User:Zoupan Contribution • • •

Inactive discussions here.

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Ajdebre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text ((unblock|Your reason here ~~~~)) below. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Zoupan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am not going to lie, that's an old account. But I don't think that an indef for this account is necessary. I am not presently a sock. I've grown immensely since those editing days (note 2010–11), and you should understand that it was beginner mistakes and not vandalism or disruption that caused the "master" block (I have no interest in that account). User:Resnjari's The entire Zoupan account was created to avoid blocks (presented like a powerful epilogue) is an exaggeration, perhaps to illegitimize my contribution here; digging up edits that old and presenting it as a current theme surely points at such intention. Zoupan is presently my only account, my clean start (way back); it may have started as an evasion (again, note 2010–11), but it is implied that I am using this/my account to abuse WP. That is not true, check my contribution in the last years, I have only aimed to expand with qualitative content. I hope that you instead will give my block here an expiry date. Thanks.Zoupan 18:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"I am not going to lie, that's an old account." You've just admitted that you are evading a block with this account. This account was created 3 months after the block on Ajdebre. You cannot declare this account as a "clean start" while you are openly evading a previous block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

That's a shame. I am going to return in a year and re-request an end to the Indefinite block, to show that I respect WP and that I am serious with contributing (from this, or if necessary, a new account). I will not engage in any puppetry. In the meantime, I think admins and editors should be aware of the anticipated campaign to revert or illegitimize my contribution here (years back?), in order to tilt contentious issues into their hands, as seen by this example. Until next time.--Zoupan 00:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zoupan, its concerning that your now making unfounded allegations about other editors behavior. You ought to apologize at the very least. Wikipedia policy, as per WP:SOCKSTRIKE is firm on edits by a sock account and actions taken by editors are in line with policy and not illegitimate. Any new account by you would be a continuation of socking.Resnjari (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ajdebre, if you cared to actually read what I wrote I was actually arguing that your concerns were to be taken into consideration and a "Name" section created. However, paranoid accusations of a "campaign" against yourself aside, the "contributions" of banned sockpuppeteers cannot be illegitimized because as per wiki policy, every single one of them is illegitimate. You made your choice. You could have come clean at any time and requested an unblock based on your contributions. You chose not to, and deceived the community for years while, as documented by Resnjari, you continued to push the same bizarre POVs that you had been doing with the accounts Kovac, SlavSlav and Ajdebre. Sometimes you make good points-- that's why I argued to take this particular one into consideration -- however you cannot play the victim when this entire situation is the result of your willing deceit of our community. I also wonder what you mean by your "new account if necessary" statement. If you try to get around your block a fifth time, the consequences will be quite predictable, especially as editors like myself who were totally unaware of what you were hiding now are quite aware. Don't waste your time.--Calthinus (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Resnjari: Please read the discussion at Talk:Leposavić. There are three sources (and common sense) explicitly speaking against the inclusion of "Albanik" (a metaphor for ultra-nationalist Albanian anti-Serbian behaviour in Kosovo) as an alternate name, but these are strangely dismissed now because I was the one presenting them? The comments in favour of the inclusion are terribly novice. I would never apologize for such a silly thing, get off your horse or at least stay on it and be productive and comment on that matter. Admins and editors should indeed be wary, as some editors will without a doubt misuse my case and edit articles accordingly. Explain how WP:SOCKSTRIKE's removing some of their edits is acceptable. This is NOT done to spite or punish them. It is done to alleviate the disruption/deception caused by abusing multiple accounts is reality in my case. The "master" was blocked 8 years ago due to beginner-uploads of images and sloppy paraphrasing when presenting organizations (CV), and not VD, DE, EW, etc. I am aware of the rules, read my comment, I believe I made it perfectly clear – I have no intention of disrupting WP, and if the Indef block was to be retracted, which I hope, I would like to continue editing from this account which I have built up, but I would also accept a clean start. @Admins: You will not see me in any form editing WP until this matter is finalized, period, I promise.--Zoupan 02:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calthinus, it was years ago, get over it. I've said what I had to say.--Zoupan 02:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was years ago and it continued, because you kept up the lie. As I said, you had the option to come clean at any moment throughout all that time. That being said if you do ever come back, on this account or "another", I do hope you won't be pushing fringe theories like these [[1]][[2]]. Or crude POV stunts like [making the previously 11K article on Islam in Uzbekistan page have 5K mostly about terrorism]. --Calthinus (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ajdebre, you were not transparent with the Wikipedia community about your past behavior. You claim knowledge of the rules, but your actions show a high disregard for them. Considering that you have lodged over the years reports on editors for socking, now making a big fuss that the rules don't apply to you because you made many edits over the years is hypocritical. You made those edits because no one picked up on the fact that this is a sock account and it was allowed to continue an era of deception that now is exposed and ended. Wikipedia in its policy on socking does not have a special section on Zoupan that says different rules apply, that somehow if a sock account evades getting sanctioned for years and makes multiple edits they are 'redeemed'. Otherwise there would be other former editors out there also clamoring for the same thing to administrators who have done similar things as to you. Rules are the rules. Respect them.Resnjari (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ajdebre/Zoupan/whoever is a closed case. Move on everybody, let him rest in peace. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I edit as an IP and this guy had reported me as a sock of some editor several times. He even accused me of cherry picking when I tried to collect ALL sources on a metter. In my opinion he was POV pushing for a long time. You can't accuse someone of cherry picking for collecting all sources on the matter. 