User talk:Sideshow Bob/Archive2

Retirement

Look at your first contribution, and then look at your several last.

You are destroying my work. ;0)

At least promise that you'll be returning one day? --PaxEquilibrium 07:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict between me and you

I was just reverting the anon at the same time. ;)

Cheers!

P.S. Did you hear that Nebojsa Medojevic will run for President? --PaxEquilibrium 19:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I heard that Filip Vujanovic might not be the DPS representer. I also heard that Milo Djukanovic is going to make a re-run for President again (that's why he resigned, he's coming back). He was just reelected as DPS leader.

If Milo runs instead of Filip, Nebojsa is bound to win. However if he Filip runs again, I think there will be a truly Montenegrin-style epic clash (50%-55% for one) between the two...

Well considering that in several days they'll bring up the Constitution, I think there will be strong grounds for a Montenegrin-language Wikipedia. However it has come to my attention the Wikimedia committee's mention that the not a single Serbo-Croat Wikipedia will be created (any more; and that includes the non-existent Montenegrin). That doesn't mean of course that after the language's proclamation and officialization the project won't have my wholesome support.

Cheers! Mh, no biggy. I have "wiki-enemies" with Serbian, Croatian, Bosniak and even Montenegrin (I've had Albanian, but they're all banned now) nationalists, and I guess it's hard to fight them all (many see me as traitors - supporting them on one thing, than totally opposing them on another; because I try to stay in the middle). --PaxEquilibrium 19:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I know. Time passes so quickly (it feels to me like the night was in the streets was yesterday). ;) --PaxEquilibrium 19:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you consider Filip Vujanovic a Serbian nationalist because of the Ecclesiastic thing? --PaxEquilibrium 19:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Serbian List will not have a candidate. It itself adopted a policy of marginalism, accepting that the Serbs are a numerous nation in Montenegro (a bad thing to myself, further divisions), which would be insane for it to give President, giving up from NS's aims. And I think if there's a clash between Filip/Milo and Nebojsa, it's obvious they'll support Nebojsa - most probably *giving that necessary 50%+ push*.

That should not come as a shock. If you see my comments just prior to the referendum (between me and CrnaGora e.g.), when Serbian nationalists (User:Bormalagurski) mass-insulted me, you wouldn't be shocked.

I was (and AFAIK am still) a strong proponent of the razdruzenje of the dying non-functional 'mutant'. Svetozar Marovic was its practical dictator for God's sake! A restructuring of the state into a more functional one might've been interesting, but was far from the political reality. IMHO I've been urging the Montenegrin community in Serbia (~300,000) to drop the demands for rights to vote (since it would obviously fail then, duh). I myself had an incident with Slavenko Terzic (er, please don't ask).

Of course I wholesomely supported the independence of the Republics of Montenegro and Serbia, and my opinion has not changed one bit since the referendum. :) I have only afterwards remained harshly overcritic regarding how it was conducted... but now you get why I am a supporter of the Movement for Changes... right? :D Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 20:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

My general attitudes belong to neither side. The moment most Montenegrins realize like me that they must STOP constantly dividing into two *sides* (artificial non-useful creation) in the past 100 years, only then will Montenegro enter a stage of progress. My opinions are not ideological, but based on rationale. I noted that because Montenegro was already independent the moment I asked. E.g. you might've noticed that I wholesomely supported independence of Montenegro, I am neutral on the nationality and language issue - but I personally think it's foolish for those Serbs to identify themselves as such and can't really understand the Montenegrin language *need* (although basically do) and am practically allergic to the Montenegrin Orthodox Church. And those are all because of specific and individualized reasons - not because of any "aim".

Terzic is one of the leading Serbian Montenegrins. He's an academic, a very professed one - but a fierce Serb nationalist.

I never mentioned any opposition bloc - just the obvious fact that they'll all support a PzP candidate, rather than DPS. (duh) :) Cheers! --PaxEquilibrium 14:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

SNP

I have absolutely no personal bonds/sympathies with the Socialist People's Party. This has only got to do with my disappointment of the so-called "democratic" regime in Montenegro after 2000 and the evident fact that it became the better choice. However with the Movement for Changes at the scene, there is no place for any other right now. --PaxEquilibrium 09:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Racism

I know, I've read it before. :)))

Was it supplemented to you by Critika1 too?

P.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Administrative_divisions_of_Montenegro&diff=prev&oldid=135878797 What do you mean by bad faith term? --PaxEquilibrium 10:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Err... bad faith means not that it's a bad term, but that I intentionally, out of bad faith, put it there. ;( Do you really think that?

