User talk:Kebeta

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

PLease use Croatia-geo-stub and please read Categorisation. Thanks Dr. Blofeld       White cat 16:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I gather you mean this church? You'll have to contact that flickr user and request him to change the license to Creatuve COmmons Attribution to use on wikipedia,  Dr. Blofeld       White cat 10:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You can search for images under Flickr or Flickr. It appears to be a smallish village church so is unlikely to have any free images just yet. Are you Croatian? If so let me know what your interests are and I will try to transwiki some articles from Croatian wikipedia for you to translate into english? It would be good for you to practice your english if you want to improve. If you could expand some of the castle articles I started that would be good. If you know of any articles that need expansion by translation from croatian wiki please add a   tag. Regards. Dr. Blofeld      White cat 16:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Operation Storm
Hi.

Instead of we engage in an childish edit war we can discuss the matter on Talk:Operation Storm. Regards --Nirvana77 (talk) 07:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

İskele Mosque
Hi Kebeta, I will have a look at the article. Happy edits. --Chapultepec (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Good job
I've noticed your Croatia-related articles - good job! Would you be interested in joining the WikiProject Croatia? GregorB (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I've already decided... :) Joking aside - everyone who has an interest in contributing to Croatia-related articles is welcome to the project. You certainly qualify, so all you need to do is add your name here. GregorB (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good question... Sometimes it's not easy. WP Croatia does not have an official recommendation on how to assess importance. Generally, more than 90% of the articles will fall into either Low or Mid. Low is reserved for relatively obscure (from the perspective of general public) and/or unimportant subjects (villages, municipalities, lesser-known sportspeople and the like). If in doubt, you can either take a look at an article of comparable import and copy the importance assessment from there, or leave the importance parameter empty for the time being (I do it quite often) - it is not mandatory. Also, one way do to it (especially with high and top importance) is to ask for an assessment at the WP Croatia talk page. GregorB (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sorry
I'm not sure what you mean by "check again". I fixed some spelling and Manual of Style issues in your recent edit if that's what you meant. —Admiral Norton (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW you don't have to apologize to me, we both have equal rights to edit articles and if you need anything from me, feel free to ask :-) —Admiral Norton (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Juraj I Šubić Bribirski
I don't know that much about the Šubićs, but while reading this new article of yours, I found this: "Juraj I Šubić was brother of Pavao I Šubić Bribirski [...]. In Dalmatia, he appointed his brothers as commissars of Dalmatian cities. He gave [...] Šibenik, Nin, Trogir and Omiš to his brother Juraj I Šubić." Did Juraj I have a brother of the same name or is this some sort of a mistake? —Admiral Norton (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, I understand now. Whne you wrote "In Dalmatia, he appointed his brothers...", I wasn't sure if you meant Pavao or Juraj. I've changed the sentence to reflect your explanation. —Admiral Norton (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Noble is the weasel word
Hello, Kebeta! The weasel word I was referring to is noble. He is already described as Duke and Prince, so Croatian noble Prince would mean that he is a Croatian prince who showed qualities of high moral character, because the words "Duke" and "Prince" already describe him as a nobleman. Surtsicna (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I deleted "Croatian" from the "Croatian Duchess of Split" because it is redundant and unnecessary. Calling her "Croatian Duchess of Split" is like calling Margaret of Anjou "English Queen of England". The reason why I removed "Croatian" from "Croatian noble family" is because I am not sure what you meant by that. John Van Antwerp Fine mentions the Hrvatinići as one of three Bosnian noble families and doesn't mention them as Croatian anything. Surtsicna (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I deleted the words "from powerful Croatian noble family" from the sentence: Jelena was the sister of Prince Ivan III Nelipac from powerful Croatian noble family. because those words were not included in the reference I placed at the end of the following sentence. We cannot put words into people's mouth, and putting "from powerful Croatian noble family" into sentences sourced by the works of Van Antwerp Fine is precisely that because he doesn't say anything about the ethnicity, power or noble heritage of the Nelipac family. Is there anything else I should explain? Surtsicna (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You can guess whatever you want. I've already explained that the weasel word is the word "noble", because in that sentence it could have only been an adjective describing a person who showed qualities of high moral character. I have also explained why I removed the word Croatian. If you do not have any other relevant questions, other than trying to prove a conspiracy theory against the Croats or whatever, I'd like to work on real issues of this project. Thank you and good luck! Surtsicna (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Mohačka bitka
Hvala lijepa, da si nazad postavio u članku Hrvatska, jer je urednik, tko je izuzeo, ne primi, da Hrvatska je bila napola samostalna država u Mađarskoj. Doncseczznánje 13:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Kingdom of Croatia
No problem. As far as I can tell, you've done it right and there's actually nothing to fix. It is a good thing that you provided a description for the category; at first instant I wanted to add Category:Middle Ages by country as a parent category, but given the description it would not be correct. However, I see a possible problem: this definition makes the category span something like 10 centuries of Croatian history, which may prove too broad for a single category. GregorB (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it could either be split into subcategories, or its definition could be narrowed down to correspond to Kingdom of Croatia (medieval). GregorB (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny, I must have seen this template dozens of times but I did not notice the duplication. Yeah, the "Medieval Croatian state" should be deleted. GregorB (talk) 20:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact I must correct myself: "Medieval Croatian state" describes both the Kingdom of Croatia (925-1102) and the pre-Tomislav state (c. 7th century-925). So, in that sense it is a duplication (and not a good title anyway). However, the 7th-9th century history is not apparently covered by any one article, which is peculiar. It looks that it is due to a badly done merge. I'll take a look, tomorrow perhaps... GregorB (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Finally I've taken a look at the old Medieval Croatian state article as it was before the merge. I could not find a fault with the merge technically speaking, but the article which is titled Kingdom of Croatia (medieval) now covers in some detail events before 925. It seems to me that either the article should be renamed, or it should be split into two articles: 7th century-925 and 925-1102 (i.e. pre-kingdom and kingdom). Oh well: either someone should propose a split, possibly with the involvement of WP Croatia, or we could wait for things to settle eventually. GregorB (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

3RR
Please read WP:3RR in case you haven't heard about the rule. Squash Racket (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Czech Republic – Iceland relations
The article on Czech Republic – Iceland relations is up for deletion, do you have time to see if you can add any new references? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!
 Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: WPMILHIST Announcements.
 * Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
 * If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
 * The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Eurocopter (talk) 06:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, I've just assessed it as start class, as it doesn't meet two criterions. To be a B-class, it needs inline citations to all major points in the article (at least one per paragraph) and a define lead (not only one sentence as currently). However, good work! Best regards, --Eurocopter (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Prozor Fortress seen from town.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:Prozor Fortress seen from town.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: barnstar
Well, thanks! GregorB (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-free image
Hi there,

Sorry, but I've had to remove the image File:Skjcroat.png from Template:SKH CC Chairman.

"Fair use" images can only be used on articles, not in userspace, due to copyright issues. Sorry about that. See WP:NFCC for more info.

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  03:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Mongol Invasion of Croatia
Good job on starting the section about Croatia on the Mongol Invasion of Europe page. I went ahead and cleaned up some grammar; just minor edits. peace Nathraq (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Klis Fortress
For copyediting, I'd recommend filing a request at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors; they have a bit of a backlog, though. (Copyediting is a somewhat scarce resource here on Wikipedia - or at least that's my impression.) I've fixed a thing or two myself in the article and will take a closer look later and perhaps leave some comments in the talk page. That's nice work, BTW... GregorB (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Klis Fortress
— AustralianRupert (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Castle merger
I saw your message about the duplicate castle articles and went ahead and merged them. Thanks for spotting the problem. You did the right thing by tagging it. In the future, you can always just replace the newer of the two with a 'REDIRECT' and then request an "article history merge" if necessary. Someone can always look back at the revision history if he/she wants to see what was there before the redirect. Thanks again. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 04:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Great to see you've settled in well!! I noticed you've done some excellent work on forts and castles in the Balkans. Keep up the good work. Are you interested in extending your work to maybe Austrian castles, they need a lot of work!!! Himalayan  15:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC) (formerly Dr. Blofeld)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Kebeta
Could you please help us to solve this "Triune Kingdom" article on Talk:Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia. You're more familiar with this topic. Regards. --Dvatel (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Triune Kingdom
Kebeta, when someone says "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia", it can mean two things: You can write all about the territorial aspirations of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia in the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article. They do not warrant a seperate article.
 * 1) 99% of sources that use the term "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia" use it as another name for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia.
 * 2) Sometimes, very rarely, the term "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia" refers to the territorial aspirations of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia towards the Kingdom of Dalmatia.

Also, you first claimed in bold script that the Triune Kingdom "was an entity that comprised two administrative divisions within Austro-Hungarian Empire, the kingdoms of Croatia-Slavonia and Dalmatia". When that was shown to be false, you said that "I am not saying this or that" and that the article should be on a territorial aspiration of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia :P. That whole explanation sounds like a contrived excuse to avoid redirecting the article. It sounds like you "just don't agree with the merge proposal" because you've been under the wrong impression that this state existed and want to perpetuate that myth. The two sentences about the territorial aspirations of Croatia-Hungary (and the Kingdom of Hungary itself) on Dalmatia can be easily included in the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 13:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've responded to your post on Talk:Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've responded to your post on Talk:Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 14:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry there :), I posted the notice in advance. I didn't think you'd be so quick. The response is there now. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 14:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Kebeta, seriously, lets end this please? The country is a myth, it never existed - you yourself admitted that. The term is effectively only an alternative name for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. It was used at various times by various elements of the vast Austro-Hungarian bureaucracy that supported a union between Croatia-Slavonia and Dalmatia in that particular period, at times, this also included the Croatian-Slavonian administration as well. Do not fall prey to a historical myth created by this confusing situation.

I've just fully explained the whole situation concerning the term in two sentences. Two. If we were to create an article about such an insignificant subject, it would be deleted by Wikipedia anyway as it meets the criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD).

Can we please end the dispute? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 15:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You've written a lot of points about the complex politics of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, and you've really managed to streeetch the subject far beyond its borders. I recommend you create a "Politics" or "Claim on Dalmatia" section in the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia or Croatia in the Habsburg Empire articles.


 * Please try to understand: what you have here is an article called "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia", and you want it to be on something other than an actual "Kingdom" or even contry? That's not how articles are named. If you feel all this warrants a "special" article, then I can guarantee you that Wikipedia requires a different name than "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia". "Politics of Croatia-Slavonia" is a good example of a proper title.


 * Again, I can guarantee that this kind of articles are not created. And I will demonstrate. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Kebeta, you are obviously confused by prior usage of the term "Triune Kingdom". It has always been an alternative name for Croatian kingdoms:
 * Kingdom of Croatia (medieval) was alternatively called "Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia, and Slavonia".
 * Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) was alternatively called "Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia, and Slavonia". In later years (19th century), it also used "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia", but very rarely (mostly during Jelačić's reign).
 * Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia used ONLY the term "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia", as legislative prohibitions forbade it to place "Dalmatia" up first per the medieval mode.
 * These are ALL alternative names. They have been used by Croats more than others, and now you're determined to stop the duplicate article from being merged or redirected. That's just plain POV-pushing.


 * All your "sources" only show that the name "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was used as an alternative name for the Croatian kingdoms. They do not show the "Triune Kingdom" as a seperate entity. Anyone can see that they are not sources against deletion, I guarantee you that. Your sources actually prove my point. :P You really can stop listing them and referring to them as "proof" of anything other than alternative name usage.


 * Anyway, would a disambiguation page linking to Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) and Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia be acceptable? Shall we end this? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia abolished?
It joined the efforts of the National Council of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. Some historians even call the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs - the State of the National Council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs (but this is a diff matter). Now when did the Parliament of the Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia dissolve? It was "forced to close" by virtue of not having elections for it after December 1st, 1918.; even the Belgrade Cincars hadn't drafted a piece of paper to abolish the Parliament of the Kingdom of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia.

