User talk:Zoupan

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


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 1,029 articles and 55 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= scheme (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.

Disambiguation link notification for March 26[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.

John Spata (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Acheloos and Angelokastron
Velikaš (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Croatia in the Middle Ages

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

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)


  • I have an explanation about Askhali's origin on talk-page of Tallava [1] -- (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 2[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.

Symbols of Serbia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Script and Kolo
Atanasije (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Athanasios
Serbian nobility in the Middle Ages (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Despot
Spata family (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Acheloos

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9[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.

Dragoš (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Danilo II
Novak Grebostrek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Danilo II
Principality of Serbia (medieval) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Višeslav

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for the stub Sarı Süleyman Bey. I couldn't understand what Mahmudis stand for. Can you expand the article to include Mahmudis ? Cheers.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Kurdish tribe.--Zoupan 17:41, 13 April 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)

Reference errors on 14 April[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) 00:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16[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.

Brda, Montenegro (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bjelopavlići
Jovan Radonjić (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bjelopavlići
Kuči (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bjelopavlići
Mehmed Pasha Bushati (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bjelopavlići
Mustafa Pasha Bushatli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Scutari
Neven Pajkić (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Phantom Punch
Prince-Bishopric of Montenegro (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Serdar
Saint Sava (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Studenica
Süleyman, sanjak-bey of Scutari (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Piperi

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 16 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)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23[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.

List of massacres in Yugoslavia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Motike and Novoselci
Binač, Vitina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Kosovo unrests
Laramans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Peja
Lefkada (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Walter of Brienne
Ljuba Čupa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Veles
Lukačević (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Lukač
Simonović (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Simon
Vitina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Letnica

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 23 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) [[2]]. 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)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Donja Dubnica, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jablanica and Toplica (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) 09:26, 30 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)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7[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.

Baceta (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Macedonia
Romanija (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Pale (town)
Serbs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Badnjak
Željko Ražnatović (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bijelo Brdo

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Milko Bjelica[edit]

I need to ask you why you made this edit[3]. 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)

Reference errors on 9 May[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) 00:35, 10 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)

Proposed deletion of List of Serbian-language journals[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article List of Serbian-language journals has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Uncertain collection of uncertain journals with uncertain names and uncertain histories...

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. Randykitty (talk) 00:07, 22 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)


Thanks for your contribution about the lede part. It appears you mistakenly restored the previous version in the history section.Alexikoua (talk) 14:30, 7 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)

Reference errors on 10 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) 00:33, 11 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)

Balsic Family[edit]

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= scheme (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? [4] --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)