Who was it (the racist theory), if I may know? --PaxEquilibrium 11:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please inform me of the forums in question? --PaxEquilibrium 19:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Montenegrin First League 2006-07

No problem, don't mention it. And please, feel free to expand the article. I'm not Montenegrin myself as you probably knew from my user page, so I have very few sources for information, and thus I literally don't know what else to put up there. But I felt it was important to put it up there, anyway.

By the way, does the First League have a specific logo (seperate from the Football Association logo)? I was looking for one for the main First League page infobox, but a quick google search only found the FA logo. Or maybe you'd like to put up that yourself?

Either way, glad to oblige, and I'll be interested to read the other stuff you add later. Falastur2 19:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Milo Djukanovic

I believe he was wrong about one thing.

If memory serves me well, Milo's straight (heterosexual). ;) --PaxEquilibrium 22:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Piece of nationalistic crap on Montenegrin articles

Wow there. ;) Remember the civility.

Don't let stupid dumb little things annoy, ever; no matter what they are. Cheers! :) --PaxEquilibrium 15:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I'll just tell you a single (or better, two) cunning words: don't.

Cheer. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 20:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Unified opposition?

The only thing that divided them was the statehood question... which is no longer here...

LSCG in 2001 supported Predrag Bulatovic for Prime Minister, but had to withdraw support because Bulatovic said he won't propose an independent Montenegro. They said that they supported Filip Vujanovic with a very grave heart...

I know some of the constitutional questions (language, religion) pose a still dividing problem, but they're no strong as this one - and they're about to end too. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 21:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The Serbs will never make a government, that's sure - but I think that no "Milo in the opposition" gov cannot be made without 'em, at least their support.

With SNP operating itself from NS & DSS, the two latter don't stand a chance because of the small number of supporters. I personally doubt that NS and DSS would alone in a coalition stand at the next election, so they might probably align with the Serbian List. In that case (and taking to granted strengthening of Mandic's cause), no government could be made without SL - they would be something like the Liberals (although far from it ;) in the beginning of the 21st century.

Though unlike SNS, the two have a good history of cooperation with LSCG - I see no reason that if PzP, LP and SNP form a coalition they might join it as well (although with just guaranteed one seat, they gotta admit their weakness). --PaxEquilibrium 12:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Bob

What's wrong with the picture? Can you make a better one? If so, please do tell.

Well first off only one is semi-anonymous(filip), but how can you call Anto Gvozdenovic anonymous? He was a very important montenegrin in history and should always be remembered.

I agree that Njegos or King Nikola would be more appropriate, but that would give license to serbs to shut the whole thing down, and start saying njegos was serb not montenegrin, and King Nikola, although he never once said he was serb, they'd do the same thing

This picture right now is appropriate for ethnic montes because there is no conflict with the serbs over it, until you can get pass the above it will have to do. Critikal1 06:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If I recall, a thing like that already happened - the Montenegrin image was deleted on the argument that it doesn't represent true Montenegrins (it had just two people, Petar I Petrovic-Njegos and Milo Djukanovic ;). --PaxEquilibrium 12:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I was just talking about it with someone. Ranko Krivokapic said that he accepts PzP's demand for immediate elections after the constitution's proclamation. Milo has himself criticized the event calling him to rethink. He used the word "treachery". ;))) Then again these're politics, who knows. --PaxEquilibrium 19:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Govt. of Montenegro Template

You sure saved me a lot of time trying to find the party each minister belongs to. I've been going nuts trying to find their parties but I could only find those that I had placed already. Thank you so much for your help! --CrnaGora 00:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Albania-veneta nonsense

Sorry, I just saw it for the first time (missed it during multiple-messages to me).

Since it's a new subject, you could've opened a new thread at the bottom - I would've most definitely noticed then. ;)

I'm on it. Frankly, the article's title needs to be changed, and about 90% of its content rewritten/deleted... that's why I'm outright thinking 'bout deleting the whole article, but I wanna keep up good faith and contact its author... --PaxEquilibrium 22:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, remember our (very old) news? See this. They already have an article in Wikipedia... --PaxEquilibrium 23:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

He's a bit uncivil for a university professor... geez.

I am moving it to Venetian Albania. --PaxEquilibrium 13:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is: WP:RFCU. However it is not for fishing, which means that we'll need a good reason before request it (like Dalmata editing while Brunodam is blocked, or vice versa). --PaxEquilibrium 14:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

.and... ...now we have one. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 18:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd reckon we do. 3RR violation evasion falls down under the E code letter.