141.138.42.196 (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were indef-banned. We all know why you edit as IP. FkpCascais (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that you have a clean block log since November 2011 and no topic bans at this period it's almost certain that your unblock request will be accepted provided that you offer a sincere apology for the 2010 socking.Alexikoua (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rules are rules. What i find interesting here @Alexikoua: is you defending a sock account (literally a first) after having lodged over the years many a report on (suspected) editors socking. This proven sock account showed no regard for Wikipedia and its policies. The whole creation and purpose of this account was to evade sanctions. Its amazing that such behavior lasted for so long and was not picked by other editors much earlier who seem to pick up other socking behavior or allege it of others..Resnjari (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Off course rules are rules and let me remind you that you launched an endless campaign to defend multiple times sockfarmer user:Sulmues. Zoupan had a clean record for 7 years and this needs to be mentioned.. On the other hand your block log and Ktrimi's are not clear during the last years.Alexikoua (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoua, i see you have fine form in the smear department. When a editor is proven they are a sockpuppeter, its over as per Wikipedia policy. I have never gone to a page of an editor to say they ought to be unblocked for socking, ever. Facts, not fiction or conspiracy theories. As i said and will say again here, there is an array of editors who lodge year in and year out reports on many a editor, yet cry wolf and talk about 'unfairiness' and redemption of a sockpuppeter. Talk about hypocrisy. Rules apply to everyone, not just someone who might be a friend or on friendly terms with and then the rules get thrown out the window. If the sock account wants to rejoin the Wikipedia community, they can make their own case to remove sanctions. Also i should remind you that you have blocks in your account, such as pushing Greek nationalist Northern Epirus gibberish on Albanian Wikipedia and were blocked by administrators for it.Resnjari (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should complain in sq:wiki since you have nothing against me in this encyclopedia. As for Zoupan, his clean block record the last 7 years is a good argument for him contrary to other editors you were blocked due to recent edit warring in en:wiki.Alexikoua (talk) 11:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoua, with you since you decided to down that road, it covers everything. Ajdrebre does not have a clean record. The account was created to evade sanctions and only lasted this long because no one picked up on the sockpuppetry earlier. This account is a sockpuppet that deceived the Wikipedia community for years. Administrators have acted accordingly, as per policy of Wikipedia.Resnjari (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In 2016 a one week reverting restriction was imposed on Zoupan due to repeated edit warring. The decision was under ARBMAC, see the list on its page. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ktrimi991 and Resnjari, look at your block-log. Both of you have been blocked much recently than Zoupan, both more than once, and you are cheering here? BOOMERANG in horizont. FkpCascais (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Alexikoua said is absolutely right. Blocking an editor for things done 7 years ago while in meantime he has been a highly active and productive editor is very unfair. Also, by seing the party some ediors are having with getting him blocked indicates clearly the essential role Zoupan was having in archiving balance to the articles those editors edit forcing their POV. I am still amaised how an editor can be blocked for tthings done so long ago. FkpCascais (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FkpCascais:, strawman arguments about other editors don't count here. I find your claims about "cheering" quite inappropriate. Lodging a report about socking is serious and no laughing matter. Ajdebre socked and deceived the Wikipedia community for years to evade sanctions through multiple accounts with "Zoupan" being the latest incarnation. Wikipedia rules are strict about this. If Ajdebre is allowed to get away with this behavior then all other sock accounts will want the same treatment. What is interesting is that some editors here who have over the years lodged multiple SPI's on other editors for (alleged or proven) socking are for the first time coming out in support of a proven sock account!Resnjari (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hate socks myself, but how long was that Ajdebre episode happened? FkpCascais (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He was POV pushing for ages. I wouldn't call someone very productive when he's POV pushing. I was personally accused of being a sock several times by this user and since I edit as an IP I was often banned without second thought. Once he even accused me of cherry picking when I have opened a discussion where we could collect all sources on the matter since they were scattered over many discussions. So please Fkp, stop defending him. You are as much a POV pusher as he is. I read the SPI and I can't believe someone is capable of doing so much research. Maybe you should look how an SPI should look like before accusing someone of being a sock. 141.138.42.196 (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And here we come, the usual regional indef-banned sockpuppets editing freely en.wikipedia as IP´s without any restrictions... But it is Zoupan who must be eliminated right? The one and only Serbian editor oposing anti-Serbian POV, he must be eliminated right? Such a stone in the shue. FkpCascais (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you think spreading fringe historical theories and making Islamophobic edits like [this one about Uzbeks] is "oposing anti-Serbian POV", I have no words for you.--Calthinus (talk) 03:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you brought such edit, that is a perfectly encyclopedic edit where he puts in context the entire subject of the article. Where is the exact "islamophobic" edit ? FkpCascais (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No a page about Islam in Uzbekistan did not need a section on terrorism to discuss the involvement of ethnic Uzbeks abroad (some of these actually had Russian not Uzbek citizenship). Cherrypicking and WP:SYNTH to overemphasize the actions of a small handful of ethnic Uzbeks abroad out of a country with 33 million people into an entire section is ridiculous (do we get a section about terrorism on Orthodox Christianity in Serbia because of Gavrilo Princip and his buddies? No that would be outrageous and bigoted). Also, FkpCascais I don't appreciate your recent stalking of me.--Calthinus (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FkpCascais Enough of the negative drama though. There's no reason for us to continue bickering about this. If Zoupan wants to come back, he can make the appeal himself-- we do not need to argue about his merits pointlessly here. Despite disagreements, I do recognize Zoupan/Ajdebre was a smart individual. TThe issues I had with his edits were ethical and that I felt he was pushing his view onto an encyclopedia. But he had good skills of research. He is better off using his intelligence in real life-- where I am sure he is much more useful to employer. Best, --Calthinus (talk) 04:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Years of deceiving the Wikipedia community with sock accounts is no light matter. If Ajdebre wants to rejoin the Wikipedia community that account can make the case to administrators.Resnjari (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zoupan can request to return to our community. I don't see any reason why he should avoid that.Alexikoua (talk) 11:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoua Ajdebre can request, but administrators have already turned him down once.Resnjari (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resnjari: I assume you ignore the fact the he can fill a new request.Alexikoua (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoua, as i said previously Ajdebre can file as many requests as they wish to from their talkpage -that is their right. In the same way its the right of administrators to enforce Wikipedia policy on sockpuppetry.Resnjari (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calthinus, I am very sorry to hear you calling me anti-Islamic. The edits you are talking about includes information on a very interesting and current theme, and the edits include sectioning, interlinks and various secondary sources on Islam and Islamism (encouraging expansion of the article). I didn't think that the edits would warrant a separate article. The Uzbek state have listed 18,000 religious extremists, and several thousands have joined belligerent Jihadist organizations (!). I have no idea how you are reasoning when mentioning Gavrilo Princip and "Orthodox extremism" (?); is that your critical thinking?--Zoupan 12:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

