User talk:Sokac121

Pogledaj

http://serbia.usembassy.gov/general20100226a.html

Vidi šta kaže američka ambasada u srbiji... prema nezvaničnim podacima samo u chichagu 350-500.000 ljudi srpskog porekla.... zašto te onda čudi da bi taj broj bio između 700.000 i 1 milijon u celokupnoj americi??? pogotovo kad je reč o Americi gde ljudi imaju po 2,3,4 porekla i preko 310 milijona stanovnika poreklom iz celog sveta... šta je tu toliko začuđujučeg da bi u americi bilo milijon ljudi srpskog porekla ka dsu se oni na tu teritoriju počeli naseljavati već krajem 19. veka, ka dih je bilo oko 20.000 u SAD kao i Norvežana naprimer... a čijih ljudi poreklom ima danas čak oko 5 milijona u americi. Zvanični podaci su korišćeni pod prvo a za veću estimaciju broja korišćen je naravno veći broj... source je bio čak s aBBc-a preveden na srpskom... i t kažeš to nisu dobri izvori.. a svi oni daju procenu od 700k-1milijon... eto tolko samo da ti dam za misliti.... tolko od mene (Правичност (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Izvor za tursku bio je već ranije stavljen, ja ga nisam prvi psotavio, a uz taj izvor ima i zvaničan izvor popisa iz 1965 godine gde pokazuje da ima više od 65.000 ljudi kojima je maternji jezik srpski... kako taj izvor nisi vidio? Koliko onda zaista ima ljudi srpskog porekla u Turskoj.... Broj Srba je već zvanično između 10,5 - 12 milijona... ja sam pokušao, da nađem adekvatne brojke ljudi srpskog porekla iz dijaspore , a ne da po svaku cenu povećam broj Srba... Ako si vidio da Hrvati, česi i Austrijanci nemaju dvostrukih brojki za SAd, onda nisi gledao po svim stranicama. Pogledaj naprimer pod "Greeks" ili "English people" ili "Polish people" i videćeš da ima duplih estimacija i ne samo za SAD... kraj krajeva to je SAD ... i te estimacije iako nezvanične ipak ne postoje za bezveze i stalno se ominju svugde.... Zato ja tu ne vidim problem, kraj krajeva ide se samo za veću estimaciju pokraj one "zvanične" i to je sve... Što se tiče takvih ili onakvih izvora... pogledaj na stranicu "Croats" ili "Bosniaks" ni tamo nije baš sve "čisto" ... Na Croats npr. piše da u Novom zelandu živi 100.000 Hrvata (dok u Australiji približno isti broj) što je zaista smešno, jer cenzus iz 2006 godine čini mi se, pokazuje da je broj Hrvata u novom zelandu 1000. Ta brojka je dakle "Ustostručena". (Правичност (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Misliš ... 600.000 Srba u Hrvatskoj onda :) .... promenilo se mnogo toga da, ali ti izvori su tu stajali već pre... nema veze... Taj izvor za hrvate koji si mi dao je jako nepouzdan... ali ja verujem da ima u Americi otprilike slično Hrvata kao i Srba - između 500.000 i 1 milion... tj. ljudi tih porekala. A i joshua project je bio pre tu, ja sam ga makao, pa sam ga natrag vratio... jer je korišćen i na drugim stranicama upravoo za Srbe iz Danske... a to što si reko da su Srbi sedmi po broju u Nemačkoj, debelo si slagao... Možda ljudi sa srpskim državljanstvom - tj. onaj izvor nemačkog cenzusa što si hteo da ga ubaciš... a taj zivor veze nema sa nacionalnim pripadnošćima. zna se da je pred otprilike 10 godina u nemačkoj živelo do 600.000 Srba a da se je taj broj do danas povećao na 700.000 uopšte nije začuđujuće s obzirom da svake godine 21.000 ljudi ode u nemačku samo iz Srbije ... a gde su još bosanski Srbi i ovi ostali... a tek oni Srbi što već sada imaju četvrtu generaciju života u Nemačkoj... A ono za novi zeland i hrvate... zaista mi s ečini smešno kako u tako velikačkoj australiji živi 120.000 hrvata a u tako malom zeladu pored skoro isti broj. Mada dobro možda grešim... U Čileu da živi skoro 400.000 hrvata je isto napucana brojka ako se ja pitam.. ali ja ne diram vaše pouzdane izvore... ako ti smetaju duple brojke kod Serbs zašto se ne pobuniš isto to kod engleza , grka naprimer... ne samo kod srba... nadam se d anije kompleks u pitanju... nego da budem realan... apdejtat ću te brojke sa što pouzdanijim izvorima, verovatno ću skloniti joshua project itd... ali to d aima u čikagu između 250 i 500.000 srba i u celoj SAD između 700 i 1 milion kaže više dabome pouzdanih izvora ... ima i onih koji kažu 2 milijona ... ali ja takve nisam stavljao kao što me ti osuđuješ...kad sama američka ambasada potvrđuje za čikago... šta će ti pouzdaniji izvor... tako da broj veće estimacije ide uz manji broj za ameriku i to je sve... nego bilo bi lepo kad bi se i ti složio ponekad sa mnom umesto da me osuđuješ. (Правичност (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Nikad nisam ja bio nacionalan, možda samo principialan ali to "temporary" :); nije lepo da me nazivaš nacionalistom, a ja te pozivam da ako se ne budeš složio sa nekim source-om rađe napiši št amisliš o tom izvoru na mom talk pageu umesto da se bezveze prepucavamo na edit ware. I tako doprinesemo konsenzusu. A i veruj da pre nego što stavim neki izvor preupitam druge editore koji imaju više iskustva sa time. (Правичност (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Eee ajd sad budi frajer pa uradi isto to i na drugim stranicama (english people, bulgarians, greeks) itd... Kakav pov? upitam "starešine wikipedije" za izvor, kažu ok. a tebi jedinom smeta... u čemu je sad problem? šta smo pričali ranije? ... svašta. (Правичност (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Cookies