However I'm afraid your report will be ignored and just archived - he did not violate 3RR. Read WP:3RR, it refers to reverting more than three times in a day. That's why I filed the RFCU, if Dalmata's him - he did. --PaxEquilibrium 19:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

..and... now he did. ;0) --PaxEquilibrium 19:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Because three reverts is the limit for reverting within 24h. --PaxEquilibrium 19:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Dalmata is a confirmed sockpuppet of Brunodam. --PaxEquilibrium 21:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sideshow Bob, I think you're having the same/similar problem as I do. I had problems with ...persons... ("likovi") who italianize Croatian toponyms, as well as Croat personalities (mostly from Littoral area).
I see you have problems with Brunodam, though, I haven't looked deeper, and saw his "dictionary". I had similar problems with user Giovanni Giove. They both use similar language, phrases. And as I see, they have same behaviour (sockpuppets?), at least by criticizing and throwing mud (they use "heavy words"), without listening/reading what opposers have said, wrote, gave arguments. You should see problems I had on article Jakov Mikalja and Republic of Dubrovnik; I gave Giovanni Giove the links to scanned pages of historical documents, and, in return, after all that, Giovanni Giove, as well as Brunodam, call me as distributor of desinformations and as a nationalist [1]??? (besides some other users).
I write you this message, because I saw that message (see link above). Kubura 07:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule at Venetian Albania for a period of twenty-four hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 20:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What? But he did not violate 3RR. --PaxEquilibrium 21:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Pitanje

Izvini,da ne znas mozda ko je napisao ovu strofu:

Онамо, 'намо... за брда она Милошев, кажу, пребива гроб! Онамо покој добићу души, кад Србин више не буде роб

I jel mozes da mi kazes kako su buducnost Kraljevine Jugoslavije videli Zelenasi sve do 1941. godine?

I ako mozes da mi kazes kako se izjasnjavao Sekula Drljevic kada se vratio iz emigracije? Kao Srbin ili kao crnogorac?

E i jos samo ovo: Da li je Kralj Nikola u svom proglasu iz emigracije 1920. godine sebe nazivao crnogorskim ili Svesrpskim carem?

Hvala ti mnogo,ja sam siguran da mozes da mi pomognes,ovo su neke osnovne stvari,ja da sam crnogorac bih znao odgovore,ali posto nisam voleo bih da mi ti pomognes. ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTU 19:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Montenegro Cup (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 18:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

List of flags of Montenegro

Dear Sideshow Bob! Are there currently any specific Governmental flags or Military flags in Montenegro? --Camptown 21:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sideshow Bob! Are you sure that the State flag was undefaced - a tricolor with no arms or cypher? I added to the list an undefaced tricolor (flag of 1881), for this flag is only mentioned in the German Flag book as an "unofficial" merchant flag (civil ensign). The book doesn't mention the use of traditional "state flags" along with the royal flags during the time of the Kindom of Montenegro, and the "long" tricolor (ratio 1:3) is clained to be an invention of a later date, which is actually strange as the light "bluish" color in that flag is claimed to be a "traditional" color in Montenegro... Was the 3:1 flag ratio established in recent years in order to distinguish the Montenegrin flag from the Serbian tricolor? --Camptown 21:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I mixed up. It's the DPS party coat-of-arms. --PaxEquilibrium 11:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Milo Djukanovic

Milo kaput!!! ;) --PaxEquilibrium 00:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you hear what Stanko Subotić Cane said? He said that the whole farce is a global anti-Montenegrin conspiracy launched by Nebojsa Medojevic. And the DPS officials supported him. ;))) --PaxEquilibrium 19:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FK_Lovćen.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:FK_Lovćen.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BigrTex 20:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Debate on the correct adjective for Kosovo

Hi! Based on your interest in the Balkans, you may be interested in the currently ongoing debate on whether we should be using Kosovo or Kosovar/Kosovan as the adjective for Kosovo. —Nightstallion 15:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

James Milner Career section

Not really asking for full feedback on this article (although I wouldn’t mind it). I’d just like to know what you feel the best way the divide up the Career section is, by Club, by season, not at all or some other way. Please leave your reply under the section in my talk page named “Milner Career section”. Buc 16:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Montenegro_state_flag(1905-1918).png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Montenegro_state_flag(1905-1918).png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OsamaK 19:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Snslogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Snslogo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:DaniloPetrovic.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:DaniloPetrovic.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

coordinator election

The Wikiproject History is going to elect 3 coordinators. As a member you are invited to participate. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Berane grb grada.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Berane grb grada.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Who See"

A page you created, Who See, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a band or other musical group, but it does not indicate how they are important or significant, and thus why they should be included in an encyclopedia. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and the guidelines for musical groups in particular.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. ukexpat (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Who See

Restored per your request, although I don't think you have reliable sources that show notability. I've changed the speedy tag to a prod tag -- if you find better sources, feel free to remove it. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Welcome Back

I never left, mate. I just stopped editing. And indeed, Pax was useful. He got blocked a few days after I left for Montenegro, some coincidence. I'm glad you're back, though. Actually, I'm overjoyed, finally an old friend :). BTW, I've created the Who See? article before but they deleted it, so don't be surprised if your version is deleted :(.

