User talk:Klačko

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! --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

January 2023
Do not vandalize articles about Serbia, Serbian armed forces articles!!!! You deleted info, without ANY explanation!!! I see you have warnings from before!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.101.4 (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Calm down, take a chill pill.. I delete only info which is unsourced as in accordance with WP on sourcing. Regards Klačko (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Do not lie!!! Every time there were sources. Do not vandalize again!!! You are vandalize constantly!!!! Please admins notice this fake creator. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.100.58 (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

December 2017
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with with Vojvodina 2600:1001:B12A:6044:5ABD:4126:5FFE:4DFD (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

August 2008
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits.

Re: Presidents of Serbia, Serbian Parliament, etc.
Pozdrav i tebi, Klacko! Svakako, primetio sam tvoje izmene na stranicama President of Serbia, List of Presidents of Serbia, Prime Minister of Serbia, President of the National Assembly of Serbia.

Uz duzno postovanje, ne mogu da se slozim sa tvojim stavom da su v.d. predsednika Republike, v.d. predsednika Vlade i v.d. predsednika Skupstine visak na listama. Kao sto verovatno znas, na Vikipediji (pre svega engleskoj) postoji bukvalno na stotine lista predsednika, premijera itd. Skoro svaka takva lista sadrzi i vrsioce duznosti, kao integralan deo same liste i ja smatram da je to najbolje resenje. Mnogo bolje nego da postoje rupe u vremenskim intervalima u listi, koji su ponekad dugi i nekoliko meseci. Ne smatram da je ikakav problem da imamo i izabrane funkcionere i vrsioce duznosti kao deo jedne liste, bez fusnota i dodataka na kraju liste.

Sto se tice clanka President of Serbia, mislim da nema potrebe dodavati listu predsednika od 1990 jer vec postoji kompletna lista na drugom clanku, i zato sto je President of Serbia clanak koji navodi podatke o samoj funkciji i ne treba da bude "opterecen" i listom.

Nemam ni trunku sumnje da si imao najbolje namere, ali jednostavno ne mogu da se slozim sa tvojim idejama. Da budem iskren, kada sam sinoc video tvoje izmene na ovim clancima, bio sam veoma neprijatno iznenadjen - clanci su mi izgledali "iskasapljeni", da upotrebim taj izraz.

Pozdravljam te, i zelim ti sve najbolje!

Sundostund

Sundostund (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Serbs
Greetings, i would kindly ask you to not vandalize the "Serbs" article and rather use talk page before you make another similar edit. Let me remind you that the refferenced figures, sources and footnotes you have deleted were reached by a concensus of multiple editors of the "Serbs" article, we have already suceeded in demanting several tries of vandalism by some IP editors or some Croatian editors who badly wanted to show our sources as "inflaming and unreliable" in an aim to downgrade the figures of Serbs, while on the other hand the "Croats" article was pumping up higher estimations as we speak. The calculations you have done yourself arent reliable, the total number was used by multiple sources which you have removed, as wikipedia is not about mathematics and calculations it is about sources, everything else is "nagađanje". Let me also remind you that using sources from forum comments as you did, arent a reliable source. Also higher estimations (those that arent from official statistic sources) are used everywhere around other ethnic group articles, especially for datas of countries overseas, which are known to be melting pots to all ethnic groups around the world. Please be kind use the talk page if you have new suggestions, but dont forget to read past discussions that were. Best regards, pozdrav. (Правичност (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)) - Imaš odgovor na mom talk-page-u (Правичност (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC))
 * Pozdrav, ja sam ipak odlučio, da ne bi bilo netrpeljivosti zbog pojedinaca, da uradim infobox na "Croats" article na istoj bazi kao što hrvatski editori insistiraju, da bude kod "Serbs" article-a. Pa te pozivam, da pogledaš najnovije promene na "Croats". A što se tiče "Serbs", kao po dogovoru taj infobox treba još, da se doradi. Pozdrav (Правичност (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC))