To conclude the Kingdom of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia (sometimes called the Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia, which was not the preferred name) was never abolished, since its Parliament never agreed on the creation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (in the first period called Kraljevstvo Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca). Imbris (talk) 23:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Imbris, once again you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. The name "Kingdom of Croatia (1st), Dalmatia (2nd) and Slavonia (3rd)" was NEVER used. Never. The two names you're looking for are:
 * "Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia, and Slavonia" - used as an alternative name for the Kingdom of Croatia (medieval) and for the Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) up to the 19th century
 * "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" - used as an alternative name for the Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) in the 19th century (up to 1868), and for the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia (1868-1918). Croatian officials actually wanted to use "Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia, and Slavonia" (the name which Imbris never heard of) in the 19th century as well, but were prevented.
 * You both seem completely unable to understand why this article is being merged. Nobody is "abolishing the Croatian kingdom" this is just a redirect to a more frequently used name for the Croatian kingdom!! As I keep repeating for DAYS: unless you can prove that the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia" was a different state than the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia - this page is going to be redirected regardless of your votes to the contrary. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 07:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously not, since those were entities (even illegal entities, or what have you, but political reality for better or worse). The article we were discussing is merely the alternative name and counterfactual claim of an entity which existed throughout, and which we already cover on wikipedia. Dahn (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If one is "semi-legal" (it's not even that, if you ask me) and the other is legitimate, and you agree that both terms cover the same subject, then you are pushing a content fork (in effect, a POV fork). That is the matter the AfD addresses. The solution is to merge under the non-POV title, as was proposed from the beginning. Your point for objecting that merge is therefore void. Dahn (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I frankly don't know much about that case, so I can't really follow your analogy. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Either way, "I saw some other guys doing it" is not a mature argument to preserve content forks. Dahn (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I wrote to Kebeta and not to Dahn or Mr. DIREKTOR. And DIREKTOR is deeply mislead if he believes that Slavonia was used as a name in ancient times of the Croatian kingdom. The term Kingdom of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia is supported by by the majority of documents from that time. Not the Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia which is a construct (virtually made-up) by Mr. DIREKTOR. The kingdom was called in the most earliest times the Kingdom of Dalmatia and Croatia (or the Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia), both were frequent. Not what Mr. DIREKTOR wrote. -- Imbris (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

RE:Language
Do you promise to read my post carefully and reply fully? I don't like wasting my energy on detailed explanations only to have them ignored, as had been my experience with you so far...

Ok, first off, we need to clarify the situation with Croatian and "Croatian or Serbian". The language used in the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and in the Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) was referred to by Austro-Hungarian officials as "Croatian or Serbian". There were both Serbs and Croats in Austria-Hungary and nobody officially distinguished between the two languages. That has been established. Again, modern Croatian revisionist perceptions are not something Wikipedia will likely concern itself with in history articles.

One more point, this is crucial so please read carefully: During the Austro-Hungarian period, the language we know today as Croatian was officially referred to as "Croatian or Serbian". Ok? So the language was early standardized Croatian, but it was called "Croatian or Serbian" in official capacity. This was so for a great many reasons, from the Illyrian movement to Austrian bureaucratic requirements.

Now, I will address other languages in the three states we are talking about: Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) (1527-1868), Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia (1868-1918), and the Kingdom of Dalmatia (1814-1918).

So these are the languages that are to be mentioned in the infoboxes. Finally, a note on User:Imbris: that account is extremely disruptive and discussions with him/her are fruitless and a frankly stupid undertaking. His entire interest on Wikipedia is edit-warring and disputes. I will not be caught wasting my time talking to a user that is here on a nationalist political agenda and cannot, by definition, yield on any argument. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 13:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) (1527-1868), aside from "Croatian or Serbian", used Latin and German (and maybe Hungarian at times).
 * The Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia (1868-1918), aside from "Croatian or Serbian", used Hungarian.
 * The Kingdom of Dalmatia (1814-1918) used "Croatian or Serbian", German, and Italian.


 * If I didn't think it worthwhile I wouldn't respond. I'm sorry but your responses so far gave me the impression that you were not reading my responses, and I wrote dozens of them. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 18:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd really like to receive a proper response to my (lengthy) post above. I really am doing my best to properly discuss the issues at hand. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 20:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Tesla and Croatia
The Nikola Tesla article should not have any extra mention of Croatia. Don't put the passport image in, and don't change his birthplace. The article has reached its current position through a hard process of balancing radically differing views, and any disturbance of the balance will be reverted. Binksternet (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Tesla's Birthplace
He wrote that he was born in the Austro-Hungarian Military Frontier. That existed on the planet Earth at the time he was born. There was then no such place as the "Croatian Military Frontier." Countries which exist in the 21st century cannot be somehow made to exist in the mid-19th century. Provide reliable sources or give up your POV nationalistic and jingoistic efforts. Edison (talk) 04:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that I struck out my own overly strong language, for which I also apologize. I have read Tesla stating he was from the Austro-Hungarian military frontier, but have not seen reference by him as to the Croatian military frontier. I did not know that that term was used in the mid 1850's and thank you for correcting me. The Tesla article has been the locus of a long lasting and frustrating battle over what to call his nationality, largely based on governments and political boundaries that were not in place in his time, so those who watch the article generally do not look with favor on Serbian vs Croatian edit warring, and strive to keep a stable version of the article, with changes only when there is consensus on the article's talk page.  Edison (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Dubovac (Croatia)
Since you're the expert on castles, you might want to take a look at Dubovac. The article is purportedly on a village, but actually discusses the castle only, and needs a cleanup. (And a rename at that.) The Croatian Post link is a decent source. GregorB (talk) 11:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Peruća
Check here, in all sources where I looked for it (in "Hrvatska enciklopedija" by LZMK and "Opća i nacionalna enciklopedija", and HEP web pages about Peruća Dam) there is mention only of form Peruća. So I conclude authors of "Hrvatski leksikon" weren't here too careful. Some people pronounce č and ć the same, maybe that is the root of mistake... SpeedyGonsales (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Serb Uskoks
An article that you have been involved in editing, Serb Uskoks, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. You didn't work on that page per say, but the Uskoci one. I thought you would be interested. Jesuislafete (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina location map
Not sure that would be the best solution as it carries certain political connotations with it. Instead I propose we create a map similar to File:Alps location map.png. PRODUCER (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's best to ask the author of the map I mentioned. PRODUCER (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Toroko
Coming in to revert like that isn't unusual. It's actually a fairly common strategy (usually more often from IPs rather than users) and particularly annoying, but I've asked him about it. If he doesn't stop and start some serious discussion (mere statements that he is right aren't what I mean), I think I will start with a topic ban on those articles rather than actual blocking, and see if that helps. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Kebeta, be patient. Don't lose your temper. Admins are now more touchy than before. Stay civil, post an argument on the talkpage and wait. Kubura (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Just patience, Kebeta. All we need is patience. We are trying to reach an agreement. And we'll persist in that. That's our attitude. Why shall we lose our good reputation? Because of those who don't have (good) reputation, but have influence or because we're somewhere outnumbered (by those who don't care for arguments, but represent "the voting body")? Sooner or later someone'll read our arguments. That "someone" can be currently uninvolved or currently involved (they'll open their eyes). I've seen the cases where the argumentation laster for 2 years, just because the other wikipedians (including the admins involved) were driven/mislead by stereotypes (or they never read some other source). Until someone said "The emperor is naked!". Kubura (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Walls of Dubrovnik
Passed. Congrats! May there be many more! Apologies for the delay. The image is fine, its copyright has expired in the United States. -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Your welcome. -- Jack1755 (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, great work, I'm really glad I've been able to help! GregorB (talk) 08:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military history Wikiproject!
 Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: WPMILHIST Announcements.
 * Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
 * If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
 * The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! TomStar81 (Talk) 18:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Architecture
Hello and welcome to the wikiproject - here's the bulletin - if you don't like it just delete it from your talk page, otherwise, it automatically updates. Please give me or one of the other project members a shout if you need any help. Kind regards

Place of birth and death in biographies
Great to see all the new articles you are spitting out! But I think the manual of style stipulates that places of births and deathshould not go with the dates of birth and death in the beginning but indtead ne incorporated in the text. Not that it seems awfully important though.Ramblersen (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I certainly see the point in mentioning the place of birth and/or death in the text of longer biographical articles but it might seem rather artificial in cases where very little is known about the life of an individual apart from the dates and places of birth and death. I'll try to take account of it in future though. Ipigott (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Elekhh (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Croatian Literature
Thank you for the information on Renaissance/Medieval Croatian literature. I've wondered whether how successful Opsida Sigecka was -- either way, apparently not as successful as Szigeti Veszedelem. While I'm on the topic, the article on Siege of Sziget (which I originally created, way back when) has the Croatian title as "Opsada Sigeta"; would you know which spelling is more correct?

Thanks for the other recommendations, too. I've been reading into their articles -- tremendous works. Korossyl (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Szigeti Veszedelem
Hello!

I'm so glad this article interests you; for my part, I cleaned up Judita a little bit. Unfortunately, I don't know of anyplace I can find a first printing of Szigeti Veszedelem to scan the title page. Regarding an English translation: none has ever been published... yet. Over the past several years, I myself have worked on and finally completed the first-ever English translation of the entire work. It is in the publication process at The Catholic University of America's Press, but it is not expected to be released until another two years, perhaps. It is coming, though...! Korossyl (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Badnjak
I'm sure you've already looked into it, but do you happen to have any more information on the history of badnjak? It would be greatly appreciated if you could help, some users want to keep the page a Serb club for some reason. --Jesuislafete (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like they have finally decided to separate badnjak by ethnic lines. I created a Croatian Badnjak page if you are interested in contributing. --Jesuislafete (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Change to Ivan I Crnojević
Hey I've reverted it as its definitely going to be controversial. If you have a source great. Otherwise can you discuss it on the talk page first? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC) "Hi, I agree it is controversial (like many things related with Bosnia). Here is one source: Viator, page 388, from Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies / University of California. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)"


 * That looks like a very reliable source, but I can't see the exact quote from the book which shows it. Can you point it out? Thanks. PS I'd rather discuss this here so its all in one place, your talk page is on my watchlist :). -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is in a fourth sentence from the end of page 388. It is written ...Bosnian regional lord Herzeg Stjepan Vukčić-Kosaca...Kebeta (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's clear, I think it'll need to be discussed on the talk page. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well! Kebeta (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool :). -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Хелло!
Just wanted to say hello! Your fine copy-editing are with such a stile and easiness! Please, i want to see more of your touch in articles that i created. -- Tadijataking 21:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello and thank you Tadija! I hope to see you articles as B or GA class some day. Thanks again. Kebeta (talk) 10:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Klis Fortress
The article Klis Fortress you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Klis Fortress for things which need to be addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Slavko Goldstein
Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Slavko Goldstein. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Slavko Goldstein


The article Slavko Goldstein has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010 must have references.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided reliable sources, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide sources within 10 days, you may request the article be undeleted when you have sources. NW ( Talk ) 00:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Slavko Goldstein and Ivo Goldstein
Regarding these two articles, I've found a number of reliable newspaper articles about them, which will help us to expand both articles and save the former from deletion. Happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 04:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: GA Review for Klis Fortress
Hello Kebeta. I will be keeping an eye on Klis Fortress - have been away from Wikipedia this week, otherwise would have a go at it sooner. I agree with the GA reviewer - mostly it's copyediting that's needed. I'll do a more thorough pass through the article within a couple of days.