BTW, I've always wanted to know whether you were affiliated with Rotacija.net. And do you by any chance know who that "Prevalis" character is here on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Црна Гора (talk • contribs) 02:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Duke Mirko.jpg

File:Duke Mirko.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Duke Mirko.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Duke Mirko.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Moja domovina.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Moja domovina.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Montenegrin.

Sideshow Bob, Montenegrin is not ISO-recognized language, so Wikipedia agreed in the consensus that until that occur, Serbian remain, as Montenegrin language is officially regarded as Serbian language version. Tadija (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually, i agree with you, as Montenegrin is official, it should be placed, but it is official only in Montenegro. So, here on English wiki, it shouldn't be placed. That is the reason why there is no Montenegrin Wiki! Language is still not official, so your edits will be reverted. I just wanted to inform you, as lot of Montenegrin editors were banned for this. Hope you understand, all best, Tadija (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, assume good faith. It is not POV pushing, no matter on current status, then that was Serbian nobility. He is member of the House of Vojislavljević! But you are very welcome to add Montenegrin nobility. That is NPOV. As i told you, language must be ISO-recognized, to fulfill Wikipedia criteria, not mine. If i can help you any kind, i am here! :) All best, --Tadija (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Mihailo I of Duklja, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please, don't do this any more. Assume good faith. Tadija (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on, only if removing your nationalist POV from articles is vandalism, you can consider me a vandal. Please come back when you have something constructive to say. Until then, you go play in the sandbox. Cheers. Sideshow Bob 14:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Something constructive to say

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rave92. Toddst1 (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Skadar

You were involved earlier in article expansion, think that you will have something to say about. Lake Scutari

Be good. --Tadija (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

MNE Wiki Project

Hey, shouldn't we remove people that don't participate on Wiki from Montenegro Wiki project, and update the project page a bit? Rave92^(talk) 00:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Please, contribute the discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Geopolitical_ethnic_and_religious_conflicts#Montenegrin_language

Rave92^(talk) 13:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

У вези превлаке...

Хеј здраво...зар морамо да причамо на еглеском?:)

Мислим да је мало неосновано да мењаш чланке по својим политичким убеђењима...Википедија се не заснива на истини, већ на могућношћу доказивања исте.. видим да си изменио "The peninsula, like the other parts of the Republic of Ragusa, became part of the republic of Croatia a few decades after World War II, when Yugoslavia's internal divisions were redefined, noteably SR Croatia was given Prevlaka, what was until then part of SR Montenegro, witch was, at the time considered by most Montenegrins an undisputed territory of Serbs since Montegrins were de facto Serbs in Montenegro" бришући последњи део о српском пореклу Црногораца као нације. Разумем да се то коси са твојим уверењима и да то није оно што део око половина Срба у Црној Гори мисли, али на Википедији, то мора да се подржи доказима. Чињенично стање је да су Црногорци као народ први пут установљени за време Тита, који је користио технику "завади па владај". То није јер су били тлачени од стране краља, јер су имали и свог краља за време кога питање српства у црној гори није било питање. Да се разумемо, жао ми је што је ЦГ изабрала да се одвоји, слажем се да је тип заједнице био паракомунистички опиљак који је био нефункционалан, али верујем у референдуме демократију итд. Оно што ми је страшно је што сте постали Црногорци по народности. Не рачунам наметнуту комунистичку причу, ово јесте продужетак тога, али сте ви причали српски и под Титом. То су све чињенице које се могу поткрепити доказима, као и чињеница да је 99% Срба у Црној гори (тј Црногораца) постало Црногорци (по нацији) преко ноћи, на првом попису у ФНРЈ. То су све чињенице, па тако и да је превлака припала СР Хрватској као територија критична за сферу српства, без обзира на остале твари. Шта год причали на овим просторима постоје Словенци, Хрвати, Срби и Македонци. Чак су и Срби и Хрвати дискутабилних разлика. Да ли су Македонци посрбљени Бугари или побугарени Срби није ни битно

Опрости што сам се расписао, нисам хтео да ти одузмем толико времена. Све у свему, мислим да је неозбиљно да поричеш чињенице, на Википедији ако то већ чиниш у правом животу.

И да, знам Црну Гору, тамо сам провео петину живота, знам како сте причали пре и после најаве и проглашења независности.

