexikoua (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes Alexikoua , you are very intelligent. Rolandi+ (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you![edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


POV/Unsourced [4]. Naphtha Termix (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Naphtha Termix: Yes, but the article is tagged with "inline citations needed". If you dispute any of the information, use the talk page, and the information will be removed in 7 days.--Zoupan 19:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

All right. Naphtha Termix (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Ani case[edit]

Since you have been involved in a similar ani report recently, you might be interested to take a look at this one Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard/Incidents#Rolandi.2B_and_Alexikoua.27s_behavior_in_Balkan-related_articles.Alexikoua (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Military Frontier[edit]

Zoupan, can I please ask you to provide your opinion at that article. I had a reason why I wanted to keep the sources in the lede, precisely because I knew there are tendentious editors wanting to change sourced facts and the absence of sources in the lede makes them that easier. FkpCascais (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

OK... FkpCascais (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Stephen II of Bosnia as son-in-law of Michael III of Bulgaria[edit]

Hi! At first I wanted to post this on the article talk page, but I figured nobody but us would care :D Anyway, I find it rather implausible that Stephen married a daughter of Michael III. Michael's first wife was the first cousin of Stephen's mother; if Stephen's unnamed wife was Michael's daughter by Neda, Stephen and his unnamed wife would have been second cousins, sharing Uroš I of Serbia and Helen of Anjou as great-grandparents. That would have worked a few centuries later, but at that time, it was considered incestuous. A dispensation was not even sought as far as I know. Now, Michael married his second wife in 1324, so Stephen could have hardly married his daughter by this wife in 1329. I understand that you replaced unsourced information with sourced information, but the removed explanation seems to have addressed this issue. I wonder if it could be sourced. Surtsicna (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: Fine 1994, p. 277: "In 1318 ... Stjepan ... dispensation ... to marry a Catholic lady who was a cousin of some sort." It did work.--Zoupan 23:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
That refers to the first wife, the Ortenburg lady. Of course dispensations to marry relatives were granted - Stephen's own daughter received one. But so much ado was made when she contracted a marriage with her half-third cousin, so to speak (a man with whom she shared a single great-great-grandparent), that it seems very unlikely that Stephen could have married a second cousin so easily. Besides, does anyone speak of a dispensation in that case? I am also under impression that Orthodox churches had much stricter rules regarding consanguinity. Surtsicna (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Trust me, I have less understanding than you. As I'm only able to see a snippet view of the references, I have no more information than that.--Zoupan 00:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Spiro Koleka[edit]

Please be mindful of WP:3RR. --NeilN talk to me 20:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. It got out of hand.--Zoupan 20:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Complain about your disruptive behavior here: Burridheut (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Re=Category:Serbian Orthodox churches in Vukovar-Srijem County[edit]

I think that categories for each of counties might be useful if there are more articles about more churches. Still, I do not intend to insist on it so you are free to do as you wish. Have a nice day/evening.--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Peter Losha[edit]

You edited at Peter Losha : "In 1358, Albanians and Vlachs overran Epirus, Acarnania and Aetolia, and subsequently established two principalities under their leaders, John Spata and Peter Losha" using Hammond (1976) as a reference.In fact,Hammond (1976) says "In 1358 the Albanians overran Epirus, Acarnania and Aetolia, and established two principalities under their leaders, John Spatas (shpate in Albanian meaning a sword) and Peter Leosas (/fos in Albanian meaning a pockmark)"You clearly modified the reference.Rolandi+ (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rolandi+: I've already explained at the article talk page. Note that "modified the reference" shows that you do not have contextual understanding, read the section again until you understand how it is constructed.--Zoupan 12:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Really Zoupan?You haven't explained anything.In fact you don't have anything to explain as everything is clear.Your edit there will be changed and the next time don't try editing your own ideas.Rolandi+ (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rolandi+: I advice you not to edit the article. Don't forget that your behaviour is under discussion. I have explained on the talk page.--Zoupan 13:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about that Zoupan.That problem at Peter Losha will be solved soon.Rolandi+ (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rolandi+: I told you 4 days ago to use reliable sources elaborating on the matter, but you don't seem to comprehend what I said.--Zoupan 14:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Firstly,I don't know if you are talking about Losha or Malakasi.Secondly,I know what is called reliable source and I have used reliable sources (if you are talking about Malakasi, go to the talk page of the article).However,it will be solved soon.Rolandi+ (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Both. You show the same problematic editing in both articles. How are you going to "solve" it without entering the discussion?--Zoupan 14:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain why do you claim that my reference at Malakasi isn't reliable?Go to the talk page of the article,please.Rolandi+ (talk) 14:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Ambox warning pn.svg

Zoupan, You have more than 30% of your contributions on ALBANIAN articles. Most of which you have no knowledge nor any credentials/qualifications on to revise or edits. Your edits are based on biased speculations and nationalism. Your intentions are NOT to make the "Peter Losha" wiki article a better article, but to destroy content. You have malicious intent and you should be ashamed of yourselves for making a mockery of the wiki system. It is people like you that make peace difficult. You may try and revise History via wiki, but you will never erase the truth. The truth always comes out. Be advised that we will be notifying wiki of your actions and multiple editors of Bosnian, Croatian and Albanian origin have been notified about your actions. we are on alert to watch every single one of your edits and to report to wiki anytime we see any breaks in wiki bylaws. Durro Gjeloshi

House of Romania[edit]

I see that you have changed and moved te article of 'House of Romania' to 'House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen-Romania'; please let me tell you that the romanian royal family currently have no affiliations with the House of Hohenzollern and the house of romania is the House created by king Michael I, just as the house of Windsor had been created; please revert the article as I see it as Vandalism due to the information being hidden caused by yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@ Affiliation or no, the royal family originated and is known as Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. There are no sources using "House of Romania". How is any information hidden caused by myself?--Zoupan 11:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC) - Official portable document file of the House of Romania which contains information about the breaking of ties of The Romanian Royal Family with the House of Hohenzollern and a new branch called the 'House of Romania' — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

This royal family is the "Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen of Romania".--Zoupan 15:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Possible sock of a topic-banned user[edit]