As for the Zagreb Synagogue - yes, it has GA potential. And one might say it's already "in the works" - see this recent discussion. I'd like to do it, and I'd particularly like to do it as a collaborative effort, so if you're interested - I'd really appreciate your help. April/May time frame would be fine, there's no rush. GregorB (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Laurinavicius already seems to be at work. :-) What can I say, that's great! One of these days I'll assemble a todo list for the article, so when the time comes (matter of weeks or perhaps months) we'll take it from there. GregorB (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! I think that "mother of all sources" is copyrighted (images), can you check this somehow. If necessary, I can draw some architecture layouts or sections of the synagogue. Kebeta (talk) 12:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, mates! With just a bit of copyediting on the parts of Jezhotwells and myself, Klis Fortress is up to GA standards and has been promoted to be a Good Article! Fantastic job, lads! Regarding Zagreb Synagogue, I've already started working on it, and plan on suggesting it for a Peer Review later today. Sound good? Happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations to everyone involved! I was a bit slow on the trigger - thought that we had a couple of days more to do the copyediting but fortunately this has already been taken care of. Really a great work! GregorB (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Congratulations
Thank you! I appreciate your help, it really pushed the article forward. Thanks to everyone who contributed, things were put in place really quickly - I'm still a bit surprised how smoothly it all went.
 * Thanks GregorB! Yeah, that was one fast GA Review! Kebeta (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You know, my next subject is something I intended to discuss later, but frankly I'm a bit impatient by now, so here it is. I have an idea about our possible future collaboration: making the List of castles in Croatia into a featured list. Reasons: 1) I'm sure it has a potential for a cracking article, 2) I happen to know a couple of editors who might be interested and able to help, :-) and 3) I've never done featured lists, so this would be something new for me. What do you think? GregorB (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Making the List of castles in Croatia into a featured list is very notable idea, which I fully support and I am willing to help in any way. But, I don't think that would be easy job to do. Basically, it should consist of three mayor parts: Lead, List it self, and references. The main problem should be how to decide which "castles" should be included in the list. Should we include forts, fortresses, motte-and-baileyes, fortified manor housees, tower houses, walls,...as well. If not, we would have a problem because some fortresses were also castles before. If yes, there are so many so-called castles in Croatia, that it would be impossible to list them all with suitable references to achive a featured list. What do you think? Kebeta (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are quite right... The criterion for inclusion is tricky indeed. If one sticks to the title (just "castles"), forts and fortifications would be left out, which would be a great shame. (And that's even without going into the problem of defining what is a castle.) Still, take a look at List of castles in Cheshire, which seems to handle these exact problems (by providing a "Type" column). (List of National Treasures of Japan (residences) is also a wonderful list.)
 * I must admit that my idea about this list going to FL is motivated more by an extrapolation of what this list may yet become, rather than its current condition. So, yes, a major amount of work would be required - but the basics are already there, in the existing articles on castles. GregorB (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, we certainly can try...I was thinking to push Battle of Szigetvár for a GA Review soon, but featured list (something new, as you said) seems more attractive.
 * List of castles in Cheshire is a good example, because castles in Croatia are mostly in continental parts, while forts and fortresses are in littoral parts. So, providing a "Type" column should solve some problems. BTW, are you going to create a new list array for the castles, or we can copy-paste it from the List of castles in Cheshire, which is pretty good (except it does not include images of the castles)? Kebeta (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The list layout is a matter for discussion. The Cheshire list is a nice model, but we may still extend it a bit. I like the idea of having images in the list, like the Japanese article. Croatian castles have very good Commons coverage in this respect. We'll see.
 * However: since, as I said, major work is needed, my suggestion for the moment is to start with low intensity work, so you can still direct your main effort toward Battle of Szigetvár and edit the list of castles only when you get bored :-), and I might do the same. Since Battle of Szigetvár is certainly much closer to promotion than the list of castles, maybe this would make sense. If three editors chip in, the article may get ahead fairly quickly even if it's light work from all three of them individually. Okay, I'm going to contact the third man now... GregorB (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good! (low intensity work, and images in the layout)
 * Any help regarding the Battle of Szigetvár is more than welcome. It needs a good copyediting. Lots of info I added is copy-paste from books, so it would need a copyediting because of copyright. Also a modern touch in text, instead of archaic one from the books is needed. Like usual, prose is not my thing, I guess...Kebeta (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll try to help. Well, I'm no Hemingway either, but I'll do what I can. The article is fleshed out pretty solidly, so I guess whatever needs to be done, it's nothing major.
 * As for the list of castles: Silverije is interested, so I guess we'll begin. I don't expect quick results, but it doesn't matter - there's no rush, and I guess I spend too much time on Wikipedia anyway. :-) The discussion will continue on the article's talk page. GregorB (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ragusa/Dubrovnik
Hi Kebeta. Regarding the dispute about the name Ragusa/Dubrovnik, originally Ragusa was one place, named "Ragusa" or "Rausa" or "Lausa" or something similar. The Ragusan Giacomo di Pietro Luccari wrote in his Copioso ristretto degli annali di Rausa (In Venetia, 1605) that "atorno li anni del Signore 1035 (...) si fabricò un'altro corpo di Rausa verso Tramontana, dov'era un bosco delle olive, et alberi salvatichi, che scendeva al mare, et nella lingua Slava si domandava Dubrava, onde derivò il nome di Dubrovnik". So, the name "Dubrovnik" comes from XI century. In the Historical Archive of Dubrovnik you can't find a single document coming from the Ragusan officies (Senato, Rettore, Cancelleria etc.) with the name "Dubrovnik" as official name of the city. The famous "Charter of Kulin Ban" (Povelja Kulin Ban - 1189) was the first document wich presented the name "Dubrovnik". It was also the first written Bosnian document. But it was a document coming from the Kulin's court, written from a clerk named Radoje. So, this charter isn't a Ragusan document. The name "Dubrovnik" was for the first time the official name of the city in 1867, together with "Ragusa". The old name was scrapped only in 1920, after the Treaty of Rapallo. Here you can see a page from the "Repertorio delle località del Regno di Dalmazia" (Zara, 1872), the list of the official names of all the Dalmatian "communes" in 1872. Regards.--151.21.248.189 (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I still can't catch what happened on my talk page these couple days, but I guess the answer is on the Template talk:Maritime republics. Kebeta (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * mmmm: I don't see the answer on the Template.--151.21.252.194 (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Fausto Veranzio or Faust Vrančić
You were involved on the article so I thought this may interest you. regards -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice call! No words! --Theirrulez (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You do realize that means absolutely nothing in English, don't you? Relax, Theirrulez. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 13:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Klis Fortress
Well, A-class is an interesting idea... The article is in excellent shape, from what I can tell at the first glance - the architecture section is a big bonus compared to the GA-reviewed version. I'll keep an eye... GregorB (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Cancelling reliable sources without any discussion
Sir, could you kindly provide me a reasonable ground for which you and User:DIREKTOR auomatically cancel reliable sources like: from the articles about Giacomo Micaglia, without any discussion in the related talk page? Thanks, --Theirrulez (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Croatian Academy of America, Journal of Croatian studies, p. 286 Volumes 36-37, 1997
 * 3. RAI International Online - Prof. F. Bruni, Lingue diverse dall’italiano in Italia

Anyways thanks to the efforts you did answering, at least I appreciate it. Maybe you remebered "let's talk about it" above. --Theirrulez (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

About last transformations on Giacomo Micaglia article
Yes, always ok, but why your sources are reliable and mine are AUTOMATICALLY cancelled? You are confusing the use of a primary source with the use of a secondary source. You exactly knows the history of Illiric (not Croatian) settlement on the Gargano Peninsula? It's very different from Molise Croats, a kind of settlment in other area and other age (moreover still survived).

Do you really know the history of the Micaglia Family? Even appreciating your answers, I feel compelled to explain that in Peschici Micaglia Family was present since 11th century, and above all still survives. That last Slavic groups hosted on the Gargano Peninsula were some Illirics and Proto-slavonics during the 9th century. Micaglia wasn' at all "Croat", Micaglia knows Slavic languages because Peschicians had historically massive trades with Dalmatians and Slavs. In Peschici Harbour it was used to sale woods (Gargano hosted the hugest pinewood in southern Europe) and to build ships for Ragusans and Slavic companies (as clearly described in the footnote I added). For those reasons lots of Peschicians, were able to understand or write both Dalmatian (very similar to Italian), both a sort of Pre-Croatian language, spoken by many Slavonic merchants passed in the harbour time.

I understand the importance of Micaglia for the history of Croatian Language, and I really believe he's a patrimony of your linguistical roots. If you'll let me work on the article, I will underline it three times, I will develop this aspect and I will provide as many sources and references to make the article an example for the entire web. But you and above all DIREKTOR have to understand that try to make him a Croat or to change his name croatizing it it's historically false (no discussions about his name in Croatian, but as title it works on hr.wiki, not on en.wiki). All the arguments about it (see Molise Croats or Croatian settlements) are historically false.

So please, read again the sources i provide, take more informations about Micaglia family if you want, about the Gargano peninsula. I studied for a long time every aspect related to that territory and its history. I wrote an article on it.wiki about Rodi Garganico (5 km from Peschici, same families same history, same roots) which has been awarded as a FA. Please trust me. Changing historical truth cannot be useful to Croatian history, believe me.

Sincerely, --Theirrulez (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

New Fausto Veranzio RM
You voted here on the first RM so I imagine you might be interested in the new requested move as well. Best regards. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 01:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to explain here. Direktor is used to advice only partizan users, I know you voted last time, other user did the same, but if you want to send notices or invitations, you must send to everyone, not only to one-side voters. This is called votestacking. --Theirrulez (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You and all other people were already invited by Direktor so I answered to a friendly notice of AjaxSmack, who made me know about another RM. Please cancel my edit from the page where I didn't posted, it's not fair, because I clearly wrote "I prefer to explain here". --Theirrulez (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Klis Fortress
Because the allotted 28 days have expired I've closed the above article's milhist A-Class review. With two supports but some outstanding issues highlighted by reviewers, unfortunately I was unable to promote the article. However, I'd like to congratulate you on an excellent piece or writing and research, and encourage you to renominate the article once you've addressed the few remaining concerns. You were very close and I'm sure that if you choose to resubmit the article you'll be successful next time. Thank you for your interest in milhist and your sterling work in improving Wikipedia. All the best, EyeSerene talk 09:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Too bad it didn't pass, the article was significantly improved compared to the version that made GA. But it's close apparently, so I guess it'll pass with a bit of extra work... GregorB (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply. Milhist ACR requires three "support" !votes and no outstanding issues or criteria-based opposes. As you'll have seen from the review, Klis Fortress was one support short of promotion. Copyediting seemed to be a general concern but it looks to me like you'd replied to Tom's comments, so it might be best to ask him what outstanding issues remained. Hope this helps, EyeSerene talk 12:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Republic of Ragusa. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 17:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

GA review for Battle of Szigetvár
I have placed the article on hold as it has some major flaws. See Talk:Battle of Szigetvár/GA1. Renata (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Matija Vojsalić
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Matija Vojsalić, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/House_of_Hrvatinic.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. I saw your note at Coren's page and wanted to reply. They likely did not copy content from that site; that site regularly mirrors Wikipedia content. However, it does draw attention to a copyright issue with the new article: Wikipedia's content is not public domain. It can only be reused in compliance with the license, even within the project itself. To do this, you have to give credit when you copy content. See Copying within Wikipedia for more information and details on the procedure. I will fix this article, but if you have copied content in similar fashion before, please correct the lack of attribution. If you need help with the procedure, you're welcome to drop by my talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You have a good memory. :) It's a pretty simple process. You make a null edit and use as your edit summary something like this: "article created with content from Klis Fortress ". Then you put on the talk page of the origin article and the new article: . You can see that approach in action at  and . There's an optional parameter for the specific "diff" of the origin article at the point it was copied, but it isn't essential. What matters is recording when and where text was copied from one article to another. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, please, to the best of your ability. I know it's a pain in the neck, but these constitute copyright problems until they're attributed. Having spent over two years now working copyright issues on Wikipedia, I know that they can cause massive headaches down the road when trying to trace back the origin of text. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks much. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Central Europe, 814.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Central Europe, 814.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 19:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Luka Kaliterna
Nah, my mistake... I guess my brain shut down for a moment. :-) I've changed it now to plain old "unreferenced". A good catch BTW. GregorB (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's on my watch list as of now... Not bad, not bad - I have some comments and I'll leave them on the article's talk page. It doesn't take much to persuade me to get involved with a WP Croatia's candidate for GA... :-) I'm currently working with Cordless Larry on Tvrđa (well, on and off), hoping to achieve the same goal. I'll certainly try to help with both of these. GregorB (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the infobox on Tvrđa - an excellent idea, somehow I haven't thought of that! GregorB (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Mahmud Pasha
Hello! I do not quite understand what it is you complain about... That the merge was not done fully, with the material from the redirected article transferred to the other? Or that I redirected in the first place? The redirected article contained less info than the new one (which wasn't created by me, mark you), except for the claim that he was a Croat or a Serb. However, if you read Stavrides' book carefully, you'll see that the "Croat" origin is a misnomer. That is why I left it out. I do intend to expand the article quite a bit in the next few days, so please be patient. Constantine  ✍  22:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not an admin, so I cannot perform a history merge. However, I do feel you are overreacting: we are talking about two stub articles here. The redirect itself is non-controversial, since there have been dozens if not hundreds of "Mahmud Pashas" in Ottoman history, while only one "Veli Mahmud Pasha" or "Mahmud Pasha Angelovic". Now, if I had had it my way, I would have simply moved "Mahmud Pasha" to "Veli Mahmud Pasha", and there'd be no problem. However another user created the page himself, and my actions are merely a reaction to his/her edits. as for changing the redirect, I first used the Angelovic name because that is what I had in the clipboard at the time. I simply pasted it and pressed "enter". As soon as I saw that it was another redirect, I corrected that. Why is that a problem? Constantine  ✍  23:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Re his nationality, it was not decided by me. It is pretty clearly stated in a very authoritative source. Read it for yourself. Constantine  ✍  23:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