Поздрав. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelja87 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Е, извини, нов сам у дискусијама на Викију, па не знам да ли је ово "на твојој страници"...Надам се да сам погодио.

Да јесу, али проблем превлаке је настао променом граница СР Х на рачун СР ЦГ, а то се није догодило деведесетих. Тада се само показао као очигледан проблем, сецесијом Хрватске. На неки начин си у праву да је био став партије власти, али тај став није могао да се не темељи на националној припадности у то време, дакле био је темељен искључиво на томе. Таква је била "мода". И помешао си мало чини ми се, или те нисам разумео, али Превлака је претња ЦГ а не Хрватској. Чак и када би била у, легитимном, поседу ЦГ, Превлака није претња Хрватској, већ обратно ЦГ ако припада Хрватској. Зашто ти мислиш да је припојена Хрватској, ако не јер је део "српске територије" (не волим тако да се изражавам јер има призвук централе у Београду, што никако не мора да буде случај, нити је био); иако се од '48 сви Срби у Црној Гори изјашњавају као Црногорци по националности? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelja87 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Montenegro project

Thanks for the invitation. As a member of the project, what does one need to actually do? Evlekis (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to help. I confess that my overall knowledge is not outstanding and most of my edits have been along the lines of clean-ups and minor edits for subjects such as historical accuracy (or making sure that names are presented appropriately). Evlekis (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ivan I Crnojević

Can you discuss your changes to Ivan I Crnojević on the talk page please? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Pješivci

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Pješivci, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Pjesivci. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi! You received the above message because you moved the article by copy-pasting the content. You shouldn't do that, because it leaves the edit history on the old page, and it's needed for licensing purposes. Instead, you should always use the move tab as instructed at Help:Moving a page. If you can't do that (for example, if the target page already exists), you can list it at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Feel free to post on my talk page if you have questions. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh OK, thanks, I did not know there was a difference. Cheers. Sideshow Bob 08:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Ljubo Čupić.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Ljubo Čupić.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Your opinion is that I am a vandal with the purpose of vandalizing the Wikipedia???

Regarding football related infoboxes.

Hi. I had noteced you have been adding SR Montenegro between the birth city and country for players born before 1992. The problem is that a discussion regarding this already took place on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football and the agreement was to use only city+country formula. One of the main reasons was because the lenght of somne republics names, as SR Bosnia and Herzegovina for exemple, would be extremely complicated to incorporate in the infobox. I know that some ex-URSS countries have been using, exemple Tbilisi, Georgian SSR, Soviet Union, but regarding ex-Yugoslav players, the agreement was to use only, again, city+Yugoslavia. You can see that in most of the cases of ex-Yugoslavia footballers. This is just a reached compromise I am following as an editor. Thank you. (This is a impersonal message sended to a number of editors) FkpCascais (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ekrem Jevrić - Gospoda

Hvala prijatelju što mi pomognu na članku, umalo ga Englezi nisu obrisali.--Wustefuchs (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Nema na čemu. Sideshow Bob 21:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Grb-Tivta.png

Thanks for uploading File:Grb-Tivta.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Berane.jpg

They're gonna delete this, please help source it.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Dobri duh nikšića.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Dobri duh nikšića.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 18:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Duklja

Duklja was Županate of Serbia, it did belonged to Serbia. All best. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 11:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please. It doesn't matter, from lede will be clear that it was Serbian state, anyway... All best! --WhiteWriter ^speaks 10:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Celtic F.C. task force

Hello, you stated that you were a fan of Celtic F.C. in your WikiProject football members support section. I am hoping to start up a task force for Celtic at WikiProject Football.
If you are interested please reply here. Thanks. Adam4267 (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Demographics of Montenegro

Yesterday the 2011 census was published. I've updated the ethnic groups, but the municipalities should be updated too.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Metropolitan mihailo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Metropolitan mihailo.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Metropolitan mihailo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Metropolitan mihailo.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Fundinabattle.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Fundinabattle.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. When you recently edited Peko Dapčević, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orthodox (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Varvari.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Varvari.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Tbok.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Tbok.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 on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 10:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Tbok.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tbok.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 08:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

cut-paste

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Serb List a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into New Serb Democracy. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you.