Napisao sam ti u vezi infoboksa na Talku našeg članka. Sad sam video njihov infoboks, to je ok. Meni sve to deluje nekako jasnije kad se barata i oslanja na zvanične rezultate bez paušalnih procena (tu gde ima zvaničnih podataka, gde nema kao alternativa jesu procene), stvari su tačno onakve kakve jesu, zato je nas u zbiru oko 10ak miliona, njih malo preko 6 miliona, to su i stvarne proporcije i razlike između nas i njih, bez ikakvih naduvavanja i preterivanja. Samo promeni u njihovom infoboksu naziv regiona "Americas and rest of the world" u "Americas". Pozdrav

P.S. Dodaću u fusnotama za nas i podatak da u Kanadi po zvaničnim rezultatima njihovog popisa ima 65.305 osoba koje su kao poreklo naveli "jugoslovensko" a za koje se može pretpostaviti da dobrim delom/većinom jesu srpskog porekla. Po istom principu kao i za S.A.D.


 * Pozdrav, sve sam pročitao i uvideo promene koje si napravio. Dobro si stvari odradio. Članak sam svejedno minimalno promenio po nekim svojim principima, kao što smo se dogovorili. Možeš i da si pogledaš.

* Dodao sam podatke za Albaniju među drugim, nisu zvanični ali zna se da je zaista mnogo Srba albanizovano u prošlom veku i da i dalje žive tamo ljudi srpskog porekla većinom na severu. što se tiče podataka za Bugarsku - te ne trebamo stavljati pod susedne zemlje jer broj Srba tamo iznosi najviše oko 2,000 dok se brojevi bugarizovanih Srba ne može izpostaviti, kao ni u Rumuniji i Mađarskoj.

* No osvrnuo bih se na broj Srba u Grčkoj i još pojedinim delovima Skandinavije... U Grčkoj i Norveškoj npr. živi preko 10,000 Srba ako sam tačan, mada te zivore nisam mogao potražiti na internetu, uvek je bio neki eror, pa bih te zamolio ako nađeš prave izvore za te zemlje i ako one iznose oko iznad 5,000 da ih slobodno dodaš u infoboks pod Evropu.

* Što se tiče Australije - razmišljao sam da bi i za Australiju uradili isto kao i za SAD i Kanadu - dakle negde do 20,000 ljudi u Australiji izjasnilo se Jugoslovenima, pa bi mogli i tu činjenicu staviti pod "Footnotes" po istom principu kao za SAD i Kan. .. Pa kad već uređuješ bih te zamolio da isto to učiniš ako pronađeš dobar izvor...

* Podatke za Novi zeland sam ipak uklonio jer nije izvor dobar. Kod "Croats" članka sam ostavio samo "Americas" no moje promene bile su revertovane, mada su ipak neke promene napumpanih cifri ostale promenjene. Postavio sam predlog, ideje da napravimo konsenzus sa hrvatskim editorima, da se ne napadaju članci sa dveju strana i smanjuje brojke itd. nego već da budu infoboxi i brojevi stavljeni po istom principu- naime da države bez etničkog cenzusa imaju estimacije, a one koje imaju izvor etničkog cenzusa, da nemaju pored estimacija - a što se tiče ukupnih brojki naroda. Dao sam na predlog takođe Hrvatima isti princip kao kod nas. Dakle manja estimacija - okvirna brojka bazirana na brojevima država iz infoboksa, dok bi druga (pošto i oni hoće veću estimaciju) bila bazirana na nekom pouzdanom izvoru ali bliskom realnosti kao za veću estimaciju. Zajednom je u priču uključen Scrosby urednik pa ćemo videti šta i kako; uglavnom to je samo predlog za njih od nas odnosno mene. Scrosby je već dao ukupnu populaciju Hrvata na "Croats" article 6,5 - 7,5 mil. - što mi se čini realno. Dok sam ja našim 10 miliona dodao veću estimaciju koja je već bila - od 12 miliona - dok po nekom izvoru može biti i 11,5 miliona; možeš i da pogledaš te izvore.

Eto pogledaj si promene i ako želiš lično još nešto promeniti (pogotovo što se tiče ALB i one sekcije "Oceania" pa slobodno. Veliki Pozdrav! (Правичност (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)) -

Hey Правичност! Since we got accused of discussing in Serbian, just for the sake of good will, I will answer you in English.