List of castles in Europe
Hi. Just to let you know that I removed Template:List of castles in Europe from all the Croatian castle articles. It's a list-listing template intended for use on lists such as List of castles in Croatia, not on inidividual castle articles, and wasn't being used on articles on castles in any other country. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * O.K. Kebeta (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Check this!
Indeed! That's Wikipedia at its best. Incidentally, it's also one of the reasons - perhaps not the most important, but still an important one - why I write here, in English, and not in Croatian. It's the impact. I've seen a couple of articles of my own (albeit not nearly as substantial as this one) "spreading" across foreign language wikis, and it's a very nice feeling. ("Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery".) GregorB (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not really an authority on aesthetics, but I'd say it's fine. I wouldn't say it's worse. GregorB (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Roads in Zagreb category
The A1 was included in Category:Roads in Zagreb as the motorway runs through territory of the City of Zagreb. Similarly, it is included in county categories. Perhaps there is another category within [Category:Zagreb] that would be better for this one. Any thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it is a better category than Category:Zagreb. I wondered if there was another solution to this since you seem to have removed it from that one yesterday.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I think it should go to Roads in Zagreb at least for now. Perhaps at some point there shall be a category for motorways and maybe state roads too for each county as the best solution, as you proposed. Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh and one more issue - since the City of Zagreb and Zagreb County are two different things I think the A1 should be both in Roads in Zagreb and Zagreb County categories. What do you think about that one?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Siege of Trsat
Unfortunately, it appears that significant changes would be needed to make GA (or just to stay in the GA game). I'd still say it's doable, but not in the time that's allotted. Since this hinges on the use of sources, many of which are offline, my hands are more or less tied here... What are your plans? GregorB (talk) 09:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. Count me in. I'll try to address at least some of the GA review points, such as e.g. rewriting the intro. As for discussing the specific points, we'll use the article's talk page. Regarding English - yours and mine - maybe it would be a good idea to ask Diannaa to make another quick pass once we do our bit. (She has done an excellent job and deserves a barnstar if GAN succeeds.) This is why we'll have to move quickly. GregorB (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent news... I must say it had me worried for a while. I'd like to make some improvements nevertheless, and then we'll call Diannaa. GregorB (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, maybe that's even better. It's not necessary to change anything major anyway. GregorB (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's hard to say... I'm a bit pessimistic about Battle of Szigetvár, because I feel that we'll have to (at least partially) address Renata's 7 GAR points, and - as I've already noted - this is going to be difficult. To be quite concrete: #2, #3, #5, #6, and #7 are the "easy ones" (as you've noted yourself), and #1 and #4 are the "hard ones" - in fact, even #1 should be easy once #4 is taken care of. So, it all boils down to this: can we resolve #4? If the answer is "no", I'm afraid our effort toward GA status might be wasted. But if the answer is "yes", I think we should go for it.
 * On a side note: would you say it would make sense to establish an informal process of "GA candidature" within WP Croatia, in which interested editors would pick an article and a time frame, and coordinate their efforts? GAN is not easy stuff, but good teamwork makes it much, much easier. An ideal team: the article's principal author, one or more WP Croatia members, and at least one native English speaker for copyediting (GOCE or such). (Incidentally, my longstanding wish is to bring Lastovo and Blanka Vlašić to GA. These attract me as the "easy targets", so to say: Lastovo is a former FA, while Vlašić has a huge volume of potential sources, and is already of very solid B quality, plus I'd ask people from WP Athletics to help.) GregorB (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're quite correct about the lack of editors. However, it is precisely this fact that makes coordination useful - even if it's same 4 or 5 people participating each time.
 * Right now I'm working on and off (more "off" than "on" these days :-) ) on Tvrđa, keeping an eye on A3 (Croatia) (Tomobe is again doing an impressive job there and is headed for GA), and would really like to help on the Battle of Szigetvár but I'm a bit busy IRL these days and thus a bit stretched for all this. I must confess that's one of the reasons I'd find coordination beneficial. :-)
 * I'll check out what's the status of Battle of Szigetvár regarding #4 and I'm putting it on my watchlist. Hopefully you'll not be nominating it too soon - I'd like to finish Tvrđa first, it's dragging on a bit. GregorB (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the page within WP Croatia - well, that's certainly a possibility. But, by "informal" I meant that this would be a process that would - at least initially - take place on the WP Croatia's talk page, for simplicity and visibility.
 * Normally, that's what Assessment department would be for, and I considered creating it, but I still think WP Croatia is too small for such formal departments - there would be too few readers while the traffic at the project's talk page is low anyway. GregorB (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: The Barnstar of National Merit
Thank you. I really appreciate it... GregorB (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Walls of Dubrovnik seen from hill.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Walls of Dubrovnik seen from hill.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Pardon me for intruding, but this image is already uploaded to Commons, and it's therefore not necessary to upload it here - problem solved... GregorB (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox picture (Croats)
Ej, napravio sam sliku, koja bi mogla odgovarati svima. Dodani su Davor Šuker, Ivano Balić, J. Kostelić i B. Vlašić. No, kako sam dobio izbačaj s Commonsa nisam u stanju postaviti sliku. Ako bi mi mogao dati svoju e-mail adresu da ti pošaljem sliku, a ti je postavi kao novu verziju stare, sa malo izmijenjenom licencom naravno.--Wustefuchs (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahha, ok, na engleskom ćemo.

I added subject on Croatia portal. You can replay now here.

If you think that this picture, wich can be seen on talk page, isn't good then say a sugesstion, and you or I can make a new one (or someone eals). S poštovanjem, --Wustefuchs (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Croats infobox picture
Hey, I appreciate your effort to include Janica, Blanka and Tito into the infobox in the Croats article. However, it kind of looks messy in your version. I suggest we take some time to discuss the total number of people we should put in there and agree on some kind of selection criteria (for example, we might agree to have 12 people, 3 each from sports, politics, science and arts; 2-3 of those women; at least 3-4 out of those 12 from the last 100 years or so, etc.). After we agree, we could make a compound image such as and use it. Wustefuchs already started a discussion about this at WP Croatia here. Your comments will be appreciated. Cheers! '' Timbouctou 12:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the discussion was started at Talk:Croats, so I made a brief comment there. This not an easy task... It's easy to set the general principles, but it's hard to make a concrete choice. GregorB (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks, but the article would not have been possible, if you had not done, thank you. Edslov (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Images
It's not necessary to tag all images with WP Croatia banner, just those that were uploaded to Wikipedia rather than Commons. There are thousands of images on Commons, and they can be tracked through other mechanisms (categories that exist over there). On the other hand, non-Commons images related to Croatia are otherwise difficult to track, so it makes sense to tag them. At least that was the idea... GregorB (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Kebeta (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was considering to leave a note about this on the WP Croatia talk page, this distinction is not obvious... I'll probably remove the banner from Commons images, leave the rest. GregorB (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Football infoboxes
Hi, I've noticed you've changed some present and former Croatian football players' articles by adding "modern Croatia" in the Place of birth parameter. This is an isue that caused lengthy discussions over at WP:FOOTY in the past and the current consensus is that in such cases only the country as it was known at the time of birth should be used (e.g. SFR Yugoslavia for everyone born before 1991). For example, see Pavel Nedvěd or Andriy Shevchenko. I myself would like to dispense with the SFR prefix as the only reason we use it in football articles is to distinguish it from FR Yugoslavia. Some editors aren't aware of this so they insist on adding additional determiners such as FPR Yugoslavia. There's also an issue with players born during the Kingdom of Yugoslavia as some editors insist on using the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes although this shouldn't be necessary as the country was widely known as "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" throughout its existence (just like North Korea is regardless the country's official name). I assume that one day we will reach a point when the 1918-1940s country will be referred to as Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the 1945-1991 country will be referred to as just Yugoslavia and the 1992-2006 country will be referred to as Serbia and Montenegro (regardless of the initial FR Yugoslavia name), but this is not yet the adopted policy. Perhaps these details are not a problem for other notable people, but the issue of nationality in football is closely related to national teams as recognized by FIFA and that's why the current policy is in force. In short, adding an explanation that the place of birth is in present-day Croatia is unnecessary in the infobox and belongs in the article's prose. Happy editing. '' Timbouctou 15:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Szigetvár
I've begun the copy edit process which you requested and substantially completed the lead section and the next two sections. The was much confusion, repetition and unneccessary detail which I removed. However, some of the text was so confusing that I had to guess at the true meaning and may have goofed in my interpretations. You and other main contributers may want to verify my work and make corrections. I'll do some more later. --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Croatian war of independence
Hi! I noticed you are active editing the article and I also saw that someone disputes the title as biased. I really have no time to edit right now, but I'd like to help, so I thought to point you to a Guardian article, a New York Times article, a BBC News article, an ABC news article and a Book (ISBN 978-6130028619) as solid references for the title. I'm confident that's the way to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the title and hence the article is not biased and it may pass the GAN (at least in that respect). Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Kosovo
Please feel free to paste those links in the edit summary next time :) I've checked that and http://www.knauf.hr/kontakti.aspx seems to confirm my suspicion, as does the old map you'll see linked in my edit summary. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That's actually completely normal. In Zagreb, on the accessor road to the Youth Bridge, there is still a large road sign referencing the European route E-94. This has been obsolete since before 1990, yet nobody has bothered to replace or remove it :) I've noted this in the municipality article, having found more sources that confirm Knauf's address in "Kosovo". --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Suleiman Bridge
Hi, Please see my note on the page talk page of Suleiman Bridge. Happy editting. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Congratulations
Just saw it... Congratulations to you too, a fine job! GregorB (talk) 10:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Kebeta, hope you're well. As an editor who has used the services of the Guild of Copy Editors, I thought you might be interested in knowing that the Guild is currently holding elections for its coordinators. To view the discussion and voice your opinion, please visit the election page. Thanks! Lunalet (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide yo do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar
Hi! Thanks for the barnstar, I really appreciate it. Hopefully there'll be some more GAs yet for both of us!--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. Do you know if the book contents update along with the articles that comprise it or not?--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Lissa (1866)
Your 08:31 12 December 2010 edit to the article on the Battle of Lissa (1866) was unhelpful. I have reverted it and updated the links. I know you mean well, but going around deleting links that no longer works is often the wrong thing to do.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Velenje Castle
Hello! Your submission of Velenje Castle at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!  — Toдor Boжinov — 20:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Further reading and references (notes)
Hi! I just spotted that you have added a book specified in the references of the Croatian War of Independence to the Books (i.e. Further reading). Although that is perfectly accurate, WP:FURTHER specifically defines that such titles must not be repeated. Sorry, I would have pointed this out earlier, but as I said, I just noticed that. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand something. The article 'Croatian War of Independence' does not have a 'Further reading' section. If such section existed, you would be perfectly right. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops. Was thinking that's what it was. My bad. Sorry.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No problemo, but 'Notes' in the article which contain same thing as 'References' may be required by a GA reviewer to be shorter. For example, if there is a book in reference like Wilkinson, Sir John Gardner (2005) [1848]. Dalmatia and Montenegro: With a Journey to Mostar in Herzegovina. I. London: John Murray – Harvard College Library. ISBN 1402182538, 1421288567., it should look in the notes like Wilkinson (1848), pp. 169–172. (Author, year and page number). A far as I know, this applies only to books, not for newspapers and other. Kebeta (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This time I think I found what we're looking for: MOS:WORKS - and best of all, it provides both for books and films! (and yes, btw you are right)--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, what can I say....:-) Kebeta (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I had another look at the article and noticed that the first actual picture is way down in the text. Since you spent a lot of effort arranging the images, I thought to check with you first: I'd like to move the Vukovar water tower to the 3rd paragraph in the lead (aligned left) and insert a picture of Milošević speaking at Gazimestan at "Rise of nationalism" section. What do you think?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I just tryed to arrange the images into appropriate sections, and to make sure that the images should not sandwich text on both sides. Regarding your first intention (Vukovar water tower) - I think that would be a great image for a lead, but it might be to big. What do you think? Regarding your second intention (picture of Milošević) - I think it is OK. Anyway, the GA reviewer might have something to say about images. So, feel free to insert them. BTW, the article looks very good now, mostly thanks to you. Good job. Kebeta (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the first one is moved, had to place it in the 2nd para to avoid having it jut out of the bottom of the lead or on the top of the article though. The second one is not available on the commons, rather only as a copyrighted material on Serbian wiki, so I abandoned that one. At least I put a reference to the speech in the section. As far as the overall article is concerned, if there ever was a joint effort, this one is it!--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as much as I wanted to see 'Croatian War of Independence' as a GA, I wouldn't try to bring it to GA by myself (from the point that article was already big and largely unreferenced). So, if you didn't started fixing, things wouldn't changed for the better any time soon. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Same here, I guess the subject is too broad for a single editor. BTW, I noticed that all images are 200px, but I made the one in the lead 180 to allow more text there (because the infobox takes some place too) and I don't think it's that bad since the image is a portrait framed image, separated from the next image by substantial chunk of text.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The image in the lead looks fine. BTW, the article could be re-nominated for GA soon, since all mayjor points are addressed now (except copyediting-which is in progress). Until a GA reviewer starts with a review, it will probably pass couple of weeks or a month. That give us (and to a copyeditor) enough time to fix all minor things that are left behind. What do you think? Kebeta (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely agree... it's just a matter of copyediting to finish and then GAN. Is there a way to submit a GAN jointly?--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with such a practice, but as far as I am considered, you are welcome to submit a GAN alone. The point is one more GA article on wiki. Kebeta (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

