User talk:Dzordzm

Mozes li pogledati sledece glasanje o clanku 'Kristalna noc u Zadru'. Clanak ce biti obrisan u protivnom, kao sto se uklanjaju i ostala svedocanstva o stradanju Srba - uprkos svim dokazima i linkovima. Hvala.

Nemanyya 05:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Article Improvement Belgrade
You may wish to vote for Belgrade at the Article Improvement Drive page, here. --estavisti 21:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Invitation
Hello! I invite you to join the WikiProject Serbia. All the best, -- serbiana -  talk  02:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Census based articles
I tried to leave a message on your talk page on the srwiki, but it seems to be protected and I didn't have an account, so I'll leave one here instead. With regards to your points, I'm going to skip over all the technical issues and go straight to the politics of it all, beginning with a little history.

The so-called "rambot articles" were created at a relatively young point in Wikipedia history when there were only about 50,000 artiles. When the rambot was done an additional 30,000 articles were added. At the time, those articles represented a HUGE percentage of the total article space. Now, obviously doing it generated a lot of discussion, much of which took place at WikiProject U.S. cities, WikiProject U.S. counties, the village pump, and even AfD. Many discussions about these articles have taken place over the years and I don't know where to find any specific examples, other than the rambot FAQ.

When the articles were added, I was fortunate to have defenders who were well respected in the Wikipedia community. As a result, despite numerous attempts to delete, it never happened. The theory was that Wikipedia was full of stub articles, just like it is today, on all sorts of fringe topics, not the least of which were a lot of pop cultural articles. Yet, we did not just go ahead and delete all of those just because they were stubs. Many many stubs have become good articles. The same theory applies in this case. The rambot articles contained more data most other stubs, and it was marginally useful. Certainly it was not a comprehensive coverage by any means, but it was useful to some people. In particular, it had a useful side effect: People like to talk about where they live, but they were hesitant to start an article with a one or two sentence description about their town or city. But with the rambot stub articles in place, people felt comfortable improving the articles. Over time many of them have improved greatly.

As for notability specifically, these types of things have always been notable. Even the smallest town has a history that can go back many years. They all have some sort of economy and other interesting, useful information. All that is needed is proper research, which may not be available online, although many communities do have websites now. The argument was made that the places with small populations should not be included, but the problem with that way of thinking is that you have to have an arbitrary cutoff point. What is the threshold for notability?

Unlike specific intergalactic particles, these articles are useful. They may need large quantities of time to improve, but that is no reason to delete. Also, geographical locations have always been considered encyclopedic information by all major encyclopedias, including Wikipedia. The difference here is that Wikipedia does not have space restrictions, so it can include more locations.

If you are going to be successful in adding articles to srwiki, you'll need to be able to convince people of this, just as we did here. It was challenging at best and we still get the occasional challenge to the articles even years later. I would hope that the precedent set here would make it easier, but that's hard to say. If you need any other help or information, just ask away. -- RM 02:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

SR Wikipedia and fair use
While EN has pretty much been told to go onto another direction on promophotos because of an email from the Wikimedia Board, I would suggest to keep going on the path you are on unless told otherwise by the Board. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not think the email (link to it) was referenced anywhere in the fair use policies that we have on EN. I still think it is being decided, since the email is about a month old. Not much new debate took place about what fair use should be on EN, but mainly trying to find out what uses are/are not fair use. I am not sure what else we can do here until we hear from the Foundation, but with your permission, I would like to look at sr.wikipedia and see if there is anything I can suggest. Keep in mind that I am not sure what laws sr.wikipedia is going from (either Serbian or American, that you could answer), but I will do the best I can and see what can happen. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

BHS
Promenio sam na prethodnim Evrovizijama jezik kod BiH. Jeste zaista `srpski`, ali zar nije bolje napisati BHS nego da bude milion reverta da li je B ili S? --Pockey 11:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

please note
please note the discussion on the biased name for war in croatia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Croatian_War_of_Independence, which is proposed to be moved to its original title.

Image:Eurovision 2008 semis map.png
You're right, thanks. I've fixed it now, although it doesn't seem to be updating on the image page, but at full-size (and in the ESC 2008 article) it's fine.  Chwe ch  22:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)