We have come a long way since it seems that we are now agreeing on pretty much everything.

I completely agree with you about Australia i.e. figure of people of "Yugoslav" descent should have its place in the footnotes, just as it was done for the U.S. and Canada. I have intended to do so, but I couldn't find a figure, although to be honest I didn't put some serious effort in searching for that figure. Maybe you will get a better luck.

For New Zealand as well. I admitted a while ago that the source was not serious at all, and I am fine with blanking that out. Although, I will stick to my view that there is a sizable Serb community there, all that is needed is finding some reliable source that will give credibility to that claim.

I also agree about your idea for putting Scandinavian countries in infobox. Of all those countries, except already putted Sweden, I would place my money on Denmark to have a significant number of Serbs but I am not confident about Norway, not to mention Finland which doesn't have any Serb community that I am aware of. So my proposal would be to concentrate our efforts on finding a figure of Serbs for Denmark, but if you find something on Norway, go for it.

It's ok for Greece also, but I really doubt any claim that there are any number of Serbs there whatsoever. Maybe during a summer season there are some seasonal workers (more probably in hundreds than in thousands), but those cannot be considered a residents in Greece.

I am fine with total number of Serbs in range of 10-12 million, although I do think that the real number of Serbs is way closer to lower figure (even below that, somewhere between 9.5 and 10 million).

Unfortunately, as you mentioned, there are no more autochtonous Serbs in Bulgaria. There were Serbs in Trn area at the beginning of 20th century, but after Balkan Wars and WWI, majority of them fled to Serbia while the rest has been bulgarized.

The only thing I don't agree with you is about Serbs in Albania. That estimate of 25-30,000 Serbs are for those with Serbian ethnic roots but since they have been a long time ago assimilated during the course of 20th century (especially during Enver Hoxa regime), they cannot be viewed as Serbs anymore and autochtonous community at all (in a way it is the casewith Serbs in Romania or Hungary, for instance). Additionally, there are no more official figures since last census with ethnic statistics in Albania has been conducted 24 years ago, and there were something like 100 Serbs and Montenegrins registered. Remnants of the remnants of the Serbs there are now concentrated in two-three villages around Skadar, and total numbers are more like in hundreds and even dozens rather than thousands. I recommend you to watch RTS emission about life of remaining Serbs and Montenegrins in Albania: http://www.rts.rs/page/tv/sr/story/20/RTS+1/795034/Kvadratura+kruga.html So please consider deleting that part.

Pozdrav, Klačko (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Greetings! Yes unfortunately, we should discuss on English onwards.

Well yes ofc. everything is possible when trying to reach a common goal :).

I definetly think we should search for that source for Australia. Then again, it might take time for New Zealand, though if my memory serves me right i think ive read somewhere that only about 2,000 ppl declared As Serbs there (in idk what census) - and that the maximum numbe rmay be something over 4,200 ppl .. not sure.

There used to be source for Norway - something about 9,500 - but that source wasnt based on ethnic groups but rather on country of birth, so there was no way we could derive a true number of Serbs there. For Finland i ofc agree, ive seen some estimations already but they were only around 5,000. I wouldnt be sure about Denmark though, surely the majority of Denmark Serbs are from Montenegro and BiH by some sources i saw in the past; the figure for Denmark was already on, but i removed it my self, because i doubted in the figures - the source was Joshua project, you may check it out. Eventhough Joshua Project website does actually work on surveys of ethnic groups around the world, it has its own way of making surveys and some numbers are different from the census ones. That source anyways estimated some 66,000 Serbs in Denmark - which i whought was too high- id rather agree with about 30,000 - but thats my personal opinion.

For Greece i must inform you they held a census in 2001, on that census about 10,000 ppl declared as Serbs; since it has become an even more popular destination in the following years for Serbian ppl (until the recent crisis), there may be even up to 15,000 Serbs there now- so we should keep an eye out for some sources about it.