Hi Zoupan! Thanks for reverting and warning IP for disruption at the Mehmed Pasha article. If it can be of any help in the case that similar disruption happen again, I wanted to inform you that that IP is most likely a sock of the currently topic-banned User:Dragodol ([5]). This user made similar disruption in the same article in May this year, the IP geolocates to Tuzla, and Dragodol is actually the name of a neighbourhood in Tuzla. Vladimir (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste Palmotić (?)[edit]

Hi, it has nothing to do with cut-and-paste or copy-and-paste here. Simply said, Palmotić (originally House of Palmotić) or Palmotta is my own article. It was earlier redirected to Palmotta without any reason. Since I don't redirect, revert (or whatever else) articles written by other users, I expect the same for my articles. As for the Palmotić family, it is called Palmotta in Italy and Palmotić in Croatia and in other countries where similar south Slavic languages are spoken. The surname Palmotić is not newly created, but a genuine one: it can be seen, for instance, on a book cover „Christiade“of Junije Palmotić or Giono Palmotich published in Rome in 1670 (see: [[6]]. Thank you. --Silverije (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

This is cut-and-paste. Read WP:OWN; this is not your article. The family was Ragusan, and the official language was Italian, hence Palmotta, supported by common name. --Zoupan 16:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
As for cut-and-paste, you did the same. And the official language in the Republic of Ragusa was Latin; both Italian and Croatian were commonly spoken, hence „Palmotić“ is at least equal as well. --Silverije (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Genetic studies on Serbs[edit]

Hi - I really need an explanation of an edit you made that I've raised on the talk page. The text doesn't match the sources. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Bucephalus contradiction?[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you tagged a contradiction in The taming of Bucephalus. Would you be so kind to elaborate where you see a contradiction? Rh73 (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

"reason: Did he win the horse or pay for it?" It was a wager between Alexander and Philip, which Alexander won by taming the horse. The Greek source text does not specify clearly whether Philip ultimately paid the 13 talents or whether the horse trader joined the wager as well and took a pass on his money. Either way, stating that Alexander won the horse is correct. Also, it might be interesting to point out that 13 talents was an exceptionally high amount to demand for a horse (325kg gold). I have updated the section to make it clear that it was a bet between Alexander and Philip.

I did not remove the contradiction tag yet because there's still another issue concerning Alexander's age at the time of this event, contradicting with other Wikipedia articles (10-13 years). Rh73 (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC) @Rh73: Thank you.--Zoupan 21:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bosnipedian. Borsoka (talk) 03:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. You need to add burrid's 3rd rv in your report [[7]].Alexikoua (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


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 the Balkans, 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.

Fut.Perf. 10:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Voisava Tripalda[edit]

You made some strange edits at Voisava Tripalda.Don't add Branković family at Vojsava's anymore.The only known fact about her parents is that her father was an noble from Polog.Adding Brankovic as her parent is a ridiculous and non-neutral act.Rolandi+ (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rolandi+: Strange? Please elaborate. The article lists studies. On second thought, it should be "A "Triballi" (Serb) nobleman".--Zoupan 18:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete your "Serb" by yourself.Idetity of Triballi is a matter of debate and you are selecting your prefered option.Also it is a matter of debate if she had origin from Triballi.See the article and stop your selective history.Rolandi+ (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The exonym Triballi was used at the time for the Serbs only. The ancient Triballi were last mentioned in the Roman era. You should back up your claims. Serbs had long ruled the area of Polog. Her name is Slavic. Academics do support that she was Serb, possibly of the Branković. --Zoupan 18:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Go and read the article and then come and say here that Triballi was used at the time for the Serbs only.It was used for Bulgars by Barleti.Other scholars don't agree she was from Triballi.So stop adding selective theories.Rolandi+ (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

It is an exonym. Come and say what? If we disregard the clear-case facts: her name (Slavic) and the political history (the connection between Polog, Kastrioti and the Serbian Empire); her father was described as a "Triballian nobleman" — what does that imply? Please elaborate.--Zoupan 18:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

You aren't a historian to come to a conclusion.The identity of Triballi is a matter of debate between scholars.It is matter of debate between the scholars if she was from Triballi.Rolandi+ (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Whaat? I have to be a historian to come to conclusions? You have the right to refuse acknowledging the above facts. The "identity of Triballi is a matter of debate between scholars" where? I have never heard of this debate. As for Gjon Muzaka, who claimed that she was a relative of the Muzaka, is obviously biased. I asked you to elaborate — show me.--Zoupan 19:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The identity of Triballi is a matter of debate!See what Barleti says.There are also other scholars who discuss the origin of Voisava,just see the article.There isn't consensus if she was from Triballi.There is no consensus about her origin.Rolandi+ (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

No, the Triballi is an exonym for Serbs. Barleti only speaks of the inhabitants of Debar as "Bulgars or Serbs", meaning Slavs. The present concensus is that she was Serb.--Zoupan 19:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Barleti says that the region was inhabited by Bulgars or Triballi.He doesn't mean Slavs,he means Bulgars.If he meant Serbs with "Triballi",he would say "Bulgars and Tribballi live there".As for the "present consensus" see the article:there is no consensus about her origin.Rolandi+ (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Misinterpretation after misinterpretation[edit]

You added Madgearu at John Spata while he doesn't mention any Spata family.This is another misinterpretation of sources by you.Rolandi+ (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

What? Exactly what did I misinterpet? Have you read any of those discussions? I reworked another user's addition at that section, which is named "family", but will now move that entry into the origin section, thank you for noticing.--Zoupan 10:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It the last time I say that Madgearu doesn't mention any Spata family so stop adding that source.Rolandi+ (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

He explicitly says Gjin (John Spata). That source should not be removed.--Zoupan 11:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The source says :"Albanian historians consider Gjin (or Ghinu) Buia and Peter Liosha Albanian, but it is sure that at least the Buia family was of Aromanian origin".Spata family didn't have any member named Gjin (Ghinu).John spata's surname was Spata and not Buia.Rolandi+ (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Gjin Bua (Shpata) = John Spata. Spata is a nickname in this case.--Zoupan 11:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