141.138.42.196 (talk · contribs · logs) is Asdisis.--Zoupan 12:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are warring again. Start a discussion on the talk page if your recent edits are not seen as improvement by others. You are currently massively reverting at least four other editors. Ktrimi991 (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ktrimi991 Look above. He's banned. Ancient sockpuppeteer and longtime mysticist POV-pusher apparently, obsessed with the claiming Serbian origins for parts of neighboring peoples and... Assyrians, oddly enough. Fascinating case really. Wiki has all the most interesting people.--Calthinus (talk) 05:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Branko Mladenović instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Branko Mladenović and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Branko Mladenović, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((db-self))" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zoupan! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You previously participated in discussions of the title of the Gjon Kastrioti article. The issue is again under discussion here if you care to participate. —  AjaxSmack  17:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Serb Democratic Party (Bosnia and Herzegovina).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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[3] As you have edited this page, I think that you should see the history as I think that there is a frequent vandalism by one user so that it should be relevant for your edits. James Jim Moriarty (talk) 11:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Serbian Righteous Among the Nations is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Serbian Righteous Among the Nations until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Catrìona (talk) 08:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zoupan. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Austro–Turkish War".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)), ((db-draft)), or ((db-g13)) code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my proposal to speedily rename (the parent category is Category:Television in Bosnia and Herzegovina). Hugo999 (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Bosnian television series by decade to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina television series by decade
• Category:2010s Bosnian television series to Category:2010s Bosnia and Herzegovina television series