Its good that we agree about total population. Well eventough unimportant but ill still share my personal opinion also; which is that there are some 10 million+ "real" Serbs (out of which ~9.8 million nativley speak Serbian (not neccesarily good enough), (9,5 million are Orthodox or simply only visit the SPC from time to time) and on the other side something over 1 million of those who have Serbian kin, but dont either want to declare as such, dont respect it, arent aware of it, have forgot about it or something else... Many of these are even in Balkans i assume (atleast 150,000 of such ppl can be found only in Macedonia and Slovenia and another 200,000 in Croatia alone, by my personal opinion (experiences and researches made)).

As for Albania, yes i have already viewed that emission and not only that one, but alot more, even about catholic Albanians women who didnt speak Serbian but were well aware that they were albanized Serbs; and their families opted their daughters to marry Serbs from rural areas of Serbia (ofc you already know that also pure Albanian women are involved in this and it has become quite popular). There already were discussions about the Albanian census and it was said they were "unlegitimite" for how many Serbs/Montenegrins live there - for some reasons i dont remember. So the source i have returned on was accepted by all editors and used before... But i have removed it now anyways; as it is impossible to know how many actuall Serbs or ppl who are aware of their Serb kin live there.

Pozdrav! (Правичност (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC))

Ah evo.. imam i nekoliko izvora koji potvrđuju info. o 15,000 Srba u Dubaiju. ... Dakle ja mislim, da sam i povodom RTS izvora bio u pravu. (Правичност (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC))

Hi! Did you see the data  Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Serbia. Ministry writes: Outside Serbia lives 4.5 million Serbs, including the Serbs from the region. I think that number of 10.5 million Serbs in the world, accurate and fair, and the source reliable.--Sokac121 (talk) 12:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Motorway numbering
Re : do you have a source for this? I have never heard about A1 designations etc. I don't have Roads in Serbia on my watchlist, but I see just this silent change without any reference. Anyway, seems to be a new user keen on promoting a novel designation, which included this  copy-paste move. That should be reverted, and not encouraged. No such user (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

A month ago, in Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, was acknowledged this modification on numbering of Serbian motorways. In this link you can see the scanned pages concerning those changes: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=109441621&postcount=4478 Regards and Happy New Year of 2014!Klačko (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Somebody kind of sourced it in the meantime, although Putevi Srbije still have the old version . Happy new year! No such user (talk) 07:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