This is your own interpretation!Spata was the surname of the family ,not the nickname of John Spata.You have said "according to G. Schiro the Spata and Bua were not blood relatives, and thus, the Albanian name (although popular) is false" so you are refuting yourself.Rolandi+ (talk) 11:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Albanian epic poetry (and historiography) uses "Gjin Bua Shpata". The word means "sword", as pointed out. The later Bua family is not related to the earlier Spata family is what I said, and meant that the long-standing confusion on WP on John Spata belonging to the Bua family, and having that name, is false.--Zoupan 11:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You deleted "Gjin Bua Shpata" from the article because it was false!The source Buia was of Aromanian origin while the article is about John Spata so undo your edits by yourself!Rolandi+ (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Arsen Dedić[edit]

You deleted my edits on Dedic's page asking me to cite reliable sources about the religious and ethnic background of Dedic and Miskovic families. There is an article in which Arsen himself calls his mother Veronika

RAZGOVOR S ARSENOM DEDIĆEM: Pomalo privodim svoju priču kraju!

Gledajte, mene je rodila čista, što bi se reklo, Hrvatica – katolkinja, Veronika Mišković, a ćaća mi je bio ortodoks – dakle pravoslavac. Morate znati da je u Šibeniku i oko njega živjelo puno, mi to kažemo morlačkog življa. U tom vremenu ljudi su prihvaćali religije onako kako je tko pružao mogućnost održanja, životnog spasa, stjecanja nekog malog posjeda. U to neko vrijeme, recimo, pravoslavna crkva je davala najviše takvih posjeda. Tako su preci mog oca uzeli pravoslavlje.
Wouldn't you say that a man knows his mother's name?

Alsoif you read carefully in this article his brother Milutin never called his mother Jelka, reporter did.

MOJ BRAT ARSENIJE Intimna ispovest beogradskog slikara Milutina Dedića, rođenog brata poznatog zagrebačkog šansonjera srpskog porekla

This are Milutin's cites about his mother's religious background.
Majka je bila iz hercegovačke porodice Mišković, sa reke Bune, koju je Mletačka republika posle Kandijskog rata 1690. godine preselila u opustošenu Dalmaciju. Onda su ih preveli u katoličku veru, uslovljavajući ih na različite načine.

Kada se majka udala za oca, prešla je u pravoslavlje.

Please reconsider what you have deleted and update correct information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heithmenningr (talkcontribs) 21:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


I'm reviewing Bozh for GA. I've left a couple minor comments and am soliciting a second opinion as the subject-matter may not be appropriate for me to provide input on breadth and neutrality. LavaBaron (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I'll give it until Monday for a second opinion editor to comment on the broad and NPOV questions and, if no one does by then, will pass it to GA. LavaBaron (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, BlueMoonset has requested I be prohibited from conducting GA reviews due to my extreme incompetence. Out of a preponderance of caution, and until this is resolved, I feel I should terminate work on reviewing Bozh. I'll hold this open until I can find another editor to take-over the review. Apologes again - LavaBaron (talk) 08:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


Why cant they have the name in albanian version??? The churches are in kosovo were the offivial language is albanian. Kadribistrica (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Please answer at User_talk:Kadribistrica#Disruptive_editing.--Zoupan 01:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Live the world you like - with lies and fantasy.[edit]

As I can see you are a group of people trying to convince others that your story is true. I did all I could to edit the article of that village even opening a new article but I see I'm not going nowhere with this so I'm leaving you to do what ever you want as I'm not considering any other edits, new articles and so on.

Hope you and the others live a happy life ;-). AutochthonousALB (talk) 10:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! The discussion concerns the theory that Evaneglos Zappas has Aromanian/Vlach heritage. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC). PS I've made some minor markup edits to help the visual editor display of code, hope it doesn't mess anything up

Vrana in 1442[edit]

Hi Zoupan,

I noticed that you added assertion about Vrana being in service of Skanderbeg since 1442 (diff. Are you sure that you haven't made mistake? In 1442 beg Skender was still in the Ottoman forces. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator: It was such a long time ago I edited that article, so it would be best that you, who has more knowledge in the area, review it and make the necessary edits. Thank you!--Zoupan 23:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


A number of users mention you a number of times in this case [[8]] about Burrit's topic ban. I feel it is appropriate to have a look on that. Alexikoua (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way I wonder why Burrit. is claiming that you are a Greek user. Appears that all his enemies need to have a common name.Alexikoua (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Mladen and Nikolia Radonja Caesars?[edit]

Hello Zoupan,

do you have any idea from which sources the following allegations might be derived?

I don't find any confirmation of Mladen, Radonja and Vuk as caesars in Божидар Ферјанчић: Севастократори и кесари у Српском царству. In: Зборник Филозофског факултета X-1, 1970, S. 255–269.

Thank you for clarification! Jürgen — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Serbian Genetics[edit]

Dear Zoupan. I am not editing on page Serbs, I am just reverting something that someone else deleted without reason. The provided genetic information is referenced and proven, so please stop the story about non constructive edits. I repeat, I am not editing, I am only undoing someone elses edits which are not constructive. Someone wants to, just with 2 clics, remove the fact that Serbs have the most I2 Illiran genes in whole Europe. I will undo the deletation again, I am doing it since a while. Next time if someone wants to remove it, will need to provide the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryanprince (talkcontribs) 23:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Ja tebi kazem genetika ima da stoji na stranici Serbs kao sto je i uvjek stojala. To sto ima linkovano nema veze, mnoge stvari imaju svoju posebnu stranicu pa ih ima u odredjenoj kolicini i u drugim clancima. To sto tamo ima linkovano to niko i ne cita, samo ono sto stoji u glavnom clanku. I nemoj ti meni da govoris po poslednji put nista jer nije ti vikipedija od baba ostala pa da ti zavodis red ovdje. Nemoj da si mi slucajno undo jos jednom ono sto je lijepo referencirano jer cu festu da ti napravim odje jesi li me dobro cuo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryanprince (talkcontribs) 23:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