Template:Oriental Orthodox Christianity in Europe 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}) 20:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ajdebre. I see you are socking again. It is not a good practice, and needs a report. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to make it clear that JebaczSR (talk · contribs · count) is not my account, as Ktrimi991 claims here. However, that article is indeed a copy of an older draft (User:SlavSlav/Early_Slavs), so I understand the fuzz, but that user obviously simply copied it after reading the comments by Resnjari, I suspect in order to make my return harder. I would not be that dumb. As I'm blocked, I can't defend myself so I'm hoping someone makes it clear that I deny any connection with JebaczSR. I swear that I have not socked since the beginning of this Zoupan account; I had a stint of a couple low-contributions accounts when Ajdebre was blocked, all found by Resnjari. I urge Ktrimi991 to prove that I am socking again if you can't take my word. --Zoupan 10:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajdebre, i have a ping from you, so i'll reply. You got caught once socking and administrators banned you. As your socking was for a prolonged period, other editors seem to be cautious. As for a return, are you serious? Why would your wiki ban get overturned for socking while others would have theirs in place? Time to move on.Resnjari (talk) 02:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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) 12:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Social Democratic Party of Serbia logo.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

I have disabled your talk page access because you are using it while blocked to pester editors you have had past disagreements with and to comment on article content, not to address the concerns which led to your block. If you would like to request unblocking, see WP:GAB and then make your appeal through the unblock ticket request system. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Persecution of Jews by Muslims requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ana Bekuta has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the ((prod blp/dated)) tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Пошто видим да си овде блокиран на трајно због некакве бедастоће, као уредник српске википедије који цени твој рад (повремено налећем на твоје, квалитетно написане чланке када читам о нашем 18. и 19. веку), позивам те да дођеш на ср.њики да уређујеш са нама. Треба нам добрих и квалитетних уредника као што си ти :) Позз --Ivan VA (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zoupan: Great idea Ivan, I hope that this will reach Zoupan. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap)

The above comment in English: "Since I see that you are permanently blocked here due to some stupidity, as an editor of the Serbian Wikipedia who appreciates your work (occasionally I come across your well-written articles when I read about our 18th and 19th centuries), I invite you to come to sr.njiki to you edit with us. We need good and quality editors like you :) Pozz" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.206.38 (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have enabled TPA again as a result of UTRS ticket 29172. If an appeal is lodged this ticket should be viewed for CU notes. Alternatively, ping TonyBallioni 5 albert square (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Roland Bartetzko has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The notability is dubious. Two reliable sources mention the subject very briefly and another one is an interview with the subject. All the other sources are self-published by the subject and their existence doesn't establish notability. The only notable event here could be covered by the WP:SINGLEEVENT policy, and there is no article about the event, and probably shouldn't be.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Roland Bartetzko is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Military units and formations of Serbia in the Middle Ages requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Democratic Serb Party (Montenegro).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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 22:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Positive Montenegro.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 00:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ivanovich is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TompaDompa (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Principality of Serbia (medieval) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Armenian rebellions has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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) 10:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect O. S.. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 15#O. S. until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:United Serbia logo.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 01:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Serb political organizations requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Place Clichy (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Serb politicians requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Place Clichy (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Republic of Venice educators requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Venetian sculptors has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Rathfelder (talk) 10:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Skenderaj has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Cupper52 (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zoupan. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Milošević regime".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Beland (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Collaborators with Nazi Germany by ethnicity has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. SFB 17:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of the Order of Karađorđe's Star has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. (t · c) buidhe 17:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Domains of the Kingdom of Naples indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Nikephoros Lykaon has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable, and impossible to establish the notability of a person known only from his seal.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PepperBeast (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Roksandrić has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of importance; not linked to nor mentioned in English Wikipedia, except to distinguish it from Roksandić

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ost (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Kresoja requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ColinBear (talk - contributions) 01:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Zvonko Marić has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not seem to meet WP:PROF. Some papers on Google scholar, but not enough cites to justify notability on that basis.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PianoDan (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Radoš Ljušić is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Rathfelder (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Together for Serbia logo.png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Serb National Council of Montenegro.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Slavic people by nationality has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Privybst (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Nazis of non-Germanic descent is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nazis of non-Germanic descent (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

GizzyCatBella🍁 10:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Template:Mainw has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7 § Template:Mainw until a consensus is reached. MClay1 (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former subdivisions of Yugoslavia has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Vipz (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Communities by ethnic group has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Skovl (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diaspora by ethnic group has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Skovl (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Separatism by ethnic group has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Skovl (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political organizations by ethnic group has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Skovl (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Geographical regions has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. fgnievinski (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Geographic history of Yugoslavia indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:13th-century establishments in Bosnia and Herzegovina indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Croatian spies indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scandinavian manuscripts has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Italian manuscripts has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Archaeological sites in Europe by region has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Serb diaspora has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ancient peoples of France has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former empires in Europe has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lords of Serbia in the Middle Ages has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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) 15:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of the Habsburg monarchy has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Mason (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Serb diaspora sportspeople has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Mason (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of Serbian descent by occupation has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Mason (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Republic of Venice novelists has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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. Mason (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Medieval Serbian people of Greek descent has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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. Mason (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]