calculations
Ne razumem te bre... Ti znaš, da nam fale podatki za Dansku (zna se da je tu značajna srpska diaspora), Grčku (2001 bilo 10,000 srba), Tursku (oko 4,500 državljana .. a poreklom podaci idu mnogo više), Island (najveći broj imigranata u ovoj zemlji su iz ex yu), Finsku, Španiju, Češku (državljana srbije oko 1,500), Albaniju, Poljsku, Ukrajinu, itd. iz Evrope.. samo iz ovih i još ostalih evropskih zemalja mogli bismo skupiti između 40 i 50,000 srba) ... gde je tek čitava Južna Amerika, zna se da se naša diaspora nalazila oduvek u Argentini i Brazilu, u malom broju ali ipak ima tamo naših crkava.. ako je Hrvata i Slovenaca tamo, gde onda neće biti naših... Pa onda zna se da nešto naših ljudi živi po Tunisu, Libiji, uglavnom u Africi i + neki sitniš bi s emogoa skupiti iz Azije i preostatak Oceanije... Za većinu ovih država nemamo izvore, nikakve podatke, drugo.. ne stavljamo jedne u infoboks jer broje ispod 5,000 (npr. Rusija sa oko 3,500 Srba) ... mada iz dosta ovih zemalja teško je zaključiti čak i kod onih koje su vodile cenzus da li su ga obavile popisivanjem nacija na bazi državljanstva kog snose ili baš na bazi etničke opredeljenosti ako postoji ta mogućnost (npr. podatak koji nams toji za italiju 53.000 ne pokazuje da živi toliko srba u italiji nego već ljudi sa srpskim pasošem.... pa sad.. koliko ima tamo njihovih potomaka, bosanskih, crnogorskih, krajiških srba iz hrvatske.. onih srba koji imaju smao italijanski pasoš???) ... no kako god okreneš hiljadu po hiljadu, do 5 hiljada + neke sa 10,000 i tako se 40 puta recimo sabrojavaju ti brojevi i uskoro dolazimo do većih brojki. Dosta cenzusa ne može ni biti tačnih.. npr. šta vredi podatak za sloveniju (39,000) i Makedoniju (36,000) ... kad se zna da u obema državama živi preko 60,000 Srba - samo u Sloveniji izbrisali su između 15 i 20,000 Srba iz registra državljana Slovenije posle nezavisnosti 91` ako još nisi čuo za slučaj "izbrisanih" .. smešno je i koliko ljudi se zbog pritiska izjasnilo na cenzusima da su Slovenci/Makedonci odnosno nisu se hteli izjasniti (ta opcija uvek postoji i dosta je stranaca ljudi iskoristi) a izjasne se recimo d aim je maternji srpski jezik.... pa šta će biti drugo nego Srbi ako im je maternji Srpski.. ili npr. navedu Srpskohrvatski.. a svaki živ pametan čovek zna, da skoro nijedan Hrvat nikad ne bi svoj jezik opredelio kao Srpskohrvatski, niti Musliman - retko... zna se da to rade Srbi najveći jugonostalgičari i pod pritiskom posle 90ih.... Zato kažem da su nezvanične procene takođe važne.. jer u svakoj zemlji na svetu - mali ali značajan broj Srba neće se izjasniti za Srbina nego već za nešto drugo ili se uopšte neće izjasniti pa se onda svodi pod kategoriju "ostali/drugo", a ne može se znati koliki je broj onih koji nose srpsko poreklo u sebi pa nebitno da li pola, 1/4 ili drugo.. + toga ne može se znati koliko Srba živi neprijavljeno u stranim zemljama odnosno "ilegalno", takvi ne mogu da se popišu..... Pa tako mi se čini ta sama ideja skupljanja brojki koliko Srba ukupno živi na Balkanu, Evropi, Americi odnosno to grupisanje suludo... Ako su Mađari tako uradili ko ih šiša neka su, ali oni nemaju i skoro niko nema taj problem identiteta kao mi, jer na žalost komunizam nam ga oduzeo.. ali to nema sad veze... svi npr. znamo da je ljudi poreklom Srba u Americi ogromno, ogromno... znaš i sam kolike su procene za Čikago samo..... pa onda - ne znam zašto si uklonio izvore joshua project... taj joshua project bavi se narodima, kulturama u svetu, populacijama... već sam razmatrao prethodno taj izvor sa nekim editorima i odgovor je bio, da ako nema bolji izvor... taj izvor je onda OK. A što se tiče censuza u USA onog izvor aiz 2012... kao što si video svi ga počeli koristiti, em isto ti piše na tom izvoru kao i na onom za 2010 - dakle estimations... cenzus jeste bio 2010 godine, ali ako jedna Srbija prikuplja podatke 1 godinu... zamisli koliko tek onda to radi jedna Amerika sa 50 puta višom populacijom. Oba izvora kažu estimations... tako da je suludo tvrditi da je estimations iz 2010 tačan a 2012 netačan, kad isto piše, sasvim isto. (Правичност (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC))

--

Really don't see why we need to discuss things that were already settled down just a mont or two ago.

Firstly, it's been agreed to stick to the official figures, no need for any estimates. Same goes for that 2012 US figure since it is a estimation based on the natural population change (growth) in two years-period, with brod margins (+ / -) - it is not a census figure, census figure is that from 2010 census with no margins, just an exact figure.

Secondly, countries with any significant Serb communities are listed in the infobox, even the dubious ones (such as UAE), there are no countries with significant Serb population left unlisted. Maybe Denmark comes to my mind as an exemption. In other countries we can talk in hundreds not thousands. Therefore it can't push the total figure significantly up, couple of thousands at most...

Thirdly, Joshua project is not reliable source, it's not demographic source it Christian monitoring NGO with mostly unbacked figures. 20,000 Serbs in Brazil, I mean c'mon?!?! Don't mention Croats please since we don't have same emigration history and pattern like Croats, they migrated to South America at the end of XIX and beginning of XX century, mostly form the Dalmatia and the islands and in small numbers after WWII as samll Usta[a fractions went there. We don't have any significant migration there whatsoever. It's a known fact.