Good evening Zoupan. If you excuse me, I want to apologize for the vehement language I used in the former commentaries regarding the modifications of the Banat Uprising. As a proof of it, I thanked your creation of the Martolos article several times. Lastly I want also to clarify that I didn't notice the existence of your article until you asked to delete the one I created, hence I apologize for it as well. But I want to clarify also that I've explained reasonably in the articles I contributed to edit about the subject, that the name Vlach which referred to cattle breeding Serbs in Ottoman Balkans during that period, was not at all the Aromanian ethonym but only that of Eflakan social class. Regards.--Hasan-aga 20:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


Contacting you in order to prevent any escalation. For the moment please refrain from any move/edit wars: with regard to myself personally, I am very much willing to accept your position(s) and discuss the appropriate names per WP:NAME and Wikipedia naming guidelines in general. You are hopefully aware of the previous and long-standing WP:CONSENSUS on the naming of noble families from the city of Dubrovnik, and I believe you knew full well that the moves were (and are) opposed. I have restored the naming to the old format pending further discussion, research, and consensus.

Please do not interpret the latest edits as provocation, as I did not interpret yours - but merely as the restoration of the status quo ante of almost ten years. At all costs, refrain from extensive move-warring, as that will obviously necessitate my bringing up your conduct on a community noticeboard (again, not trying to be hostile, but obviously - please don't). -- Director (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Director: That is status quo ante according to you. Real status guo ante is the use of Latin/Italian. Note that your conduct might as well be brought up, instead, you could have called upon Dispute resolution, but it is obvious you are taking this personal. Continue discussion at Category talk:Ragusan noble families.--Zoupan 14:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what I mean by "status quo ante bellum" in this context. I mean merely that its the old-standing consensus version for ten years now, not whatever historical connotation you seem to imply. And, in that sense, it absolutely is the "real" status quo, not only because of the vast length of time it was on, but also because you know full well it was introduced by an old source-based WP:CONSENSUS of sorts, which you chose to ignore in favor of universal application of Italian names. Even in absurd cases, such as Gundulic. Along with universal "expand this from Italian" templates.
As regards "personal", let me assure you its far from anything of the sort. I am well aware of the complexity of the issue.
For a start, allow me to reaffirm Wikipedia naming policy in this regard. I'm sure you are fully aware that arguments from historicity, even if taken as valid, do not impact on the issue of the title. Its Mark Antony, not Marcus Antonius. Therefore I myself will certainly dismiss any such arguments out of hand on those grounds, so lets not waste time there.
If you believe at any point that my behavior is actionable in some way, be sure to immediately report me on the relevant admin noticeboard. In my personal opinion, however - this level of transparent, blatant POV-pushing, against old, long-standing consensus, across so many articles, can I think only be seen as a large-scale provocation. Not to speak of your non-arguments along the lines of "historicity", and the fact that you obviously created a parallel duplicate template to push the same POV... But lets not go there at this point. Like I said originally, I am merely restoring the status quo pending further discussion. While my mentioning the necessity of admin intervention in the case of a vast move war - is I think nothing more than a statement of the obvious. -- Director (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


If I may, I'd propose we settle the template issue first. Two points: a) we really shouldn't have duplication; b) the families have existed outside the Republic for some 200 years now, and were formal "nobility" for a hundred years since the fall of the Republic. As I see it we can either merge or not merge. If we merge, it would be inappropriate to refer to the merged template as "Republic of Ragusa topics", as the families have long since ceased to be the nobility of the Republic - they did not all throw themselves on a pyre when the French came. If we do not merge, then we should scrap the families list from your template. Your thoughts? -- Director (talk) 15:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I am willing to scrap that 10-year "concensus"; before I started to edit and boldly move them, they were mostly stubs or unreferenced articles not having been touched in years. I have no intention to report you, as I respect you for being one of the reasonable users in YU-territory. That is why we are having this discussion. I indeed see a major problem in the lack of historicity, regardless of policies (which do favour Latin/Italian in most, if not all cases). Continue the discussion at the talk page I linked. --Zoupan 15:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
a) I insist b) all families did not, only a minority entered the Habsburg nobility (and these were in fact new families, often merged, which could not be said to be the original families), the rest having died out or emigrated. The merged template lists nobility that existed at the time of the Republic, why would we list in any other way? The families that existed during the Illyrian Provinces, from Ragusa, should be listed with others in a "Nobility"-section at that page. --Zoupan 15:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think "I respect you for not being unreasonable like most of your compatriots" is a good way to say something nice about someone. Do you? Doesn't it look like an expression of nationalist prejudice and bigotry? At least you're honest... :) If it helps, I'm mostly northern Italian by ancestry (da Vicensa).
I'm not going to pretend the old "consensus" wasn't arbitrary, but I must remind you that it was not really a matter of choice: nobody knew how to solve this with regard to Wikipedia policy. I think once you start doing proper SETs you'll see what I mean. For the vast majority of these articles, its either shut one eye and just give them a title - or deletion. If I recall - only two arguably meet WP:N requirements, if applied strictly.
a) Its not a matter of anyone insisting. Its against the Manual of Style. b) The families merged numerous times and that well before the fall of the Republic. In fact, they were more-or-less one massive, horribly-inbred family by the 1800s... Its against the MoS to have one template listing all families, and another listing almost all the families. -- Director (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
You know very well what I meant, YU-territory (which is what I said) is prone to just that, I would appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth. a) If the scope of the articles is their Ragusan nobility status, and not stubs with geneaologies of Austrian cadet branches, one template is enough. b) 1800s. The post-Ragusan nobility did not encompass almost all families.--Zoupan 16:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


If you are from Serbia, can you please tell me if Xhamadan is at a status where I can think about GA? Of course in your spare time, I don't want by any means to impose. Also, I have seen a picture of Nicola Tesla, and he was wearing a xhamadan and tirqe (pants), which were widespread costumes in the western Balkans (Serbs, Montenegrins, Albanians, Macedonians were wearing them, and given his Montenegrin origins, there is nothing to be surprized). I would feel much indebted if you could bring some Serbian sources to the article, if you have anything. I feel like my article is Albanian oriented, but eventually this sort of clothing was not purely Albanian. I am referring to this picture by the way, and you can tell that the Serbian xhamadan is unrelated to the Albanian one, however, perhaps there should be some way into expanding the article of Jelick for the Balkans. Forgive me in advance if you are not into fashion at all. --MorenaReka (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Koja e Kucit[edit]

