Template:UserTalkArchiveBox

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 bridges in Bosnia and Herzegovina

added a link pointing to Eiffel

List of dukes of Bosnia

added a link pointing to Ostoja

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this some sort of sarcastic joke ?--Santasa99 (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was unintentional. Since your talk page didn't have a whole lot, I assumed that you were a new user.

Had I known that you were experienced, I would have written a message saying that the tagging you did here was unwarranted. There is an entire section on Identification theories, and plenty of citations given. If that doesn't satisfy you, please raise an issue on the talk page instead of doing drive-by tagging. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright - fringe and mythomania trying to pass as legitimate sci.article has always captivated my full attention, so if I get more interested further into issue, I promise, don't worry, I'm terribly stubborn and know wikipedia all too well.--Santasa99 (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Santasa99. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

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

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to Fake news website does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history. Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Sagecandor (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I have to express appreciation to this nice editor, who spend his valuable time on moi.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Santasa99 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaaaaaaand, by the way, who edits Wikipedia since 17 November 2016 ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santasa99 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Santasa99.
I suggest it might be more useful to actually try using edit summaries (and signing your comments) rather than, AGF, apparently making fun of an editor trying to give you good advice, eg where you have altered a templated 'warning'. It's probably better to remove it entirely, rather than change it. Just a suggestion, regards, 220 of ^Borg 05:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:TPO 220 of ^Borg 05:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Template:Genocide topics does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have already been asked to use edit summaries, yet failed to do so even after you were asked to do so by editors following WP:AGF. Make it clear what your changes are, and do not use edit summaries breaching WP:CIVIL as you did here. Please familiarise yourself with WP:SHOUTING and try to modify your behaviour in order to treat others with the same respect that you expect to be accorded to you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anachronism in title has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Santasa99. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

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

Category:Destruction of mosques by communists, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Batalo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Turbe

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please add clear references to all articles you create, including Dubravko Lovrenović. Other Wikipedias aren't reliable sources. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2011 Sarajevo embassy attack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Serbian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Subterranean river, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Santasa99,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Žabljak (Livanjsko Polje) for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, Žabljak (river).

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can , but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Xevus11 (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC) @Xevus11: You are right, no objections what so ever, I copy/pasted this new Infobox to combine with an old one - I will vest much more time in article, like in all river-stubs in the area, sometime in the future. And I was really puzzled with it, since I was absolutely sure that page exists but I was unable to find it, so I concluded that maybe I was referring it to Commons. Anyhow, sorry for inconvenience.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is odd, this new Infobox that I created, maybe an hour or so ago, is also inserted into old page ? Is that your edit? Nevermind, it looks OK.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its cool, and yes, I moved the infobox over. It was a nice infobox, figured there was no reason to have it deleted. Xevus11 (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I lost it, completely - I just checked history on the "old" article and realized that I was editing it just prior to creating this completly new one, crazy huh!? But it happens, I guess. And thanks on your intention to preserv infobox - I always first create and place nicely put together infobox on those river-pages I want to work and expend on it later on.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Santasa99. I've deleted the article. I considered WP:REDIRECT-ing it to Žabljak (river) but that wouldn't have followed the Wikipedia:Redirects from foreign languages guideline. Please let me know if you'd like to recover it, and I'll move it into your userspace. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Shirt58:, is this ping working at all - thanks for your input. I don't see need for any of that, it was only infobox worth saving, also I am considering to change title from "Žabljak (river)" to this deleted "Žabljak (Livanjsko Polje)" later when, and if, article gets little bit bigger (the reason for that is that in this particular area all the rivers are "sinking rivers" that go underground beneath Livanjsko Polje, and all the article created about these rivers are titled that way). Thanks again, and see you around.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bistrica (Livanjsko Polje), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kamešnica (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Miljacka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Pale, Stari Grad and Novi Grad

Blidinje Nature Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Grabovica

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Čude Canyon, Santasa99!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please add your sources.

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ca you please respond? Boleyn (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Balkana Lake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vrbas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Vilina Pećina requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://devonkarst.org.uk/Cernicko%20Polje/CP3.Karst%20Springs_hp.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted 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. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- please don't edit war - if you disagree with another editor's edits, please discuss it on the article Talk page - Wikipedia:Edit warring - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Santasa99. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Ćeveljuša (waterfall), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Novotel Sarajevo Bristol, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 11:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Rosensaft M photo Page 1 Image 0001 (cropped).jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Santasa99. You have new messages at Whpq's talk page.
Message added 22:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Whpq (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Santasa99. You have new messages at Whpq's talk page.
Message added 01:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Whpq (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you been blanking categories such as Category:Islamic terrorism in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina Muslim Brotherhood members. Categories should not be blanked without good reason and preferably after prior discussion. You also have not given any reason why you are emptying these categories. Please explain Inter&anthro (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Inter&anthro (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention to edit war with you, please read Wikipedia's guidelines concerning categorization. There is a discussion started on the notice board concerning this which you are free to participate in. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am in a Technical and Professional Editing Course where our current project is to edit a couple Wikipedia pages. One of my pages is Desilo, which I noticed that you created a few years ago, and I just wanted to let you know that I'll be working on the article for the next couple of weeks. It seems like the article currently has a lot of content directly from one of the citations, and my current plan is to reorganize the article and give it more of an encyclopedic, neutral perspective. If you have any insight or editorial suggestions for me, it'd be great to hear your input. Slaurensk (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Bosnia and Herzegovina Barnstar of National Merit
		For your tenacity and perseverance to do what is right against the odds. Keep it up! Resnjari (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bosnia and Herzegovina historic noble families has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "first log into the project with account, second don't remove contemporary research ref's, & stop resorting to double edits to make undo more complicated because these moves can be viewed as "bad faith" & edits & even as vandalism, last but not least, Ferdo Šišić's work is sound historiographically but is loaded ideologically - again, first log-in with your account unless you want your significant edits to be viewed as vandalism".