Last but not the least, it seems to me that you see this as a game of making numbers bigger as to compete with Croats. We are a significant nation, with decent numbers, there's no need to make it bigger than they really are.

Regards, Klačko (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh yes we migrated to South America and that is a known fact.. you dont seem to know Serbian orthodox churches exist there.. why do you think they were built? The Serbs that migrated there have lifted them up, in Sao paulo in Rio de Janeiro, In Argentina .. there is one in venezuela.. for others i dont know, but there probably exist more, did you know president or prime minister (not sure) of Brazil is of MAcedonian descent... what makes you think Macedonians went there? ... It seems you dont know countries like Brazil and Argentina are also melting pots, there ar epeople from all over the world there. It is Serbian Ministry of Diasporas fault they were forgotten and mostly assimilated... However there are even known people in both of these states of Serbian descent:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Argentine_people_of_Serbian_descent


 * https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackeline_Petkovic


 * https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%ADlvia_Poppovic


 * https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ana_Maria_Poppovic


 * You also need to read this:


 * http://serbiosunidos.com/sr/srbi-u-juznoj-americi/


 * Then for Serbs in other countries.. it is verry stubborn of you to say, to claim.. that in other states there is no more than few hundereds of Serbs. Serbs have one of the largest diaspora`s in the world, you are probably not living in diaspora and that is why you underestimate us, okay lets say "the so called official sources" are right (almost, not quite)... many Serbs dont declare as Serbs or cant declare or dont want to declare at all... so what are we actually talking about when we are counting Serbs.. are we counting those who "feel like Serbs" or are we counting simply those that are CLEARLY born to Serbian parents... for example Arnold Schwarzenneger may maybe declare and feel as American.. but he will ALWAYS remain as Austrian, because data, sources, proof exists, he was born in Austria to Austrian parents... that is logical, same is everywhere else. ... Talking about countries for which we dont have sources... how in world can you claim or know those countries hold only a few hundered Serbs.. present me a source that is true and then make groupations on infobox and say that only 100,000 Serbs and ppl of Serb origin live in all other remaining countries around the world including Australia, South Africa and UAE (which figures from infobox already cover 90-95% of this number)..?? that is insane, you ignored what i told you in my past posts about your estimates and groupations making calculations on your own. . . like you ignored what i told you for 2012 data for USA... READ AGAIN .. it says OFFICIAL ESTIMATES ... 2010 ... just like it says OFFICIAL ESTIMATES on 2012.. where in that source can you find the report you are claiming that one of these pages / figures have an exxact 2010 census data? Unless its your own self-opinion, which doesnt count for wikipedia.


 * And please... what games? Croats? what?,,, im furious of you decreasing number of Serbs and making your own calculations to a minimum possible standard of how many Serbs live abroad, this has nothing to do with Croats. Regards. (Правичност (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC))