One more thing: Should the Infobox say duration of the war to be Mar 91 - Aug 95 or Mar 91 - Nov 91 or simply 1991 - 1995 (Warbox allows that too)?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that Mar 91 - Nov 91 makes more sense - until Erdut Agreement was signed. If there would be any objections, we would have to cite that. If still there would be some objections, we can left Mar 91 - Aug 95 with a note. Kebeta (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, (Nov 95, though) after all a referenced article paragraph says so. Speaking of notes, I just realized the article surpassed note count of World War I. But I think all bases are covered now....--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but 'World War I' is a class B, and we are going for a GA. When 'World War I' gets to GA, it will have more notes, that for sure. Kebeta (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are several endnote markers (N1, N2...) in the infobox that lead nowhere. I'm not familiar with those, but it seems to me that it would be possible to replace them with the existing references - Should I do so?--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * They probably meant something before. You should go way back in history of the article to find what they represent, or as you said above, to replace them with the existing references. Kebeta (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Added (or March 1991–August 1995) to solve the problem from above. For now. Kebeta (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Got an idea: What do you say we create yet another section - "Annotations" - such as in Vietnam War and use that to annotate "March 1991 - November 1995" explaining that no actual formal start (declaration) of the war exists, and that the combat operations practically ceased in Croatia in August. If you like, we could transfer the a, b, c and d notes located in the inbox now to the new section removing some clutter from the top of the page by shortening the infobox.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for a delay, I was very busy. I was thinking of doing something similar to your proposal. I also wrote that on talk page before (Footnotes & Citations) which is similar to (Annotations & Notes). See Bismarck class battleship. Footnotes are explaining something with ref., and Citations are shorten refs. Kebeta (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Velenje Castle
Materialscientist (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Good image
Thanks, I actually got the idea from you. After you inserted that double image, I decided to try out a tripple one. Luckily, it looks really good, I was worried it might end up too big in the article.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Longitudinal section of the Zagreb Synagogue computer reconstruction.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Longitudinal section of the Zagreb Synagogue computer reconstruction.jpg, which you've sourced to http://hart.hr/uploads/documents/188.pdf. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Nikola VII Zrinski
An article that you have been involved in editing, Nikola VII Zrinski, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Help
Please have a look at this. This IP user is vandalising articles related to Croatian history and nobility, claiming they were Serbs. I have reverted some of his=her edits, but I think a Croatian editor would have more knowledge to fix this. Thanks. --Csesznekgirl (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Vukassovich portrait
Thanks for supplying a portrait for the Josef Philipp Vukassovich article. Djmaschek (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Review
Well, a full report is perhaps an overstatement - in fact, I meant to specifically point out that this is not a substitution for a GA review, nor a formal review of any kind. I must say I have no idea how the A-class review works. We'll see, I hope it will be useful one way or the other. GregorB (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm reading WP:MHRA as we speak... I'm still not sure in what capacity can I participate as a non-member. But no problem, the review will take 1-2 more days to finish, and I might inquire about it in the mean time. GregorB (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK
Hi. Nice work! I've nominated it for you.♦ Dr. Blofeld

Hi
Sorry, but my english is not good, thanks. Muchas gracias por el premio, es un honor recibirlo de un usuari@ como tu, gracias y saludos. --Edslov (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are welcome! Kebeta (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Church of SS Peter and Paul, Istanbul
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: The Barnstar of National Merit
Thank you very much :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Interested
I saw your GA on Michael of Zahumlje and I thought you would be interested in Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta the last king of Croatia(technically he was was a puppet king for the Italians but still). Also I wanted to ask who is the current pretender or claimant to the throne of Croatia? I think I heard something about the House of Hasburg but I don't now if the House of Savoy made a claim beacuse of Aimone. Spongie555 (talk) 07:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It does look like the edit war ended in 2009 and no one has commented on the talk page since then. Spongie555 (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

sure a croat,what else
nikola tesla is serbian! please dont be jealous — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terminator15 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Kebeta (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: A-class review
Thanks for the note... Well, the article was further improved and the GA status affirmed and those were the objectives before submitting for this review in the first place. It's a shame there's no quorum, but hey, I believe it's important that such a paramount importance topic article, receiving 20K views per month is now beyond any objection of POV pushing or being unsubstantiated by facts. Actually, I got involved after being annoyed seeing those citation needed templates all over the article. IMO, GA is as good as A-class so for now I'll take some time to gain permission to use some professionally made photos in the article and maybe we'll have a viable FA candidate... after all A-class criteria and FA criteria are not that different. Anyway, thanks for your contribution to the article, it was particularly valuable both as substantial improvement of the article and as an incentive for me to do more. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Cake
You have a respond on my page. Also, this is for you!

DYK nomination of Siege of Gvozdansko
Hello! Your submission of Siege of Gvozdansko at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! GregorB (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Siege of Gvozdansko
Thanks for this contribution to Wikipedia SmartSE (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Siege of Güns
Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Kebeta with or vs FkpCascais?
Hi Kebeta. Here I am having a flu for 3 days with 38.5 feaver and having no chance of sleeping this night. That is when I decided to bother you here a bit. You surprised me with your nice gesture tonight! Honestly, I first touth it was some kind of joke! But anyway, I must tell you something and I hope it wan´t disapoint you: I really don´t have much intention on editing that article. I honestly don´t even have many knolledge about it, just the general one. Whatever the article says, the feeling I got from listening to the stories from the war was that people in Serbia didn´t even knew much about that regime. Everybody knew that the Germans were the masters, and people knew that they had some "domestic traitors" working with them, but with all the waries about finding food, the bombings, the fightings and all, they didn´t even had much time to follow the pseudo-domestic politics. It was kind of different from Zagreb and NDH where people first had much expectation and were even proud about them. But in Serbia that period was much different, perhaps similarly to the situation in Iraq after the US invasion when every single Iraqi knew perfectly that the Americans were in charge, but many had no clue who were the new domestic clowns as Iraqi governament.

I also want to apologise for being a bit jumpy this days, but some users make me really loose much unnecessary time. I am really being fed up of people more interested to edit negatively about others than editing something they like. Perhaps they really don´t like anything, who knows. Now, I do have a practice that is only partially in conformity with WP policies. It goes pretty much about giving preference to positive writting over negative. Obviously I am not talking about propagandistically positive, but the negative stuff must be double-checked and never missinterpreted or exagerated. I think that if we all go the way those few negativist users are, we´ll end up giving an image of being all of us a bloody killing bastard machines! And that is simply not trouth, not fair neither NPOV. I observed an exemple of a guy complaining about the negative aspects written on the Turism in Croatia page where some attacks on turists were being too much highlighted. That is exactly what I defend! It doesn´t matter if I am Serbs, so I should be happy because the page exagerates that, no! On the contrary. Croatia has so many nice things to offer that doesn´t make any sense to highlight some attacks that some drunk guys suffered. I think that you may beleave that because I am Serb and defend Serbian articles whatever they are, that I should be happy for it, but I am not like that. I wish we all work together and tell the trouth about all things not allowing that propagandas make us loose more time and continue to fuel these exagerations so more hateriot between us is created. When I made you the ping-pong comment I really ment that I am fed up of both sides writting bad things about the other. I don´t care if my suposed "enemies" Croats are bad, I don´t care if Albanians are guilty, all I care is for people not to continue exagerating and only editing negatively in this case, my side. I understand that the problem lies that sometimes for one side to be desribed positively, the other must be demonised, and I am not in deniyal of anything, is just that if we all edited only negative stuff of one another we´ll all end up loosing. For instance, direktor looses all the time writting negatively about others, but if he made the same effort in writting about all good things SFR Yugoslavia and Croatia have, those places would just sound wonderfool. I wouldn´t mind that at all, and in that cases I´ll gladly contribute.

Btw, I created this award: User:FkpCascais/Sandbox16 but I´m not sure if it is "usable" for awarding somebody. I´ll try to inform myself first if it violates any policy. But looks nice doesn´t it? And there are some instant candidates for it. FkpCascais (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My intention was to make a nice gesture, and I am glad that you were nicely surprised. I also avoid editing controversial articles such as Nedić's Serbia or NDH, but sometimes I get involved. By giving you a barnstar, I wanted you to know that I don't have anything against Serbs. In fact, I would like to cooperate more often with Serbian editors to bring some of the Serbia related articles to GA standard, but the opinions are still much different in some cases, so we will see what the future will bring. Regarding the user DIREKTOR, generally he is a good editor, but sometimes he gets out of tracks when topics related to Yugoslavia are in question. Regarding your new award/barnstar, there is something similar on wiki (wet fish or something similar), but I don't remember where I have seen it. Anyway, I hope to cooperate more often in the future with you. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 10:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I also avoided editing controversial articles for long time. I only edited football and WP back then for me was something we call "razbibriga" and a peacefull hobbie. However I had to intervene because many of those controversial articles were highjacked by NPOV editors. Thankfully, I have excellent cooperation with editors from all nationalities and that helped me a lot to bring some articles into life.
 * Now regarding direkktor, I disagree with you. I have enormous difficulty in finding even one edit of his in a controversial article that is not exagerated or completely distorted. If you really notece, even the unrelated edits on other articles are softly related with some point he wants emphasize back in the controversial articles, so his "theory" makes sence. He is such a POV editor that he even wanted to eliminate the Flag of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia article! See talk page and many incredible things he said. Kebeta, I apreciate your gesture and it is nice to see you thinking like this since we didn´t knew eachother that well before, we just had a few discussions mostly disagreing, but I honestly need to tell you that after all I have been going trouth with direktor I really can´t hear you defending him. Even if he was right, the way he does the things is not the correct one. I am not saying this because I disagree with him, I have many other editors with whom I disagree and I can say they are good editors, that is not the case. Anyway, not wanting to make as loose more time talking on 3th party, I wish you good editing and tell you that I´ll allways gladly help you if I can whenever you need something. FkpCascais (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that user Direktor is a POV editor, but his POV is in many cases correct POV...:-) The problem is that he is a rather difficult user, and he doesn't communicate with other users in a proper way in some cases. Now, I am not defending him, but this is maybe because he, while editing controversial articles, has to repeat the same thing over and over. Well, unless we are gonna invite him to join us in this discussion, we should probably end it. Anyway, happy editing...Kebeta (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siege of Szigetvár
The article Siege of Szigetvár you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Siege of Szigetvár for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Long time...
Well, congratulations, that's excellent news! I knew that it was nominated, but apparently it has been passed so quickly that it took me by surprise...

