User talk:Santasa99/Archive 7

< Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  ... (up to 100)

Gazimestan

Hi. Milošević may well have been a hardliner and an opportunist, but it is known and acknowledged that he was not a nationalist. It is covered in his article. He neither advocated the return of the Serbian monarchy nor did he proselytise for a Serbia inclusive of Macedonia and Montenegro, needless to say Bosnia and Dalmatia. It is covered in his article and if you look at the other articles in the Greater Serb ideology category, you see that Gazimestan no more fits into it than would Momir Bulatović who was Milošević's opposite number in Montenegro during the 1990s. --Vrhunski (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Bosnian dynasties has been nominated for discussion

Category:Bosnian dynasties, 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) 06:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Medieval Bosnian state institutions has been nominated for discussion

Category:Medieval Bosnian state institutions, 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) 05:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Conversion of mosques into public buildings. has been nominated for discussion

Category:Conversion of mosques into public buildings., 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. – Fayenatic London 13:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Satoshi Kanazawa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill O'Reilly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Category:Anti-Muslim sentiment

The article Category:Anti-Muslim sentiment has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A direct overlap with the existing Islamophobia category

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.

No signature. Anyway, I'm strongly contesting/objecting PROD. Categories "Islamophobia" and "Ant-Muslim sentiment" simply doesn't overlap, especially not directly, whatever that means. "Islamophobia" has 16 sub-categories and 49 pages, "Ant-Muslim sentiment" has 11 sub-categories and just 8 pages, and only some overlap. More importantly these two categories indicate different things: "Islamophobia" is more specific identity-wise (at least here it's included only into "Religious discrimination" top category), while "Anti-Muslim sentiment" than indicating animosity toward individual and group Muslim(s) identity in most comprehensive sense (religion, culture, tradition, names), and should cover articles concerning, along with Islamophobia, also violence, sentiment expressed broadly and/or more vaguely in works, academia, media etc. Curiously top category "Racism" doesn't include Islamophobia, it includes "Anti-xy sentiments" of all varieties except those concerning Muslim. Finally, some overlaps are normal and could be found on regular basis in most categories all over Wikipedia.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

FK Sarajevo seasons

Druže može li jedna molba; pošto hoće (opet) da izbrišu sezone za FKS, ovaj put 7 sezona, počevši od 2009-2010 - 2015-2016, jer šatro nisu (bile) profesionalne, da na stranici artikala za brisanje napišeš koju u našu korist, a protiv brisanja, zahvalaN unaprijed...

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Čeha (razgovor) 07:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Mentioned

You've been mentioned at User talk:EdJohnston#User:Santasa99 at it again. You can respond there if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't - this has nothing with you, of course. I am avoiding to be dragged into another problematic situation by that person again. I am going to respond on article Talk page. You caught me just in the middle of writing my reply. If you wish you can take part in resolving this issue with us there, that would be most desirable.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Warning

I will report you next time I see you removing sourced content as you did here, using other excuses mixing other mathers. Be carefull when removing sourced content please. FkpCascais (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• WARNING to User:FkpCascais too. Before User:FkpCascais take all steps provided by Wikipedia guidelines, user should take notice of the fact that they are editing on WP:BLP as well, and that sources User:FkpCascais talking about are extremely scarce, biased and unreliable for article of such a scope: unreliable and biased (Sportlive.ba), extremely politically biased (Glas Srpske), and self-published (Non-FIFA News agency - last time they published in 2012 were hosted at blogger.com). So, I removed and they reverted extremely unreliable sources and claims it supposedly verifies - on BLP.

Not to mention that User:FkpCascais and few other are pushing extremely biased view on nature of team(s) organized by Republika Srpska association, all the while going against WP:NOTA, WP:NFOOTY, WP:SPORTBASIC and especially WP:FOOTYN for pushing a POV on notability, and having no reliable sources as explained here and on Talk:Borče_Sredojević#Risky_editing_on_BLP. Basically, what creator and all editors willing to fight over this article are doing is pushing for a team that is a regional exhibition team at best to be included in Wikipedia as "national" team (now renamed into "official" team). Even when and if they played on few occasion in last 25+ years, and we don't have any sources for confirmation, according to what is written in articles, they played mostly against each others between generations (something like: Republika Srpska Under-14 against Republika Srpska Under-12).

In complete disregard of assuming WP:GF User:FkpCascais started reporting my edits primarily describing it and speaking of political, ethno-national motivations, and such - so, when we are at it, I would like to know on what WP grounds User:FkpCascais defends indefensible: creation and maintenance of non-existing Republika Srpska national football team(s), and bundle of several affiliated articles/pages and categories, mostly on youth teams U-23 and U-21, at least three individual players, and several categories. Apart from failing on both general and football notability, entire bundle of articles-categories wrapped around an idea that this team(s) exists as a "national team", trouble is there are no references to confirm such idea, and if there is few, these are mostly unreliable and/or self-published.

Meanwhile, articles on affiliated players failing across the board, first on WP:BLP, than on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players MOS, giving its readers some WP:UNDUE information based on unreferenced pushing on ethnic adherence of a player(s), regardless to WP:OPENPARA; WP:Lead; MOS:BLPLEAD and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players, and based on aforementioned Republika Srpska national football team(s) articles.

It should be noted some clever notability masking (WP:MASK) by moving articles Republika Srpska national football team to Republika Srpska "official" football team (whatever that is supposed to mean).

So, go ahead, report, do what ever esteemed colleague editor(s) think they should do, but know about that Wikipedia-phenomenon called WP:BUNGEE too.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)