Fair use images
Please see Non-free use rationale guideline for an explanation of why File:Serpol7nd.jpg cannot be used on the Serbia article.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Albanians in Serbia
Hi. I've seen your last two edits in the Albanians in Serbia article, of which both appear to be nonconstructive in my opinion. What I'm proposing is to leave this number to something between 50,000 and 80,000. What you've done isn't violating Wikipedia Policy, but the removal of the previous sources, of which some claim that nearly 80,000 Albanians live in Serbia, is not constructive and may lead into wrong direction (for example, someone in the future replace your source and numbers with his newly found source, or simply someone may revert your edits, as the previous version of the article doesn't violate Wikipedia Policy). What I'm proposing is to re-add the previous sources and instead of c. 50,000 or c. 60,000–80,000, we leave c. 50,000–80,000 with all the sources which were used before and one you've added, to make a complete, objective story, with the help of numerous reliable sources. In that case, we would prevent possible WP:EW, per Wikipedia Policy. Also, the same goes with the "popplaceX" parameters inside the infobox. Thanks, please reply.-- AirWolf  talk  12:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * For the further improvement of the article, in order to give it more neutral point of view, we should mention that all the statistics there are excluding Albanians in Kosovo, because of the legal reasons, in particular Serbia's claim that Kosovo is not independent.-- AirWolf  talk  12:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Until now, I haven't seen that clearly what you actually did. Removing sources, statistics from 2002 census as the 2011 was boycotted is pure sign of vandalism. Any action like this in the future will be reported to administrators who may reduce your editing privileges.-- AirWolf  talk  22:40, 24 May 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) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Klačko. All or some of your addition(s) to Tourism in Serbia has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Nikolic Hall capacity isn't 5,878
Euroleague attendance of 6,453 ---> the league only counts seated attendance, and does not count anyone in attendance over the allotted number of seats in the arena. Meaning the capacity of the arena at 5,878 is impossible.Bluesangrel (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC) Again, the arena had almost 6,500 attendance, which EuroLeague only counts seats and only counts tickets for seating. So the listed capacity on wikipedia is impossible. http://www.euroleague.net/main/results/showgame?gamecode=90&seasoncode=E2016 - 6,489 seated attendance. I think this issue needs to be brought up to a discussion, since the capacity is clearly much larger than 5,878. You can't just keep citing a single source that goes against all evidence.Bluesangrel (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Now they had 7,648 attendance in the arena in EuroLeague (which only counts fans and in seats as attendance) ALEKSANDAR NIKOLIC Attendance: 7648 yet the article for the arena is still claiming a capacity of 5,878. We should not be listing an arena with 2,500 to 3,000 less capacity than it really has.Bluesangrel (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:Logo RSSrbije.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Logo RSSrbije.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 16:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Crest 1947.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Crest 1947.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Crest of FK Partizan 1955-1959.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Crest of FK Partizan 1955-1959.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Crest 1947.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Crest 1947.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Crest of FK Partizan 1955-1959.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Crest of FK Partizan 1955-1959.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of List of fast food restaurant chains in serbia for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of fast food restaurant chains in serbia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of fast food restaurant chains in serbia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Comatmebro (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

EuroLeague site has the capacities of all arenas, current and present and the different capacites of each different configuration of each arena over the years
The site of the Aleksandar Nikolić Hall does not, and has not changed in a long time, and is not listing the correct capacity, as evidenced by numerous games in numerous leagues being well over that capacity. The same with the upcoming tennis tournament officially listing the arena's capacity of 6,150, which has seats removed from the normal configuration for basketball, for the media. So of course, the capacity can't be 5,800. And plenty of arenas have incorrect capacities listed at their websites. There has been no actual discussion on this, you are asserting the capacity as a fact, simply because of what the website says, despite numerous other sources confirming that can't be the right capacity.Bluesangrel (talk) 05:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Serbia men's national basketball team
Stop your vandalism!! FIBA considers Serbia's Basketball team to start in 2007.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

3RR
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -  Galatz Talk  16:38, 30 August 2017 (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. -  Galatz Talk  18:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