Is there nothing you can reuse from Koka e Kucit and merge it with the existing article? I see a lot of information there. --Mondiad (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


In your RMs, please include links to your Google Books SETs, and make sure you do not post any figures that include non-English-language hits: remember that the goal is to find the most common term in English use. If the figures are low, consider calling for deletion rather than a requested move. And most importantly - don't overdo it. Posting 20 RMs at the same time can be disruptive. -- Director (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Advice via the move request on Roller skates[edit]

I am currently trying to deal with a plural naming convention problem involving four articles:

There seem to have been multiple move requests (on both sides of the issue), whether they should be plural or singular, However, it seems that the ice skating crowd always seems to lean toward the naming convention which technically should be singular, while the roller crowd says that it is going too far with the naming convention rules as they are always used in pairs.

My question is this: as the move requests seem to be blocked by non-consensus on both sets of pages, how in the world am I supposed to get both sets of pages to use the same convention? Clearly both sides cannot be right and personally, although I side on the singular, as I argued in the most recent move request here, I agree that it is a bit of a grey area, and it could be that 'ice skate' and 'figure skate' should instead to be changed to the plural.

Where is the best location to bring up a discussion to decide what naming convention should be used for all four articles? The requested moves board has so far been unhelpful in resolving this problem so I am unsure of how to proceed, and I hoped you could offer insight.  InsertCleverPhraseHere InsertTalkHere  13:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Jagodic Kuridza[edit]

So what if he was born in Zadar? He was born to ethnic Serbs. If you have some source that he is a Croat than please provide that... also he did not emigrate to Serbia, he left Croatia because of war so he is a refugee.--Bozalegenda (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Bozalegenda: Yes? We do currently not have a category which lists ethnic Serb refugees from Croatia in Serbia, thus, the Category:Croatian emigrants to Serbia should suffice, seemingly better than Category:Serbian people of Croatian descent.--Zoupan 20:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Many thanks for your untiring contributions to Balkan articles In ictu oculi (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: Thank you very much! I appreciate it.--Zoupan 20:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Google Books[edit]

The book you are looking for is in no preview format at Google Books. Searching at Questia or other places may help you.Olmcx (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

All sources speak about his Albanian and Moldovan origin. Why to add that his origin is still unclear? Because you want to see him a Greek or because you don't want to see him Albanian? You said Lupu had Greek identity. Can I read your sources please?Olmcx (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015[edit]

Hello, about Srđan Aleksić[edit]

I would like you to join the talk on this dispute about the state in which is Trebinje at that time. Talk:Srđan Aleksić Cheers. Hazbulator™ 19:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


I've never noticed that Himara meets the overwhelming majority of hits. Since there wasn't the slightest objection, I've already proccedded to the move.Alexikoua (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
For your huge contributions in the Balkans area, your diligence, and also your continuous search for the truth. Marry Christmass! MorenaReka (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's greetings![edit]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Why did you add "ma sono greco in tutto e per tutto" from the Gazzetta article as a source? You do realize you, that in the same article, it reads "centrocampista greco di origine albanese"? Do I need to remind you about "Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source"? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


Congratulation for your recent successful effort to fill an spi: Rolandi+ & co. Also take in mind that the blocked users coordinate their effort off-wiki (via-mail) with another (still active) editor, who is in desperate need to recruit co-nationals.Alexikoua (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Sokollu Mehmed Pasha[edit]

But, Mehmed-paša Sokolović redirects to Sokollu Mehmed Pasha

So I placed:

"Mehmed-paša Sokolović" redirects here. (talk) 12:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@ No distinguishing is needed, as there is only one Mehmed-paša Sokolović/Sokollu Mehmed Pasha and no disambiguation is used. That template is not used in that way.--Zoupan 12:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Clarification at Sanjak of Ohrid[edit]

Hi Zoupan,

I saw that you requested clarification about Sanjak of Ohrid being initially referred to as Sanjak of Bitola/Monastir. I am not native English language speaker so I was probably unclear there. The text in the appropriate section says: "At the beginning its county town was Bitola and later it was Ohrid, so it was also referred to in sources as Sanjak of Monastir or Sanjak of Bitola."

Because initially the county town of this sanjak was Bitola, some sources referred to it as Sanjak of Bitola/Monastir. Help with more clear wording would be appreciated. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Warning: restoring prod tags[edit]

According to WP:PROD and WP:Deletion policy, you may remove a tag if you object to deletion ...for any reason. Anyone may still take the article to AfD. I have no opinion on the underlying issue. & I do not consider myself involved, DGG ( talk ) 15:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't think that the objection was substantiated, that's why I restored it and called you to explain on the talk page first, instead of removing without commenting. It's now on AfD.--Zoupan 13:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Josip Broz Tito[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Josip Broz Tito. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Kosovo Liberation Army[edit]

You actually warned me for cleaning up sections referring to dead serbian media links? What about updating the links? I am going to remove those sections due to dead links. You are welcomed to revert those changes but then update the links as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Fez120 (talkcontribs)

No. I warned you because you cannot go and remove whole sections based on that it would be "cleaning up". You have terribly misunderstood what "cleanup" means. If you have problems with, and object to the section, use the talk page and state your stance. You do not blank sections like that. What about updating the links? --Zoupan 22:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Kosovan local elections, 2007 now filed as a move request[edit]

See Talk:Kosovan local elections, 2007. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