Speaking of GAs: I've noticed a couple of your recent edits to Lastovo, and if you've noticed mine, then you know what I'm up to... :-) GregorB (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course, any help is appreciated, even if in this particular case the task does not look too difficult. The article is nicely developed - give or take - and I've found a couple of excellent sources, so I'm pleased thus far. GregorB (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you so much for the honour! But the battle for Stepinac is not over yet, but I will not give up.--Jesuislafete (talk) 08:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are welcome! Regards, Kebeta (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Uskoks
I actually just cleaned up the existing content that was misplaced (it was in a different article), I didn't verify any of those references, so I can't mark the remaining content verifiable. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Granted. It fell into place nicely, because the original article was missing the Bracewell book references, yet the Slavic pirates article had exactly that. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Italian expedition
Hey Kebeta. Thanks for the review. I took lots of your advice and tried to change the article, but unfortunately I exited out of the edit page while I was making changes. I will make the changes later (or more likely tomorrow :P) since I have lost my morale for now! :P Thanks again though. I look forward to working with you.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Kebeta. Since you gave me so much advice for Skanderbeg's Italian expedition, maybe you'd like to look into its A-class review (Link). Regards, Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Džudža Džafer Mosque
Hello!

Can you see this page and correct my mistakes because I'm not so familiar with architecture, but I can see that you are member of WikiProject Architetcue and that you made various articles connected to architecture. Also, if you can, please review this article, that means, add those templates at discussion page, like WikiProject templates an all, you should know importance and class of the article.

Thx.

Regards, --Wusten fuchs 21:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Bosniaks: Images of notable Bosniaks for the Template:Bosniaks infobox
Please, join the discussion.

Regards, --Wusten fuchs 12:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Bosnian Cyrillic, Vuk Kosača, Zachlumia, Stjepan Vukčić Kosača, Vuk Kosača and several other articles. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, and you don't start to use talk page before another major reversal of the articles, I will report you. Please start discussing, this is your last warning. - ''What is your problem with the references? I have greatly contributed to all articles that you claim being in edit war, the truth is, you are the one reverting - just see the page histories where it is clearly evident you don't respect sources'' --Zoupan (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Zoupan
Please respond to this discussion. — ZjarriRrethues — talk 09:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 03:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Siege of Klis
I see you've been busy... Nice work. GregorB (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I have done major work before, in the Klis Fortress...:-) --Kebeta (talk) 08:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Siege of Klis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
 * Quality article, but the hook needs some work :)  — Toдor Boжinov — 08:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, can you take another look at the hook. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 12:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Everything's cool now, but is http://www.klis.hr/ down or simply restricted to Croatia only? I can't open it. See some details at DYK. Best, <span style="text-align: center; clear: both; font-family:Georgia, serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant: small-caps; font-style: normal;"> — Toдor Boжinov — 13:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that now everything is OK. --Kebeta (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can open and read the source now. Sorry to bother you so much, but where is the 'two and a half decades' thing coming from? According to the article and source, 'The first major attempt was in 1515 by Skender-beg Ornosović', and the final siege was in 1537. That's 22 years from 1515 to 1537, and as I understand 'more than two and half decades', that would be equivalent to over 25 years, isn't that right? What's more, the source itself counts the whole period as 15 years ('Iskusni i hrabri ratnik Kružić, najviše se je proslavio sjajno braneći Klis punih 15 godina'), i.e. a decade and a half. I just want to make sure everything's factually correct with the hook :)
 * And congrats on a piece of news that I believe every Balkan person should be happy to hear, as it's a great step to peace and co-operation in our region! <span style="text-align: center; clear: both; font-family:Georgia, serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant: small-caps; font-style: normal;"> — Toдor Boжinov — 14:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, here it goes - The Ottomans started plundering the area around Klis before 1512, and threatened to siege a fortress. Kružić was from 1513 (maybe earlier) in Klis as some sort of sub-captain (On je vec pocetkom stoljeca (1513. godine) bio u Klisu obavljajuci stanovitu vojnicku dužnost – vjeruje se da je bio potkaštelan da bi ga ban Petar Berislavic imenovao kapetanom grada Klisa.), you can find this below in the same web page. The sentence that you are talking about is refering to a time when Kružić was the main defender (Captain) of the fortress, and that sentence is in a short story about Kružić. The long story about Klis start below that. The year 1515 is refereng to a first major attempt, not to a first attemp all together. So, 1537-1512=25 years. But if you want we can change the hook into "For more than two decades"? As for piece of news, I think that important thing is that intellectuals in our region have to see this as a good news. Common people will always have thear opinion. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See here - A archbishop from Split, while attending the church council in Rome in 1512, talks about Ottoman attacks around Klis. --Kebeta (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No info about this pre-1512 Ottoman plundering is currently in the article though. I think you should go with 'for more than two decades'... I'd verify that right away :) And even if you add the info from the source above to the article, Petar Kružić is attested as defending the castle in some role only from 1513 on, and 1537 - 1513 = 24, less than two decades and a half. <span style="text-align: center; clear: both; font-family:Georgia, serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant: small-caps; font-style: normal;"> — Toдor Boжinov — 15:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, just ckeck did I strike correctly. --Kebeta (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Verified. Thanks for bearing with me :) <span style="text-align: center; clear: both; font-family:Georgia, serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant: small-caps; font-style: normal;"> — Toдor Boжinov — 15:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, a little chat between two editors is good for soul... :)  Anyway, it was nice talking to you and hope to do same more often. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Complexities, and wrong simplification
Kebeta, this is not as simple as that. First, only part of Chetniks fled there. Second, you ask why, as if you didn´t knew the reputation that Soviets (by then on control) had for their rivals. Third, you know what happend to the ones that stayed. Fourth, you source "collaborationist" but I could source "resistance", so it seems endless debate again, why not being neutral and avoiding it. After all, we are talking there on the movement as a hole, so simplifiying it that way is definiytelly wrong. Fifth, the ethnicity seems unecessary. The Serbs were majority among Partisans as well, so should we add it to them as well? No, right. There was mixed population among monarchists, as much as from nowadays perspective seems not that clear. Resumingly, seems it was just more unnecessary stone throwing to a movement already too much described negatively on WP... FkpCascais (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree fully with you, but to end the "endless debate", if you agree we can remove everything after Chetnik movement, since this article is not about Chetniks (as they were in small number here). So it can be....and the remnants of the Chetnik movement. If somebody wants to know more about Chetnik movement, they can click the link. To use only "Yugoslav/Serb monarchic movement" is not appropriate as they engaged in collaboration with the Axis occupation. Do you agree? BTW, I know what happened to the one that stayed - same thing...:-) --Kebeta (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to have the short version since it is completely NPOV and informative... Why you find wrong to have it? It is the shortest possible NPOV version. I mean, do you dispute that they were a Yugoslav/Serbian monarchic movement? We are talking on two different levels. One is to describe them ideologically, as it was there, another is to enter into the details of their actions or ethnical composition, which you did. FkpCascais (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And please don´t edit war. FkpCascais (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Short version is only 'Chetnik movement' as I have said above. To write 'Yugoslav/Serbian monarchic movement' (which I don't dispute) is misleading, but they were also Serbian nationalist, war criminals, humans, Slavs, collaborators...? In the Bleiburg massacre Partisan units ethnically cleansed Ustaše and small number of Chetniks because they were collaborating with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. So either you explain this in the article, or leave just 'Chetnik movement' (since you don't prefer 'a collaborating royalist force'), which I think is much better. --Kebeta (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Better"? I can´t see how seing only half of the story can ever be "better"? My version is ideologically right, and undisputed, as you said, and why missleading? They were also resistance movement, Allied forces, liberators...? You just unfortunatelly prefer to ignore it. Partisan units "cleansed Chetniks" because they were their enemies, they didn´t care or ask if they collaborated, or not. I already asked help from an administrator Fainities about this, so in the meantime it is allways better to have an undisputed version. FkpCascais (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's misleading....why...because I can say that the Ustaše were Croatian Revolutionary Movement (which they were)....but what kind of Movement was this?...it was Croatian fascist anti-Yugoslav separatist movement... Similar goes for 'Chetnik movement' --Kebeta (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is far from similar... the entire exemple you gave is the exact missinterpretation most people in Croatia does about the facts. Conciently, or not, people in Croatia wrongly think the two movements were equal, which is totaly wrong... However, I would never opose correct labeling of any movement (Ustashe, Domobrani, whichever). I don´t see the necessity to remind constantly about Ustashe being Nazi, you may have wrongly got that impression of me. FkpCascais (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well from 1945 till 1995 Chetniks & Ustaše were in the same basket in Serbia and in Croatia :-) ...so, this has got nothing to do with Croatia or Croats...Anyway, I noted that you don't see the necessity to remind constantly about Ustashe being Nazi and similar things like that, and I didn't get that impression of you...but neither do I act like that...however, I have a question for you (or a statement if you wish)...If Chetniks were "resistance army" or "Allies" and they weren't "collaborators" or "Axis", then they were the only army in WW2 which in the same time were "Allies" and were defeated in WW2?...Isn't this interesting? --Kebeta (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is the exact case. Tito was suposed to have accepted the monarchic governament in 1945, but he just felt the power and saw an oportunity to eliminate them as "internal oposition" as well. The entire purpose of the Mihailovic trial was to concdemn them so he would have an excuse to eliminate them. And, as consequence of that, in the next 30 years, all history in Yugoslavia was focused on exagerating the negative aspects of them and ignoring all positive ones. I wouldn´t go as far as saying that they were the only movement in that situation, I think there were some more exemples, mostly in this 3-side situation with Axis and civil-war, but I am affraid of making comparisons as I´m not familiar to their cases. Listen Kebeta, I am not deniying that Chetniks collaborated, but it was far from being a consistent collaboration, and it was more like an unpleasent but necessary agreement of cease-fire and focusing on 3th party Partisans, as enemies. Also, it was never a long-time agreement. The link of Chetniks with Germans was so week that Germans never lifted the death-or-alive warrant issued for Mihailovic. Does that sounds like best friends? I even finded out Soviets were officially asking Tito to join Mihailovic troops by late 1943, that was a total surprise for me! Chetniks even fought along Soviet troops in Serbia by the last months of the war! Kebeta, if you have in mind the well known animosity that existed between Germans and Serbs because of the WWI (for most Serbs the WWI was fought against Nemci) it makes sence... I gathered some info here. I don´t plan to deny collaboration, it did existed, but it was very different as the exagerated way as described. It needs to be described as it really was. The complexity can and should be expressed. Sorry for the lenght of the post, and I also wrote you an comment on Yugoslav Front talk page. At the link of my sandbox I gave you, you can see evidence of part of what I´m saying here, some other parts still need to be transcribed there. FkpCascais (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with you here (Listen Kebeta, I am not deniying that Chetniks collaborated, but it was far from being a consistent collaboration, and it was more like an unpleasent but necessary agreement...). All sides here looked at thear interests, for example, the Italians supported Chetniks against Ustaše in Dalmatia, and Ustaše and Chetniks fought together against Partisans around Knin area in Dalmatia...and so on. The point is, no matter what thear reason were, Chetniks were collaborators. Now, I don't say we have to put them under Axis label, but we can't put them only under monarchic (especially after king rejected them as his army) or resistance movement either. That is exactly what I am trying to say to you - one side of the medal is POV and both sides of the medal is NPOV. --Kebeta (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