First, I have no obligation to Log In to edit an article since it's a project open to everyone regardless. If it wasn't, they wouldn't allow an unregistered user to edit it in the first place. Secondly, I never removed any reference on the article since I started editing. You're the one removing references (the Pal Engel one) and seem to be downplaying information you do not like. What I'm adding in the article is represented in WP:Reliable sources, and I merely reverted it back to how it was before you started making changes to it, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hrvatini%C4%87&oldid=855529021 Thirdly, you can't revert someone purely on your perception of "bad faith", and you should probably check Wikipedia:Vandalism. Moreover, you charging Šišić with being "ideologically" loaded, yet he's merely one of several sources used to support what I'm adding to the page. Is Pal Engel, who claims Bosnia (which Hrvatinić formed a part of as stated in the article) was part of the Šubić domain until 1322, also "ideologically loaded"? Is Nada Klaić, who claims Hrvatin (founder) was a vassal of Šubić, also ideologically loaded? Is the Croatian Biographical Lexicon (http://hbl.lzmk.hr/clanak.aspx?id=89 Hrvatinići), which claims "Nakon toga, odigrali su važnu ulogu na poč. XIV. st. u svezi sa širenjem u Bosni vlasti Bribirskih, s kojima su više puta sređivali svoje vazalne odnose. Ban Pavao I. Bribirski s braćom izdao im je više isprava (1301, 1304. i 1305) kojim je potvrđivao sve njihove posjede, jamčio njihovu cjelovitost i obećavao zaštitu ako ih tko napadne." also ideologically loaded?

You also state: "Opinionated edit based on personal conclusion from cherry picked lines of text in one book - Hrvoje was no vassal to any of Šubić's, he was vassale to Sigismund of Luxembourg and Ladislaus of Naples Ladislaus of Naples"

Except the article is about the Hrvatinić noble family in general, not Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić specifically. And it's not "cherry-picking" when it's explicitly supported by other sources. 141.138.39.174 (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, Sisic's and naturschik Engel's ideologically loaded language becomes palpable when you decide to use it to reinterpret and reformat article in such a manner to appear that Hrvatincs were somehow Croatians after all. Everything you want to write about vassalage in the first paragraph is already placed in second, and is formulated in pretty neutral fashion. More importantly, there is a sense that you are deliberately shifting gravity from most notable member of the family to nearly unknown predecesors of Hrvoje, just to make a point with Subic and his significance. But, as it is visible from second paragraph that issue is resolved, so there is no need to repeat in every paragraph that he was vassal to Subic, that Subic controlled this part and that part, and especially, there is no need to cram Infobox with titles (particularly those family never acquired) and references.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And, you continue to remove claims which are represented in reliable sources. I don't think anyone, including Fine, disputes the fact that the person in question used the title "ban". Using your metric, we can also dispute John Van Antwerp Fine Jr. (who is extensively used in the article) as a Yugo-centric political ideologist, see: http://hrcak.srce.hr/49246?lang=en (especially pages 3 and 4) And again, the article deals with the Hrvatinić noble family, whereas Hrvatin is considered its founder, making him important for the article's subject. There is already a seperate article dedicated to Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić, rendering your "complaint" irrelevant. Nobody is claiming they were "Croats", but that they were vassals of Šubić of Croatia. It makes about as much sense as claiming they were Hungarians. So, I'll keep rv-ing. 141.138.39.174 (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, this shows that you actually understand very well this entire matter, when it suits your perspective. To expend on it I will say that historiography, although academic discipline, still isn't exact science, so historians are allowed to have their many different view-points. However, we don't use J.A.Fine to manipulate and reinterpret some of his points to prove that Croats are "invented" ethnicity, or that Croats and Bosniaks are just Catholic and Muslim Serbs. Similarly, we don't cite directly out of Sisic's and Nada's Klajic own grandfather Vjekoslav's works to prove that Bosnians are just "Croatians" and that, by extension, Bosnia is just one of "Croatian lands" ("hrvatske zemlje") to which Croatia should extend its "Croatian state right" ("hrvatsko drzavno pravo"). Also, as I said already, members of the family never acquired title "ban", even if some, and I don't know which, 19th-20th century historians tried to interpret titles that way, they were "knez" (of Donji Kraju), "dukes" (of Split) and "grand dukes" (of Bosnia), and yes, Ladislaus gave Hrvoje office of sort of "viceroy" which Fine calls "Ladislaus deputy in the region".--౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Grbavica (song).

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Discogs is not a reliable source (see WP:RSP), please replace citations to it with citations to reliable sources.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before you start deleting categories on Hrvatinic family article and Hrvoje Vukcic Hrvatinic, you should actually discuss these changes and explain your rationale. What you are doing is a textbook nationalist POV pushing, I am not sure you are aware of this but those two articles fall under the WP:ARBCOM and POV-pushing on Balkan related articles can result in severe consequences for you on Wikipedia. Shokatz (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]