Hi Zoupan,

I noticed you created an article on Catholicisation. I started a draft in my userspace which is connected with this topic (link). If you think you can use some of its material for the article you created feel free to do so, though it might be too narrow for it. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator: Hi! I will history merge it so that your contribution will not be lost! Thank you.--Zoupan 01:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
@Antidiskriminator: Actually, It would be best if you moved your draft to Catholicisation of Serbs, as the draft has this subject — that way it isn't lost.--Zoupan 01:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I wich I had enough time for that. Also, it would violate my tb.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
@Antidiskriminator: I forgot about your tb, but it does only include Serbs and Serbia 1900-current. Your article deals with pre-1900 history.--Zoupan 16:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
My draft does include only Serbs and Serbia 1900-current, but topic of Catholicisation of Serbs includes post 1900 period.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Zdravko Colic[edit]

Hi Zoupan...could you please report vandalism at Zdravko Colic to administrators. It would be good to someone lock this page for ip users. Some editor is removing his Serbian nationality. Thank you very much.-- (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Čakr-paša[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

grandfather did something wrong[edit]

I've reverted a substantial chunk of this edit because it amounted to character assassination. If there's no obvious relation between the actions of an ancestor and the subject of an article, it makes absolutely no sense to include it and instead amounts to a violation of the spirit of Wikipedia:Attack page. Given that this is in WP:ARBMAC area and that the topic is expressly controversial, you should really have known better. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Joy: Well, Milan did claim the aristocratic title, and the source gives some insight in this status of the family. The story about his grandfather relates to the "forgotten noble status" ( I siromašni su Šufflavi tražili egzistenciju po gradovima ... Plemstvo je njegovo bilo zaboravljeno, pa je s ostalim napadačima u okovima (plemića se u pravilu nije bacalo u okove!). The Attack page-policy clearly says: "that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material which is entirely negative in tone and unsourced." I think that you're wrong, and that you should know better when reviewing biographical material. Unless you prove that Josip Horvat made up the story to discredit Šufflay I see no problem in the inclusion of his grandfather. ---Zoupan 16:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Does the source say that the aristocratic title of Milan Šufflay had something to do with a 'pogrom of priests'? It doesn't, doesn't it? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Laksa[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Laksa. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Cubrilovic's memorandum[edit]

I was thinking maybe you can have a look at the The expulsion of the Albanians article refering to Cubricovic's book of 1937. Maybe you can list out a few points what is not neutral. It's a short article.
Thanks. --Mondiad (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Special Anti-Terrorist Unit (Serbia)[edit]

Don't delete sections! If you want to make any changes beside technical improvements please use Talk page to suggest that change first. You may be blocked from editing. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fez120 (talkcontribs) 18:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Fez120: You have been warned. You refuse to discuss. Stop your behaviour.--Zoupan 22:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The expulsion of the Albanians - Warning[edit]

Stop your bias changes and camouflaging it with "minor" change BS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fez120 (talkcontribs) 18:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm issuing you the second warning regarding your bias changes to this article. Do not continue making these changes. The expulsion of the Albanians was not an answer to Greater Albania nor Albanian irredentism it was purely a plan from Belgrad to occupy Albanian territories. If you would like to discuss the origin of the Albanians and the autochthonous issue please discuss it in other articles or in talk first. This is, upon your request, all proof you need of your bias changes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fez120 (talkcontribs) 09:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Unconstructive behaviour[edit]

I explained it just fine. You are changing everything in that article and making more "neutral" e.g. instead of "Hitler gassed Jews in great numbers" to "Hitler solved the Jew immigration problem". And also you are making to huge of changes. You can't change a whole article. Make small changes in section one at a time so that we have the chance to accept/decline that change. Fez120 (talk) 11:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Zoupan, I'm sure you're aware, but I wanted to note that you're at three reverts on Special Anti-Terrorist Unit (Serbia). I've warned Fez120 about this too. Since he's not engaging on the talk page, you might consider reporting him at WP:ANI. clpo13(talk) 18:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Zdravko Colic again[edit]

Could you please report to administrators edit war at Zdravko Colic. And this time they should lock for all times not just temporary. Only autoconfirmed users. Thank you very much.-- (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@ I'm awaiting AIAV. Also, please log in or create an account.--Zoupan 15:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Spiro Crne[edit]

Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, refactoring others' talk page comments...[edit] a very basic no-no. And edit warring over it? I think you need to re-evaluate. You have been here too long for this sort of thing. ScrpIronIV 22:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Uprising in Banat[edit]

I want to apologize for the mistake regarding the quote I atributed to Vjekoslav Klaić; since it wasn't from Klaić third volume of Povijest Hrvata but it was rather from Ferdo Šišić's Pregled povijesti hrvatskoga naroda. Nevertheless I've corrected the mistake at each article it was to be corrected. I must say that it was due to some confusion when managing the references from different sources and books. Thanks for the reminding anyway.--Hasan-aga

Please comment on Talk:List of state leaders in 2016[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of state leaders in 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sinbad Barron (talk) 10:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

My past[edit]

I am not User:BesnikAvdiaj1 and I never claimed to be. I was User:Sinbad Barron in 2008 and then my new accounts got blocked one by one for sockpuppetry. I am not active legitemaely again but I have to tell you that no I could not have defended myself in the page you deleted. It's not a question of being monitored, but any attempt to keep an article relating to Balkans is a violation of my topic ban and later down the line someone can use it against me and it would have me blocked permanently. Sinbad Barron (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Sinbad Barron, the sockmaster account (the oldest) must have a tag. Interesting, that means that you "stole" Besnik's work without attribution, claiming that you worked on Costume of Gjakova?--Zoupan 12:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Cannot comment too much, but basicly no, I took it as a basis. I added more bits to mine and made edits to his bits which didn't belong on an article. As I said, I don't have access to my own any more so it's water off a duck's back. I am prepared to move on and forget it. Sinbad Barron (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1st century[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1st century. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Opdire657 (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Terrorism in the Balkans[edit]

"don't see copy-paste from another scope as relevant"

Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is defined as the use of violence, or threatened use of violence, in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. (

Those are facts. You finding terrorist actions irrelevant is an opinion. If you're going to have a "Terrorism in the Balkans" page and only include radical Islamist terrorism, then you are doing the world an injustice and, with all due respect, are extremely biased.