But, you talk of NPOV but you totally ignore more than half of it. They (Chetniks) were a resistance movement ("Officially", "de facto", call it whatever...), and they had monarchic support during 3 (of 4) years (75%), they fought Axis from beggining to end, their main goal was to "liberate" the country of Axis forces, and their leader was head-hunted by Germans until the last day of war. Also, they are post-war awarded for their resistance efforts. You are missing that!!!! Until you don´t find a way to include this as well, and give a precise impression when sumarizing having all this into account as well, don´t talk to me about "your" alleged NPOV (wrong, because you fail to take any of this into account). Wrong Kebeta. FkpCascais (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This is prof. Sabrina P. Ramet, one of the most acclaimed authors on the subject of Yugoslav history. She is a neutral scholar, speciliazing on the subject, with excellent peer reviews. On p.145 you can find her chapter describing the Chetniks, a much better venue than getting your information from a Wikipedia user. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 07:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Siege of Klis
Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding a copyright violation
Insert the information, but say it "in your own words" as it were. :) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 07:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for tip, but on these controversial articles 'useing my own words' is sometimes interpreted as misinterpret of the original source :) --Kebeta (talk) 09:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're telling me! ;) Simply shuffle the words around creatively.. where can I find the original text? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 11:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Here, page 99. --Kebeta (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Socks
I was sure that a particular user was a sockpuppet of another indefinitely blocked user, so I check their edits and I'd like you to check my results. Could you enable your e-mail?-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 14:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this post a mistake? Did you intended to send it to another editor? If not, I presume that you are refering to user "Z....n" as a sockpuppet of user "A.....e"? --Kebeta (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It was becoming more and more obvious.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspected this from his first edit, but I hate complaining to "admins" if it's possible to reach an agreement.--Kebeta (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * He waited about 3 months for the IP to get stale(i.e undetectable) and then returned with a new account.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All I know is that he had made a lots of mess, fortunately, mainly on un-significant articles. --Kebeta (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Mostly medieval-related ones like the Zlatonosovic family.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, he made some new un-significant articles and edited some existing stubs, and then started changing more significant ones on that base. --Kebeta (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Double standards
Kebeta, you are really not going to further express yourself on the images issue? It clearly shows your lack of nautrality on the issue and double standards. FkpCascais (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are clearly biased if you think the picture of three generals and that of the Chetnik-German group hug are completely different.. :) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 03:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you stop following me around direktor? Yes, the two images are very similar, specially because they show the same aspect of the movement (the collaboration with Axis, which was just one side of their story, being the resistance efforts the other, and we fail to provide even one picture of that). There are two reasons why we should change the situation: 1st, because it is POV to present those two pics for the Chetnik movement. That totaly fails to give a balanced image of them and gives the image you intentionally and disruptively want to make all readers beleave, that they did nothing else but "posing with Axis". 2nd, because, yes, the two images are very similar, as in nature, and in content, as in negative aspect of them, so it is repetitive. You (direktor) also intentionally posted the picture at very top of "Resistance" section, thus intentionally wanting to "inform" readers about the picture you think faitly desribes them (posing with Axis), but that was not enough, and you further removed the link to Partisans and Chetniks articles at top of same section, intentionally putting them away from the Resiatnce title and leaving the (totaly misplaced there) photo of them posing with Germans. You (direktor) really think that such POV strategical edits aren´t ridiculous and would go unoteced? FkpCascais (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you really think you have the right to unilaterally "declare" that this article can only and exclusively have ONE image depicting Chetnik collaboration? And then start edit-warring about it?! Are you serious, I have to ask you? I shall include another image depicting Chetnik collaboration, and another, if the text should so require. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 08:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)  --  DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 08:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

@FkpCascais (first post in this section) - No, as I stated in "Talk:Yugoslav_Front", I replaced an image related to 'war crimes' done by Ustaše, since there were two images regarding to that, and none images of other armies doing 'war crimes' (and they all did 'war crimes'). On the same page (after your question regarding this), I stated: "Well, I don't see "Allies" as a good guys and "Axis" as a bad guys. For me they were just two opposite armies in WW2". For some reason you were insulted by this, and I don't know why. If there were for example two images of Chetniks doing 'war crimes' (or Partisans) and none images of other armies, and if you had removed one of them, I would supported you in that (since it's POV to have only images of Chetniks doing 'war crimes'.--Kebeta (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No Kebeta, I was not insulted by that, and as I know, you were present in that article, and you didn´t oposed on the talk page, neither you reverted my edit. I am not saying by this that you "support" my edit, but you didn´t oposed. Few days later, direktor came and revrted me. Kebeta, it is not about "war crimes" or "good/bad guys", but a wider aspect of fair presentation of all sides. I agree that it is not neutral to have only one side linked by pictures to "war crimes", and specially not having 2 pics both of the same movement linked to it. Same way, having 2 pictures of Chetniks, and both posing with Axis is not a fair presentation of the movement. For time being, removing one (I even asked direktor to give his opinion about which he thinks best) would be fair, or wouldn´t? FkpCascais (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, but I have no problems with that, as I respect Germans and thear army of WW2 (I disapprove only "war crimes" which they did - especially "war crimes" against Jews). --Kebeta (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not about respecting Germans in WWII (did I ever disrespected them?) but fairness with regard of Axis/Resistance activities and relation between all interveninets. Anyway, Kebeta, can I conclude you support my decition about pics issue? Could you express your support about this in the talk page? It is not about supporting one editor against the other, but about the correctness of the reasons behind the edit. FkpCascais (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't support you here in a way that you ask of me, since I aready told you that I have no problem with or without that image. That issue (image) is irrelevant for me. But, if this means something to you, here it goes: "I Kebeta, don't have any problem if FkpCascais remove underlying image from the article if that action will contribute to stability of the article and stop edit waring in the future". --Kebeta (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but the problem is that direktor and I basically have a dispute over this, so would you agree that my proposal is more correct and balanced (because of all I said) than direktors, who reverts it, I mean, because of that, not edit warring? Sorry to bother you, but just a yes or no on this and I wan´t insist on this no more. FkpCascais (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, I have had far more problems with DIREKTOR than with you, but per Wikipedia is not about winning and per Avoid personal remarks I can't do what you are asking of me. We shouldn't comment a user, but content - which I clearly did above. If you still belive that I have "Double standards", feel free to restore the image which I have removed (I really don't care - I replaced that image with another one, because I thought that action will represent the article much better). Just let it go, it's only one image that doesn't prove anything. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you missunderstood me, I was talking exactly about not looking to the edit authors, but the reasons exposed (in this case, mine and his). Sorry Kebeta, but it is just that I was found guilty of being tendentious, including "battleground attitude" in an ANI complain that direktor filled against me, where basically the image issue is 50% (the other 50% is the Chetniks presentation in lead, where weather you agree or not, the issue was/is still discussed). Personally, you and me have menaged to find often peacefull solutions in past even if we disagreed, and it is a fact that both you and I often show good-will, as recently I could have also challenged your pics edit by saying "but they are there because Ustashe did more "war crimes" so its rightfull to have more pics on them", but I didn´t. See what I mean? Here I am basically asking you to ignore edit authors and simply rely on arguments exposed and say which one is more adequat, because as I understood you acknolledge my reasons, but avoid openly stating it in the dispute itself. FkpCascais (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the ANI complain that DIREKTOR filled against you, I am sorry. I think that lack of notification and that you haven't been allowed to defend youself wasn't correct.
 * Regarding the Chetniks presentation in lead, I already told you that I don't agree with you per WP:LEAD. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article.
 * Regarding the image, I also already told you that I consider that issue irrelevant (per all text above).
 * Regarding bad-relation between you and DIREKTOR, me takeing sides wan't solve anything.
 * I think that I was very clear in my statements. --Kebeta (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you Kebeta. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I hope that you and DIREKTOR will find some solution there since I wan't edit that page much (to many work to do, and no results at all). --Kebeta (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not notify him because I did not report him, and that is obvious from my original post there. I always notify him otherwise (except when he bans me from his talkpage of course, and then I usually ask someone to notify him). That said, I don't think it would have made much difference, the defence, layed-out in full, did not change Future Perfect's decision. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 22:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fkp and I, in spite of my best efforts, are unfortunately unlikely to reconcile. He distrusts me profoundly, and at all times assumes bad faith to the extreme. Even though everything I've added into the article, everything I've ever said on this subject, is usually directly quoted from scholarly secondary sources I've researched for months, and even though I've always asked in advance for those "illusive" contradicting sources, I am, in his mind, a "POV-pusher". He cannot abide that I am publicizing acts of collaboration commited by the Chetniks and Draža Mihailović, and what sources I may have or not - that does not really matter; e.g. his removal of, and opposition to, the completely sourced text added to the article. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 22:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Public holiday
Hi Kebeta! Vidovdan is a very minor holiday in Bulgaria, it holds nowhere near the same significance as it does in Serbia. Although it's part of Bulgarian folk tradition, it's better known as a Serbian holiday due to its historical associations. And of course, it's not a non-working day. Hope that was of use! Best, <span style="text-align: center; clear: both; font-family:Georgia, serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant: small-caps; font-style: normal;"> — Toдor Boжinov — 12:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's a standard working day :) <span style="text-align: center; clear: both; font-family:Georgia, serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant: small-caps; font-style: normal;"> — Toдor Boжinov — 13:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Wow!
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Takabeg, and thank you very much for your help with List of campaigns of Suleiman the Magnificent. From the first day when I started editing this article, I was constantly "sabotaged". Nedim is acting as the owner of this particular article, and he disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Just because he created the article, he thinks that it has to be his way, no matter what the sources saying. And he refuse to discuss. I am very frustrated, especially after all hard job I have put into this article. All inline citations were inserted by me, and he refuse to present sources saying "...But we should be careful with the sources. They are not always reliable...". Anyway, thanks again for your help. I really appreciate this.--Kebeta (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Nedim continued to edit with his POV. If he would show Identifying reliable sources we can control them. But he don't want to do so.... Takabeg (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Translation
Hi Takabeg! Since you have been already involved, and you speak Turkish, can you please ckeck here, under campaign 7 (Corfu). Nedim added some text with Turkish references about supressed rebellion of forts like Solin and Klis. I wrote to Nedim on the talk page that Klis was not Venetian at that time (only Solin), that siege of Klis resulted in an Ottoman victory 2-3 months before the Campaign 7 even started and that none of this was personally led by Suleiman. Can you please check what exactly his referense says. Is it speaks of Klis and Solin as a part of campaign 7 (Corfu), and is that reference realible. Thanks!--Kebeta (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Turkish:

''Bu sırada Bosna beyi Gazi Hüsrev Bey, Venediklilere ait Solin, Kilis ve diğer kaleleri fethederken ikinci vezir Lütfi Paşa, donanmadaki kara kuvvetlerine kumandan sıfatıyla, Barbaros kumandasındaki donanma ile birlikte Adriyatik denizine hareket ettiler. Bir hafta sonra (Mayıs 1537) padişah, Adriyatik'teki Osmanlı kuvvetlerine yardım ve Delvine ve yörelerinde genişleyen isyanı bastırmak amacıyla oğullarından Selim ve Mehmet ile birlikte İstanbul'dan hareket etti.''

English: ''In the meantime, when Gazi Husrev, who was the sanjakbey of Bosnia, conquered Solin, Kilis and other strongholds that belong to Venetian loads, Second Vizier Lutfi Pasha, with the title of "the commander of the land forces in Navy", left for the Adriatic Sea together with the Navy under the command of Barbarossa. A week later (May 1537), the sultan left Constantinople together with his sons Selim and Mehmed to support the Ottoman forces in the Adriatic Sea and to supress rebellions expanding in Delvine and regions.''

Bosna sancakbeyi Gazi Husrev Bey'in Solin (Soljani) kalesine vaki taarruzda ve Kilis kalesi kuvvetleri tarafından esir alınarak görürülen reâyanın eski yerlerine gönderilmesine delâletleri hakkında, Venedik beylerine gönderdiği mektup.


 * Gazi Husrev conquered Solin, Klis and other fortresses. This campaign is concerned separate from Sulaiman's campaing. Sulaiman's campaign was named "Sefer-i Pulya ve gazzâ-yı Körfös" or "Sefer-i Pulya ve Gazâyı Korfos" (Campaign for Apulia and Corfu). In some sources, the campaign for Pulya and the campaign fo Korfos were concerned as two separeted campaigns, but traditionally they (Apulia and Corfu) are concerned as one campaign.