Warning

Hello, Sideshow Bob. You have new messages at Zoupan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Vojislavljević dynasty. 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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, 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. --Zoupan 15:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Sideshow Bob. You have new messages at Zoupan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I suggest, for your own sake, that you take your future problems to the article talk pages instead of commenting on users and not on content.--Zoupan 20:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Royal houses of Europe

This edit is not OK. You removed Vojislavljević from Serbian royal houses and inserted them into Montenegrin. You also added Balšić to Montenegrin. Stefan Vojislav was titled "Prince of the Serbs". The Balšić never had a title higher than lord (though Đurađ II Balšić briefly had "duke").--Zoupan 10:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

You obsessively promoting your history-altering nationalist POV is what's not OK. Vojislavljević dynasty ruled Duklja, not Serbia/Raška, and one alleged title does not make them into Serbian dynasty. Mihailo was titled king of Slavs, so you don't see Poles or Czechs trying to make him their own, nor do Greeks claim that Nemanjićs are Greek because Dušan claimed himself to be Emperor of Serbs and Greeks. Duklja is a predecessor state of Montenegro, hence Vojislavljević dynasty is Montenegrin dynasty, regardless of titular semantics. They never rules Serbian medieval country, the end of story. As for Balšićs, you have the point, these are royal and not ruler houses, so I shall exclude them. Also, you should see a thing or two about WP:Ownership Sideshow Bob 12:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

"History-altering nationalist POV"? Your whole comment is POV. Montenegrin pseudo-history should not be implemented on Wikipedia. Obviously you do not (want to) know the history of the Vojislavljević.--Zoupan 12:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Please reply at Template_talk:Royal_houses_of_Europe#Vojislavljevi.C4.87_dynasty.--Zoupan 13:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

That's plain and simple Anti-Serbian. 1) it does not. 2) Serb has everything to do with Vojislavljević. 3) Insulting lies. They are indeed part of Montenegrin history, but to state that they were Montenegrins is crazy. You are already standing for the wishful thinking, to erase the obvious and undisputed Serb heritage that Montenegro has. --Zoupan 20:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Parliament of Montenegro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democratic People's Party. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Jovan Vladimir. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. --Zoupan 10:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'm the one posting nationalist POV bullshit. Get a life, read some books, leave your personal frustrations aside when editing articles. And please stop stalking and messaging me, you are not my type. Sideshow Bob 11:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Stop your behaviour

You are openly Anti-Serb. You continue making unconstructive edits, and comment using very uncivil language. You have been warned. Some recent events:

• 11:09, 24 November 2015: "Sure, I'm the one posting nationalist POV bullshit. Get a life, read some books, leave your personal frustrations aside when editing articles. And please stop stalking and messaging me, you are not my type."
• 09:08, 24 November 2015: Removing a reference and altering text
• 08:31, 24 November 2015: Altering per own POV
• 22:57, 19 November 2015: Controversial change
• 09:41, 10 September 2015:... "Since there is a historically undisputed continuity between terms Dioklian-Zetan-Montenegrin, denoting the same distinct ethnic group of mixed Slavic and Illyrian heritage, not a part Turkish-Slavic ethnic mix which is modern Serb ethnos. I understand your inferiority complex and desire to incorporate Montenegrin history into yours, but NPOV is required here, not your wishful thinking. Get a life."

Take it easy. Next time I will have to report you.--Zoupan 12:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You are the one denouncing me for being anti-something. If anything, you are Serb nationalist and historical revisionist, and I would know since I have seen quite of few similar propagandists in 9 years I've been here. I could list a host of articles edited and guarded by you which have no validation whatsoever besides the para-historical literature of like-minded bigots. Stop acting like you own encyclopedic articles and respond with counter-arguments rather to undoing constructive edits and hiding behind accusations. I have no problems with Serbs or Serbia, but you rather have a problem with reality. So try substantiating your ludicrous claims sometimes rather than trying to look like a victim and following my edits so you can start edit wars. I couldn't care less about you and this is nothing personal, so stop making it so. Please leave me alone or you will be reported. Sideshow Bob 12:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You indeed are a true poet, using words like "para-historical", "bigots", "counter-arguments", "reality", "ludicrous claims". I have not seen one plausible argument from you yet, because you have none. I have always answered you. Don't tell me that Jovan Vladimir and Stefan Vojislav were ethnic Montenegrins. This is ludicrous claims, you para-historical bigot, you (yes, I am returning your words). You have obviously taken it personal – continuing using uncivil language. Please take it easy; I have warned you in good faith.--Zoupan 15:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Calling them Montenegrins can be debated about, but you insist on 'Serbifying' everything and everyone, which is a distinct trait of the sort of editor you are. I attempted removing ethnicity from the articles, just putting "ruler of Duklja" or "Southern Slav" since these cannot be historically disputed, but you insist on them being Serbs, which has no real historical data behind it, barring SANU "historians" and their propagandist works (there are exceptions, of course). So, please do not call me out or being propagandist, as I am only countering Serb nationalism as a historical POV, without having an agenda of my own. I do not spend much time here nowadays, but I can assure you that my future edits will be backed by historical sources, so there can be no further foolish accusations of vandalism and such. Have a good day and chill out, it's only wiki. Sideshow Bob 08:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