- Bideutter

Please comment on Talk:Lord Uxbridge's leg[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lord Uxbridge's leg. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Cyrillic in references?[edit]

Thanks a lot for taking interest! I was wondering about our different approaches to citing works originally published in Cyrillic. I normally transliterate Serbian Cyrillic titles into Croatian Latin for the sake of the readers; it's easily and commonly done in Serbo-Croatian language (involving no actual translation), and it makes the reference system more accessible (in some ways at least). Here I noticed you not only kept the title in the original script, but also the names of authors and publishers. Was that intentional or did you copy-paste it from somewhere else? Is that your personal preference or is this approach advised? Surtsicna (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

(Talk-page stalker) Serbian language is never transliterated but simply writen in Serbo-Croatian Latin. Gajs Latin scrypt was equally addopted by Croatian and Serbian literature, Serbian even adopted some Gaj letters earlier than Croatian. FkpCascais (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Our article on transliteration defines it simply as "the conversion of a text from one script to another", in this case Vuk's Cyrillic to Gaj's Latin. The article does not specify that the other script must be non-native for it to be transliteration. So, if I convert Југославија to Jugoslavija, am I not transliterating? Surtsicna (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The reference uses Cyrillic; I did not change it. I think that names of authors and location should be in Latin, but when the Gbook uses Cyrillic, the name of the work and publisher could still be in Cyrillic.--Zoupan 16:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I now see there's a parameter in Template:Cite book that might provide a solution if deemed necessary. Surtsicna (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Re:Serb Muslims[edit]

So why the same infobox exist on the page: Croat Muslims, using same logic? --Djidash (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Djidash: the article is not the same.--Zoupan 22:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited -drag, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dragana (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, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Bajo Pivljanin[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Coverage of Google Street View[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Coverage of Google Street View. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Kuči (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Katun
Vojislav (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Vojislava
Wacław (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Wacław Leszczyński
Water in Pristina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Gračanica

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC[edit]

In case you're interested in voicing an opinion, there's an RfC being held here. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Wholesale whitewashing[edit]

A user going by the name of Crovata has practically erased Category:Serb clans, categorizing all as being Montenegrin. This bears the characteristics of wholesale whitewashing. 23 editor (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Move war[edit]

Hi, Zoupan. I'm aware of Crovata's disruptive behavior but getting into a move war at Serb clans will only get both parties penalized. I'm fairly certain that the consensus decision will not be in the aforementioned user's favour. Hence, there is no pointing risking a potential block. Yours, 23 editor (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Tribes of Old Montenegro, Brda, Old Herzegovina and Primorje[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Tribes of Old Montenegro, Brda, Old Herzegovina and Primorje.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. --

Also, start to act like a neutral editor by WP:NPOV rules, and not national-ideological fool. It does not fit you.--Crovata (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Crovata (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction[edit]

Commons-emblem-hand.svg The following sanction now applies to you:

You may make no more than one revert every 24 hours to a page within the Balkans topic area for a period of 1 week, subject to the standard exceptions

You have been sanctioned due to repeated edit warring

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. slakrtalk / 04:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Himara Revolt[edit]

I found some information about the military developments during this event. Nice job creating this one.Alexikoua (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Illyrians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bela Crkva (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) 11:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

South Slavs[edit]

Hello Zoupan

It appears that you have changed my latest edit about Croatia in the South Slav article. As formally requested please improve my latest edit rather than entirely dismissing it for whatever reason. If the article doesn't please you then open up a dialog and lets discuss about the edit in a civil manor. Further vandalization will be reported to administrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prophet of Truth and Knowledge (talkcontribs) 14:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

See User_talk:Prophet_of_Truth_and_Knowledge#South_Slavs.--Zoupan 17:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Trump: The Art of the Deal[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trump: The Art of the Deal. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited White Carniola, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Slatina (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) 09:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:DRN regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Tribes of_Old_Montenegro,_Brda,_Old_Herzegovina_and_Primorje".The discussion is about the topic Tribes of Old Montenegro, Brda, Old Herzegovina and Primorje. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!--Crovata (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

removal of former nation infobox?[edit]

Wanted to ask why you removed the infobox on the pageDardani (Europe) as the page describes a former nation.Virophage (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Scranton General Strike[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Scranton General Strike. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Gubin, Bosnia and Herzegovina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Kalaba
Pajčin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Pavle

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey[edit]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

  • Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Paskal Sotirovski (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bela Crkva
People's Radical Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Milan Obrenović

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Message regarding Jovan Vladimir[edit]

Information icon "Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jovan Vladimir, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you."--Zoupan 12:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Zoupan, I believed your message reached the wrong user. I can assure you that I have never visited the wikipedia page that you were referring to. Anyway, I hope that the problem has been resolved. Also, this is the first time that I reply to a talk message, please forgive me if I replied to you in the wrong place. Bye! -- (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Narentines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Langobardia (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) 09:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hookah may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ा ([[Devanagari]])</small> حقّہ <small>([[Nastaleeq]])</small>[hukkā], ''{{transl|ar|DIN|ḥuqqah}}'')

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pal Dukagjini (disambiguation)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Pal Dukagjini (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A disambiguation page with only one blue link, the other is a redlink with a supporting blue link

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- GB fan 18:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Historiography on Carlism during the Francoist era[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Historiography on Carlism during the Francoist era. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 25 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:European migrant crisis[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:European migrant crisis. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Christian nationalism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Realism (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) 09:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


Hi Zoupan. I made some edits to the page Serbs recently and I saw all my changes had been immediately reverted. I spent a lot of time trying to give the page more detail and I ensured that all the information I wrote was clearly referenced and relevant to the page. Also, in the ethnology section, I added a paragraph that distinguished between Serbs and Serbians, using a number of sources and the information on other Wikipedia pages. I was just wondering why the information was deleted and what I can do in the future to improve as this really dented my confidence. Thanks. Ninjakick121 (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You re right ...[edit]

You are right, things like that should be discussed first. But, old titles were so factually wrong ... Please, if you have time, look at the page "Clerico-nationalism" ... I left some remarks in Talk section of that page regarding the title because I think that page should be renamed too. Thanks. Sorabino (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Serbs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Igor (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) 10:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