Here's a plate full of cookies to share!
Hi Sokac121, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 19:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hrvatski (disambiguation)

Please stop squabbling and edit-warring over a matter that you know is the topic of WP:ARBMAC. The use of the English term "Serbo-Croatian" is not inappropriate in that context - the Serbian word "hrvatski" also means the same thing so the cover term applies. Being hard-headed on a matter this insignificant (a single word) will merely make people think of you as an intransigent nationalist. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the references in the article Serbo-Croatian, it's not how this one user says, it's how mainstream English linguists say. I know it's annoying to us native hrvatski speakers because it reminds us of the Yugoslav language policy regarding srpskohrvatski, but that's not really an issue for random English readers. For them, it's just a cover term that primarily conveys a functional meaning, not a political one. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DRN

Discussion has led us to WP.DRN. If you are interested in solving this, come and join discussion. --WhiteWriterspeaks

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 Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard 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 find a resolution. The thread is "Gračanica monastery". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A minor change to DRN

Hi there, you're getting this message as you are involved in a case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard which is currently open. Today DRN has undergone a big move resulting in individual cases on subpages as opposed to all the content on one page. This is to inform you that your case is now back on the DRN board and you will be able to 'watch' the subpage it's located on. Thanks, Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 13:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lovćenac, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guyon (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) 11:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for "The Running Man Barnstar"!

Hi

I just saw that you gave me "The Running Man Barnstar" for "Award for quick updating of articles on sport, especially UEFA coefficient.". I must say that I am very thankful for this barnstar and it feels really good that others appreciate my work, so thank you! QED237 (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same battles concerning Serbs on "Slavs" article

Stop edit warring on "Slavs" article and removing sources that are used for figures of Serbs, because the same ones are used for "Serbs" article and those were accepted by all with a concensus. Stop doing everything opposite of Serbian editors, stop being nationalistic and dont concern yourself with articles with Serbian things too much, because its bad for your health as it seems.

We have been through the discussion over this same cause on "Serbs" talk page million times, there is no need to start it over again, you sucked at your nationalist claims before, you will suck again. There is just no backup in your claims... you freaking denie every Serbian source and call it nationalist, while you claim anything that inculdes a "pumped up , inflamed number of Croats" is a good source. If i were you i would rather concern my self with my real life, other than razoring my veins because it says 12 million Serbs on some article on wikipedia (which is too much for your stomach to handle) like you yourself do. Calm down with the fact that there are 1x more Serbs than Croats, stop living in illusions and stop hating and vandalizing reliable sources on Slavs article, like you also used to do with same sources on Serbs article. (Правичност (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Hello, - information