These were early Serbs, and calling them "ethnic Montenegrins" is terribly wrong. I don't understand why you keep on claiming "propaganda" when this is undisputed in academics. The Doclean Academy of Sciences and Arts (DANU) are the "historians" who are the propagandists of a separate history of Montenegro, denouncing the historical identity. This is your agenda. How could you possibly back your POV with historical sources when Skylitzes, Zonaras, Cedrenus, Glykas, Kekaumenos, Anna Komnene, all call Duklja and its people Serbs? Have a really good day, and yes, I'm just chilling.--Zoupan 09:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Piperi (tribe), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montenegrin. 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) 09:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Christmas Uprising, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Confederacy. 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) 09:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Vlah Church

In article about Vlah Church you boldly removed state in which this church was built (which existed in the article for more than 2.5 years). I reverted your bold edit per WP:BRD and explained why it is wrong. Instead to respect WP:BRD and gain consensus for your reverted bold edit on the article's talkpage, you opted to violate WP:BRD and edit war to push your position. That is wrong and disruptive. Please don't continue with this kind of behavior.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Serb List (2012), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Serb People's Party. 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) 08:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Warning for removal of sourced content

I restored it but next time I see you removing sourced content without discussion and hidden within a different edit, you will be reported. FkpCascais (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

You can find sources for anything if you are malicious enough, it does not mean it is the truth or NPOV. So please stop annoying me and acting as a police officer, because I do not really care for your warnings, so go cry somewhere else. Sideshow Bob 07:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: Good catch. @Sideshow Bob: You really need to stop this behaviour.--Zoupan 08:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure. And you two could go on and re-read WP:OWN. I really don't understand this stalking of yours, but it's getting boring. Sideshow Bob 09:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The thing is that in your edit you made two things: the infobox, cool, great, thanks; but beside the infobox you went to the article lede and you removed sourced content. Can I ask you why did you did that? FkpCascais (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Because it represents a POV frequently being posted on similar wiki articles. Just because there is a book somewhere with something written in it, it does not mean that it contains the sole truth. The issue with this and similar occurrences is that certain editors pick sources very selectively and interpret them quite subjectively in order to support their political views and push their agendas. Sideshow Bob 14:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Montenegrins of Serbia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trstenik. 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) 09:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Warning: restoring prod tags

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

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of coats of arms of Montenegro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plav. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

cut-and-paste

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Dritan Abazovic a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Dritan Abazović. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Zoupan 14:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

cut-and-paste

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give True People's Party (historical) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into True People's Party. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Zoupan 14:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

cut-and-paste

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Gulf of Kotor a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Bay of Kotor. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Zoupan 14:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, got it, thanks. Sideshow Bob 07:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Zoupan 11:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I'm so frightened... If anything, you should be banned for continued stalking and harassment. Jog on. Sideshow Bob 12:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Montenegrin–Ottoman War (1876–78), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Treaty of Berlin. 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) 12:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Parliament of Montenegro

DPS has got 30 MPs. At the official party's website, there are 30 MPs in total: http://www.dps.me/klub-poslanika-25-saziv

Check any news; DPS has got 30 MPs.

The two MPs "missing" are - 1 from PZP (it has got 5 instead of 4 - Medojevic, Bosnjak, Pavlovic, Radulovic and Vasiljevic) and the other is from URA. URA currently has got 2 MPs - Bojanic and Abazovic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.91.246.195 (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Also the Independent club has got a total of 12 MPs.

• 2 URA (Bojanic and Abazovic)
• 1 that Pljevlja dude (Stanic)
• 3 Democratic Montenegro (Gosovic, Kaludjerovic, Gojkovic)
• 4 DEMOS (Lekic, Asanovic, Miljanic, Danilovic)
• 2 SD (Orlandic and Sehovic). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.91.246.195 (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, let's go and sort it out then. Sideshow Bob 13:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

You're right, Bojanic could not have agreed with them. Bojanic founded the "Civic Movement" for Euro-Atlantic integration, however in its transformation into URA he was apparently left out and had simply remained independent.