I rote that text in "Eparchy of Raška and Prisren" as you can see in the history of that page an I am using it now to create more detailed information for the page "Eparchy of Lipljan". It will take me few days to finish the job. In any case, Eparchy of Lipljan existed for 8 centuries as an independent eparchy, so it should have its page, dont try to kill it for your own political agenda, I will inform administrators if you try to do that. Sorabino (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:History of Gibraltar[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of Gibraltar. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Stop abusing the Albanian wikipedia[edit]

Stop removing the albanian history of certain events. It is obvious you are here to insult everything that is not serbian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theedardanian (talkcontribs) 17:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Jashar Rexhepagiq (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Plav
Principality of Arbanon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Devoll

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Višeslav of Serbia[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Višeslav of Serbia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Normally the bot would place this notice on your page, that however, seems to have failed. So I'll place the notification instead. I did a tabled review of the article a couple days ago, hopefully you see this message. The article has a fair bit of work that needs doing mostly on GA1a and b, though a few other things also need addressing. Thanks for taking on such a difficult topic, I imagine that records a fairly sparse due to the time period and subject. Wish you all the best, Mr rnddude (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Title changes[edit]

I've noticed a user going by the name of Sorabino changing the article titles of Serbian Patriarchs without consensus; almost certainly in violation of MOS and Wiki naming styles. Your thoughts? 23 editor (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@23 editor: The user has no intention of discussing in a civilized manner. I was accused of having an agenda, anti-Orthodox I believe. You give it a try. He doesn't go by regular procedures.--Zoupan 00:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Zoupan, what are you doing? Why are you removing Serbian name from the titles of pages of Serbian Patriarchs? Please, look at the talk sections of pages with incorrect titles: Patriarch Pavle of Serbia and Patriarch Irinej of Serbia. My arguments for correcting errors and keeping the correct Serbian Patriarchal title in the page titles are: First, we should not use fantasy titles that never existed! Heads of Serbian Orthodox Church are called Serbian Patriarchs, not "Patriarchs of Serbia" ! Such title never existed in history and it does not exist now. No one was ever called "Патријарх Србије" (Patriarch of Serbia). The title is: Патријарх српски (Serbian Patriarch): Патриарх (noun - Patriarch) and српски (adjective - Serbian). Please, just look at the Google Books for so-called title "Патријарх Србије" : 9 (nine) hits :) And real title: Патријарх српски - 3260 hits !!! This pages should have titles: "Serbian Patriarch Pavle" and "Serbian Patriarch Irinej" because they were "Serbian Patriarchs" and not "Patriarchs of Serbia". Same goes for all other Serbian Patriarchs, from the fondation of the Serbian Patriarchate to the present day. Please, go to web page of Serbian Orthodox Church in English: there you have an official translation of the Constitution of SOC, look at the article 11 that defines the title of the patriarch as: "Archbishop of Pech, Metropolitan of Belgrade and Karlovac, and Serbian Patriarch"! As you can see, title is: Serbian Patriarch, not "Patriarch of Serbia". ( Sorabino (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
@Sorabino: You should not move without discussing. Nowhere is "Greek Patriarch X" or "Armenian Patriarch X" used, so why should the Serbian be special? I agree the title in English is problematic. Start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Serbia.--Zoupan 02:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • You ask what is special? That is actually a very good question. In Eastern Orthodox Church, every particular autocephalous church has its exclusive jurisdiction over its patrimonial territory that is canonically recognized by all other autocephalous churches. For example, patrimonial jurisdiction of Bulgarian Patriarch is Bulgaria, of Romanian Patriarch is Romania and so on ... Canonically recognized patrimonial jurisdiction of Serbian Patriarch is: Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia and Republic of Macedonia. So, Serbian Patriarch can not be styled just "Patriarch of Serbia" even in colloquial terms. There is another issue here. I asked the editor "Vanjagenije" is he aware of anti-Serbian connotations of reducing the title of Serbian Patriarch just on Serbia? If you are also not aware of that, It is my duty to inform you that many adversaries of Serbian People are claiming that jurisdiction of our Patriarch should be confined to Serbia only and they are advocating partition of Serbian Orthodox Church. That is additional reason to change false title "Patriarch of Serbia". Please, look at this issue in more detail, solutions are very easy. Sorabino (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
@Sorabino: What about simply "Patriarch X" or "X (Serbian patriarch)" or "X (patriarch)"? Clergy are never prefixed the way you propose.--Zoupan 00:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:McCarthyism[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:McCarthyism. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


Hello Zoupan,

I noticed you created an article about Ninac Vukoslavić. Quick GBS present his surname as Vukosalić. What do you think?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator: I can't find any hit with his surname as Вукосалић. We could move it to Ninac (scribe)?--Zoupan 20:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Try Cyrrilic - Вукосалић. I am in a hurry right now, but if you can't find it, I will present you several Вукосалић GBS hits a little later.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I did, and I only found hits for Bosnian nobility. I suggest we skip the surname which is rendered in various ways. I've expanded the annotation on the name though.--Zoupan 20:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Here are several works I found on GBS:
  • КСД (1941). Glas. U Kralj.-srpskoj državnoj štampariji. p. 95. Скендербег је имао око 1450 год. канцелара Нинца Вукосалића, кога је слао као свог посланика у Дубровник 
  • Weidmann (1899). Archiv für slavische Philologie. Weidmann. p. 92. ...von seinem »djak« oder »kanziljer« Ninac Vukosalic, ja ein Schreiben der Ragusaner an Eaiser Sigismund von 1434 (vgl...) 
  • Ajeti, Idriz (1969). Simpoziumi per Skenderbeun. Instituti Albanologjik. p. 226. Ninac Vukosalic javlja se kao Skenderbegov dijak око 1450. godine, a njegova poslednja saeuvana isprava je iz 1459. 
I think that moving to Ninac (scribe) would be violation of MOSBIO which I think somewhere says that title of article should be name and surname of the person, if this person is referred to in sources with its name and surname. What do you think about renaming to Ninac Vukosalić?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough; Vukoslavić seems to be false. Done.--Zoupan 21:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Philippines v. China[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Philippines v. China. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)