Takabeg (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Modern Turkish names of battles
Hi Kebeta. What do you think of this problem ? Takabeg (talk) 11:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Serb regions/monarchs
The Dalmatia is Serbian POV became a cfork section of List of Serbian monarchs now.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 00:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

WP Croatia in the Signpost
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Croatia for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

SMS Viribus Unitis and SMS Szent István
Hi! I noticed you made some edits to the Viribus Unitis and Szent István articles, and thought you might be interested in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia about the two.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the SMS Zrínyi. The article does say that: "She had apparently been turned over" to the fledgling south Slav state, "as it was a Croat naval officer, Korvettenkapitän Marijan Polić, who presented the ship as a prize of war to representatives of the United States Navy on the afternoon of 22 November 1919 at Spalato (Split) in Dalmatia." IMO, if there were a source that it was in fact turned to the State SHS, there would hardly be any difference to the SMS Viribus Unitis in terms of inclusion in the WP. Beyond that, I'd say no.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Found some sources, posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, Kebeta. How are you ? Do you want to participate in this discussion. We always become victim of POV pushing users :) See you. Takabeg (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Tvrđa
Unfortunately, this is a good edit: indeed, non-free images cannot be used without an article-specific rationale, so one has to be written. No problem, I'll do it shortly and then I'll restore the image. GregorB (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Or maybe not, see Timbouctou's comment on my talk page. GregorB (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Ottoman Empire Barnstar
Thank you very much.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011
The recent edit you made to Skanderbeg has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. --Emands (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

edit war
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Skanderbeg. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. 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. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See below for exemptions. In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1.Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. 2.Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. --Emands (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article/topic ban. Thank you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course Emands is a sock, but that'll be officially confirmed as soon as a CU checks him. Kebeta's contributions are valuable, so he shouldn't retire because of a single block.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I had my share of disagreements with Kebeta, but I certainly don´t want you (Kebeta) to leave Wikipedia. Anyway, you should not make this kind of dramatic decitions. I had suffered unfair decitions as well, and I understand the feeling of injustice, but don´t warry that much, and, as Zjarri said, you shouldn´t retire because of a single block. I hope you´ll continue to be a fine wikipedian as you have mostly been. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah Kebeta, just chill and come back in a day or two. It's no big deal. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 00:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you were just unlucky. POV pushing vandalism. This accident sometimes occur while we struggle against POV pushing users. Get well soon. Takabeg (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Kebeta, I greatly appreciate your work on wikipedia and hope that you will continue with your valuable contributions after block expires.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everybody, but I can't swallow this. Final regards to all of you, and just stay cool...:) Yours Kebeta (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

on a completely different note...
This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. Not that big of a deal, but some people are still using slow web browsers and a long page like this can difficult to navigate for anyone. Again, totally your decision, archiving is not required but its easy and makes your talk more user-friendly. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Retired
Thanks for your kind words. I'm very sorry to see you got into an edit war over Skanderbeg and got blocked but it happens I'm afraid. That's why I generally stay well clear of such articles which ignite all sorts of conflicts and passions. Especially as an arb case over Balkan related stuff means that admins are stricter with edits conflicting over the content. Balkan conflict is sort of a no go area, at least for me.. With many articles on here you'll spot POV and inaccuracies but some are so resilient that they end up getting their own way. Maybe take a wiki break but until you come to accept that this is the way it is and you can't always have your way. There are many issues and articles on here I strongly disagree with but am powerless to have my own way. I vaguely remember you began with Croatia/Cyprus topics I think. I see you've done a lot of great work with Balkan world topics. I really hope you give this a second thought. I understand you are upset at the moment but try to think beyond one article or anybody you think is a POV pusher and see the overall potential. By the looks of it the people in conflict with you don't wish for you to leave either and see the good work you've done, even if you disagree. I would think much more of you if you can let this blow over and be resilient and continue with editing other articles. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything Dr. Blofeld wrote, especially with his last sentence.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Always forgive your enemies - nothing annoys them so much" - take a break, do something else for a week or two. But do come back.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Come back!
Hey there. Sorry to spill the beans of my message right in the heading :)

It's not easy to keep a cool head - especially if some disruptive user manages to push all the right buttons. I know you feel the first admin didn't respond to the initial problem properly, and then others felt the same about your reaction, and things got out of hand way too quickly.

But in the big picture, the whole incident is just a blip on the radar - the rest of which is crowded with your many fine contributions. These did not go unnoticed.

--Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012
<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> In this issue...

- Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia &bull; It is published by WikiProject Christianity For submissions contact the Newsroom &bull; To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
 * From the Editor
 * What are You doing For Lent?
 * Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
 * Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#330000; background-color:#CCFF99; border-width:8px; text-align:left; padding:8px; height:10em" class="plainlinks">

Antidiskriminator (talk) has given you a plate of hummus! Hummus is a specialty of the Middle East. With some pita bread, they are delicious and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day.

Spread the goodness of hummus by adding {{subst:Hummus}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a plate of hummus to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend. .

Welcome back
-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back
Welcome back! I'm glad to see you're editing again.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back
Skanderbeg is waiting for you, :-). Just kidding. Bolerodancer (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Re:barnstar
Thanks for the barnstar - I sure hope we'll both do more here on wiki, as with the Croatian War of Independence and other GAs!--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On a further note: there's a discussion on several history-related articles which may or may not be included in the project at the WT:CRO. Could you please venture an opinion on the matter?--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Vukassovich roads
Hi! Glad to see the new GAN. Could the Josef Philipp Vukassovich article benefit from this information (other references at Josephina (road) and Louisiana road (Croatia) might also help if that's of any interest). Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have problem with the link you provided...but you are more that welcome to participate in this GAN, especially since I will probably be very busy in the next several weeks. So maybe you will have to conclude it afterwards :-). I just could't look at the article so close to GA any more, so I nominated it. Any help is appreciated! --Kebeta (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Apparently Vukassovich made designs for the so called Louisiana road (Croatia) (Karlovac-Rijeka), Theresiana road (Gospić-Karlobag) and designs for Port of Senj - all of which were carried out. This information is contained in:


 * The first link I specified (I can access it and am not sure what's the problem there) is a website of Velebit Nature Park which claims that Vukassovich also oversaw the first overhaul of the Josephina (road) (Karlovac-Senj) at the end of the 18th century. That source is not a scientific paper though, but it is quite plausible claim given the design development of two other roads in the area and of the port at the head of the Josephina road.


 * I'm not sure how much editing I'll be able to do in the next two or three weeks as I'm combining a substantial project and a trip so I'm reluctant to commit to extra work, but I'll chip in whenever possible.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! Anyway, I have heard before something about Vukassovich relation with Louisiana road...I will try to incorporate some of it, if you don't do it before. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Surtsicna (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Elizabeth of Bosnia. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Josef Philipp Vukassovich
No problem. It would have been a shame not to see a fine article pass the GAR. Actually, it was quite good experience to lend a hand that way. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, are you quite sure that Schloss Dießenstein is the same as Liebenstein Castle?--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright, mind you the Trenck's Pandurs is not on Pandur infantry in general rather on a specific unit fielded in the War of Succession, therefore the information on the garrisons you recently added, although correct for the Pandur infantry in Croatian Military Frontier and Kingdom of Croatia, does not exactly apply. A Pandur disambiguation page on the topic recently went up.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The same applies to the Turkish front - Trenck's Pandurs never went into action against the Ottomans or guarded the Croatian/Slavonian Military Frontier - it's "just" Bohemia, Silesia, Bavaria and such.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No sweat. I suppose some material could be copied from this article (etymology and such), and sources reused to start the other ones.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * IMO, if a separate unit is notable enough it should have its own article. Pandurs (Croatian Military Frontier) are definitely a notability-guideline-compliant subject matter to have its own article. It is quite plausible to have people switching from one unit or army to another, but I think that is no reason not to have separate articles on two related units/formation types/whatnot if those are notable on their own. Such examples are common - ATJ Lučko/1st Guards Brigade Blues and Royals/Household Cavalry etc. However, if for instance, a substantial number of Trenck Pandurs went on to serve with the French Army after the Trenck Pandurs were disbanded in 1748 or 1756 (presumably not as a unit on their own) - that information is quite a welcome addition in the "history" section. If such numbers were comparably small, I'm not quite sure that it would make sense to add it there. To illustrate that point, it would be entirely correct to say that some former French Foreign Legion soldiers/NCOs joined the Croatian Army in the 1990s, but if they did not form a company (at least) on their own or if there was not a couple of hundred of those, that would not make much sense and would give the issue an undue weight. The article mentions the 53rd infantry primarily because of their assumed Trenck Pandurs lineage almost solely reflected in their commemorative medals.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That's possible, but such a view would not be justified because the Trenck's Pandurs have hardly anything with the infantry fielded in the Croatian Military Frontier under the name "Pandurs" - their military role was different, one was not subordinated/a part of the other, they fought in different wars, in different theatres of operations, employed vastly different tactics (skirmishers vs guards), their garrisons/headquarters had nothing in common and such. Their similarity stems from the name "pandur" (hence need for disambiguation), wearing of similar attire (hardly surprising, they wore what common folk had at hand in those days and they came from similar geographic background), etymology of the pandur name (they were called that after all, but that's not an uncommon word for people handling weapons in the area in the period) and... that's about it.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * To drive that further, there were Pandurs in Dalmatia later on and in Wallachia as well. And their similarity with the above two groups is similarly down to etymology only.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Pandurs
Seeing the edit summary of this edit, I should probably tell you that I disambiguated that using only the available information on the old disambiguation page. You should probably create new stub articles using this information you added and then removed from the Trenck's Pandurs article. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

talk page archive
I used to not archive my user talk page, but it got out of hand, pointlessly slowing down submissions; I suggest that you archive yours as well. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

RE:Serbian Orthodox church in Vrlika
Hi Kebeta! Yes, I currently work a bit on this topic so I'll do an article on this church since all I need is already there. In template are for now only churches of which there are articles. Do you have a photo of that church maybe? Best Regards, Mirko.--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Now we can expand article if we found additional sources. Best Regards,--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be better to call article Church of Holy Salvation,Cetina? This would be consistent with earlier practice. In addition, if this person really had that surname we can add it in text of article. But church was built in 1940 so it is possible that it is a nickname, not a real surname?--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Orthodox church of Holy Salvation, Cetina sounds good to me?--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Then I apologize, but I still think that this is a better title because it is in line with previous method.BR,--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

GA nominations for Siege of Klis and Siege of Güns.
Greetings, Kebeta! I just wanted to let you know that I will be reviewing your GA nominations for Siege of Klis and Siege of Güns. I'll leave a link to the review pages here and here, for reference. Good luck! :) Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 12:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Have a drink GregorB!
Hi! Very nice to hear from you, and congratulations on your two brand new GAs... :-) GregorB (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth
Please stop it already. You are not fooling anyone. Reverting without discussion is one of the least mature ways to accomplish something here and your reversions (while logged out) have been disrupting Wikipedia for a while now. I really would not like this to escalate and end up at a noticeboard. Surtsicna (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Suleiman Bridge images
Somehow I just noticed your thanks for my adding a couple of images to the Suleiman Bridge article. I can't remember exactly what spurred me to do that (it looks like I found them in the Hungarian version of the article), but of course you're very welcome. Rupert Clayton (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You left
You left en.wiki? I'm not surprised. Kubura (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 18:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Statistical regions of Serbia
Template:Statistical regions of Serbia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. bobrayner (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux
NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou! The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators,

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CV, December 2014
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVIII, March 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIV, September 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXV, October 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVII, December 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Klis Foretess 3D.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Klis Foretess 3D.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:


 * tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
 * updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
 * creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXII, April 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIII, May 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIV, June 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXV, July 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVI, August 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVII, September 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVIII, October 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIX, November 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting
As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXL, December 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians
Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLI, January 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Contact
Hi Kebeta, are you really retired? Contact me! --Silverije (talk) 09:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLII, February 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIII, March 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIIV, April 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIV, May 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVI, June 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVII, July 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVIII, August 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIX, September 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CL, October 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLI, November 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLII, December 2018
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIII, January 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIV, February 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLV, March 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVI, April 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVII, May 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVIII, June 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIX, July 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXI, September 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIII, November 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIV, December 2019
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXV, January 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: IssueICLXVI, February 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVII, March 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVIII, April 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIX, May 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXX, June 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXI, July 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXII, August 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue Issue CLXXIII, September 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIV, October 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, November 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, December 2020
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, January 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, February 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXIX, March 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive
Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive and create a worklist at WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXX, April 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXI, May 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXII, June 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIII, July 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIV, August 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXV, September 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, October 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Michael of Zahumlje GAR
Michael of Zahumlje has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, November 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, December 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, January 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIV, February 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, March 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, April 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIII, May 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIV, June 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVI, July 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVII, August 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, September 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, October 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIX, November 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CC, December 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 201, January 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 202, February 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 203, March 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 204, April 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 206, June 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Walls of Dubrovnik
Walls of Dubrovnik has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 207, July 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 208, August 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 209, September 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 210, October 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Fortress of Klis
Fortress of Klis has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)