Also, the parliament has got a total of 80 MPs and one vacant seat, since SDP CG did not allow Mubera Kurpejovic to become an MP (due to the fact she's SD). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.91.246.195 (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Democratic Montenegro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Centre. 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) 15:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Subotica answer

Your grammar lesson is what you had to learn, since then you would not make the edit that you made, where it is OBVIOUS what means contemporary, next to the CURRENT official name :) The rest is a useless trash talk. If you do not answer anymore, I do not intend to continue this discussion. So long!(KIENGIR (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC))

Category:Serb communities in Montenegro

Do not remove the category from articles.--Zoupan 19:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Vito nikolic.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Vito nikolic.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 on 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.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Democratic Front (Montenegro), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democratic People's Party. 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) 09:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Montenegrin Cyrillic

You accuse me of "not knowing" while I could accuse you of bias. You know very well the fragilities of Montenegrin language, specially the "own" alphabet. It is only recognised by current Montenegrin governament, not even by the opposition, and it is not standardised as language while the Montenegrin Cyrillic alphabet not even used, it is just a proposal. Second aspect, you know very well the large parts of Montenegro where Serbian language is still in majority, you should not remove Serbian language from those districts, just as we have Montenegrin language in lede for the few municipalities Montenegrin is also official in Serbia. I will not remove your Montenegrin language aditions at leade as long as you restore Serbian along it in the municipalities Serbs are majority and Serbian language is still vastly used instead of "Montenegrin". I think that would be a fair stand-by point by now until some discussion occurs and consensus is reached. I will open a discussion about it when I have time and I will certainly let you know so you can express your view. Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 06:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

You can see the part of Montenegro using Serbian at Demographics of Montenegro. FkpCascais (talk) 06:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Article 13 of the Constitution of Montenegro: "Official language in Montenegro is Montenegrin. Latin and Cyrillic script are equal..." I don't want to go into a linguistic debate here, since we both know that Montenegrin, Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian are merely the variations of the same language (once called Serbo-Croatian). I think the Constitution is a pretty solid source for the language used in lede in all Montenegro-related articles. No one is denying the existence of people in Montenegro who identify the same language as Serbian, but the official use is something entirely different. Sideshow Bob 07:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

P.S. The Demographics of Montenegro article is outdated, data from 2003 should be replaced by the 2011 census data. Sideshow Bob 07:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, so add Montenegrin everywhere and add as well Serbian in the areas Serbian is official language. Why is so hard? FkpCascais (talk) 07:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not hard, but it is pointless. You seem not to realize that there are no areas where Serbian is official. The same Article 13 states that Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Albanian are in official use, but does not specify it in more detail. Only Albanian is used simultaneously with Montenegrin in some municipalities because it's an entirely different language, others are not used officially at all. Sideshow Bob 07:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

So we cant agree on this by now? -_- FkpCascais (talk) 08:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

If you say it is pointless, I could argue it is pointless for you as well to remove Serbian and add Montenegrin. But that is what you are doing, so after all it is noot so pointless after all isnt it? You can continue removing all mentions of Serbian and leave just Montenegrin everywhere, but you know it will not fly. You have vast areas of Montenegro where Serbian is spoken in majority and where Serbs are majority over Montenegrins. You can claim the maps are old, but the current situation is pretty simimar certainly. A village more village less? Instead of making tons of edits then tons of reverts, discussions, why dont we find a solution acceptable and move on to other issues? I could claim using Serbian for all areas shown to speak majoritarly Serbian in Montenegro (basically all of Montenegro except a minof central part) but I would feel fine if we could agree to add Serbian along Montenegrin in the parts Serbs are ethnically majority (a bit minor area than the Serbian linguistic one). You will have Montenegrin everywhere anyway, just leave Serbian in parts Serbs are majority and linguistical map confirms Serbian is majoritarly spoken there. Sounds fair? FkpCascais (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I am merely going by the official sources, and you might agree that the Constitution is quite a credible source for such a thing. I do not know the official wiki policy regarding the languages used in lede, but I'm quite certain that the designation of the country's official language fits in well there, rather than our eternal historical disagreements. Also, how do we define Serbian majority? You reverted my removal of the category of Bijelo Polje as a "Serb community", while Serbs make up 30% of the population. Does it imply relative, or absolute majority? I am not against compromise here, really, and you can go on and add Serbian if you think it's an adequate thing to do, but I think it's pointless because 1) it's the same f***ing language; 2) Montenegrin is declared as official nationwide; 3) there is no local linguistic autonomy for Serbian like for Albanian, mostly because of reason no.1. Cheers! Sideshow Bob 08:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

If it is the same f* language why are you bothering then to replace Serbian by Montenegrin? We know why. And it is the same language, so just add (Montenegrin and Serbian: xxxxx) and its done. And add Serbian to the places in the map where you clearly see Serbian majority and Serbian use, here: Demographics of Montenegro. You know well which are, stop complicating things. FkpCascais (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Because that is the official name of the language in this country. There is no basis for Serbian, as there is no official use of it in those municipalities. The language is called Montenegrin nationwide. It doesn't get any simpler. Sideshow Bob 10:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)