Hello,

I saw that this appeared again as a problem [1], please check the talk page, in the section "Now hear this", here is the link [2] where there was discussed this problem and are several sources for the higher estimate of the total number of Serbs in the world. Sources are there. Please check them. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proffesional denier of reliable Serbian sources; the ultimate Croatian master of wikipedia disaster

A ovoga puta su izvori čak "SEPARATISTIČKI I NACIONALISTIČKI" jel :D hahah... do kojih ideja sve ti dolaziš iznova pa iznova. Kakvih pacijenata ima na ovoj vikipediji pa to je bože me sačuvaj :D. Samim tim što knjigu koja opisuje hrvatska zlodela i progon 250.000 Srba iz Hrvatske 1995 ali i govori o Srbima uopšte; ti nazivaš separatističkim i nacionalističkim izvorom, ti negiraš zločine, negiraš istinu a što je najgore negiraš svaki srpski izvor i svakog srpskog autora i time pokazuješ svoju ustašku naklonjenost. Otklanjanjem izvora za Croats na stranici Slavs i otklanjanjem veće estimacije Hrvata želio sam da ti pokažem, da ako su izvori za "Serbs" separatistički i nacionalistički, onda u istom primeru mogu biti i izvori za "Croats". Nego ja mislim, da se ti svo ovo vreme praviš lud, predragi internetni hrvatski dragovoljac. Nemožeš glupostima, da negiraš srpske izvore i ti i tvoj prijatelj ivanOS koji je veliki fan Franje Tuđmana očigledno. Moj savet je: Okanite se srpskih stranica i srpskih izvora, ne dirajte ih kao što Srbi ne diraju vaše napumpane izvore a dobro znaš da su napumpani, Hrvata nema više od 6-7 miliona sigurno - ali to je i dalje moje mišljenje :) neću da vodim ratove na wikipediji zbog toga, kao što to radiš ti i tvoji "saborci". Savetujem ti, da prestaneš mrziti i voditi borbe, biće ti bolje sa zdravljem.. Bolje ti je ..idi pa rađe gledaj u sunce ili tako nešto, pusti sebi malo srpske narodne i biće ti bolje :). Regards! (Правичност (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Croatian help needed!

Hello Sokac121, I'm contacting you because we need some Croatian translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on hr.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need help with a personal message for the Croatian Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 Anti-Cyrillic protests in Croatia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ovčara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I saw what he wrote, he is attacking without arguments!--Ladimirevcanin (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to award it's my first. I hope is not last.--Ladimirevcanin (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SerboCroatian and Croatian

Hello i need help with "Croats" article.They constantly revert my edit about Croatian as a standarized variety of SerboCroatian in the first part of the chapter."Serbs" article and "Bosniaks" article doesn't mention that fact so i don't know why would "Croats" article mention it.I mean it is said in the language section on "Croats" page why would it be so important to be mentioned in the first chapter of article.User Ivan Štambuk just reverts my edits saying "It is important and this need to be said".And that's all.I don't really see a point that "NEEDS" to be mentioned.See the article and say your thought Scrosby85 22:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of massacres in Croatia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lovas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lorde, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Edit warring

I've mentioned you in an Edit warring case that concerns Правичност. In fact his agenda on Serbs, made clear that some people can't give up with the same POV. If you want you can leave a comment there. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard 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 find a resolution. The thread is "Serbs". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 07:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Serbs and Croats shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. Thank you. (Правичност (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stana Katic, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Montenegrin and Dalmatian (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) 08:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Your repetitive violations of the edit warring policy, esp. in hot-button issues, are what caused this. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2014 (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).

Sokac121 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I blocked for a month, due one changes. User: Joy violates rules of Wikipedia Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding constantly follows me. On the talk page [3] no warning, that I break the rules in article Vukovar. Thanks! Šokac121 ℗ 11:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2014 (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.

I didn't decide to block because of a single edit; the article history clearly shows a pattern of edit warring. I wasn't following you anywhere, the block was warranted by actions on a single article that is on my watchlist. You were previously blocked for edit warring in October 2010 so I didn't think further warnings would help. Claiming that you had to be reminded of some of the basic behavioral rules here, after all this time, is dubious at best. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a block of a month is, in the circumstances, questionable. Also, the blocking administrator was involved, and therefore should not have been the one to place the block. In view of those two circumstances, I have reduced the block to three days. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere apologies for bungling the change to your block. I have just seen your email, and have lifted the block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ukrainians of Croatia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ukrainians of Croatia 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/Ukrainians of Croatia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Bejnar (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]