skorašnje izmene
Zdravo, Vidim da si uklonio neke od slika koje sam dodao na članak o Srbiji. Je l možeš da mi pojasniš zbog čega pošto nisam razumeo objašnjenje. Takođe vidim da si u celosti izbrisao deo o freskama pa i bih i za to voleo da čujem zbog čega. Hvala unapred, BoleynSRB (talk) 11:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, shvatam sad. Nisam znao da tako funkcioniše (dugo me nije bilo ovde). Mogao si, međutim, da sačuvaš tekst o freskama (jer ipak je to nečiji trud, pristojan tekst) i da ga prekopiraš u zaseban članak Serbian Art, kako se ne bi izgubio. Pritom, budući da sam prethodno sve informacije u vezi sa freskama sveo u daj zaseban odeljak, njegovim brisanjem freske praktično ostaju nepomenute u članku o Srbiji. Trebalo je da o tome povedeš računa. Što se fotografija tiče, ja uvek mislim da ih je na pretek tek u posebnim slučajevima (možda sam sad pristrasan pa sam mislio da ih je ovde bilo taman dovoljno). Pogledaj članak o Grčkoj. Ima duplo više fotografija od ovog o Srbiji. No, nema veze, pravila su pravila. Meni lično smeta npr što se u članku gotovo ne spominje gradski turizam, kao da su sve informacije o prirodnim bogatstvima pojele prostor za to (sreća pa imamo lepu prirodu). Stoga mi nekako deluje da ne bi škodilo da se slika Tare zameni slikom Subotice. Kopaonik je već pomenut, druge planine takođe, kanjon Uvca, Đerdap, Ovčar-Kablar i mnogo čega drugog. Zbog čega ne bismo naveli bar jedan grad do Beograda, reprezentativan za gradski turizam? Šta misliš o tome? --BoleynSRB (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Nije mi bila namera da poništavam nečiji trud, ono je bio zaista kvalitetan doprinos ali prosto mu tu nije bilo mesta. Ako ti nije problem da to još jedanput napišeš samo ovg puta u "Serbian art" bio bih ti zahvalan! Što se tiče turizma, pogledaj još jednom poglavlje o turizmu, pominje se da je gradski tj. city-break turizam razvijen i da Beograd posećuje više od polovine svih stranih turista u zemlji. To je to što se tiče ovakvog članka, za nešto vieš od toga i razradu posebnih vidova turizma je pravo mesto "Tourism in Serbia". Slobodno uređuj kako misliš da treba, nemoj da misliš da moraš prethodno da se konsultuješ sa mnom, jedino je savet da pratiš koncepciju članka i slika ako se sve te tvoje zamisli uklapaju samo napred i uređuj. Ali kad već pitaš, ona slika Subotice koju si stavio u kolažu je bila dobra i lepa, možda bi bilo dobro da sliku vatrometa na Petrovaradinu (koja je, po meni, dubiozna za prikaz turizma u Srbiji) zameniš upravo tom slikom Subotice. Klačko (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Serbian Railways
Hello, I'm AirWolf. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Serbian Railways have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Newly established companies Srbija Voz, Srbija Kargo and Serbian Railways Infrastructure are independent and are not part of Serbian Railways Holding. Even Serbian Railways company changed its main activity. Sources, even those official say so - The similar case in Serbia was with the establishment of Elektromreža Srbije (EMS) in 2005, when it was split from Elektroprivreda Srbije (EPS). Please refrain from making similar one-sided interpretations.-- AirWolf  talk  22:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I will follow your example and write in Serbian further on... Ja se ne bih složio sa tobom da je Železnica Srbije holding kompanija sa svojim zavisnim "ćerka-kompanijama" - u ovom slučaju Srbija Kargo, Srbija Voz i Infrastruktura (skr.) - i to po ugledu na slične kompanije u regionu. Tome u prilog govore i zvanični dokumenti Železnica Srbije, čak je promenjena i osnovna delatnost kompanije iako su ostali isti matični broj i druga akta. Što se tiče vlasništva nad kompanijama, u Republici Srbiji jedini relevantan i krajnje pouzdan izvor je "Centralni registar, depo i karling hartija od vrednosti" i on eksplicitno daje podatke da je 100% vlasnik novoosnovanih kompanija Republika Srbija, a ne Železnica Srbije. Dalje, u javno objavljenim finansijskim izveštajima dostavljenim Agenciji za privredne registre, u konsolidovanim izveštajima Železnica Srbije nema ovih kompanija, već samo nekih sitnih zavisnih kompanija i institucija poput CIP-a. Razumem tvoju dobru volju, i poštujem tvoj rad, ali jednostavno ne možemo sami interpretirati podatke i informacije dalje prosleđivati, već se moramo držati neke objektivnosti. Takođe te molim da ne bismo ušli u WP:EW da ne vraćaš izmene dok ne rešimo nesuglasice.-- AirWolf   talk  22:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ne razumem šta nije dovoljno jasno u ovom tekstu sa sajta Železnica Srbije: ? Dalje, da olakšam snalaženje:Srbija Voz APR, Srbija Kargo APR, Infrastruktura APR.-- AirWolf  talk  22:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Dakle, Republika Srbija nije samo osnivač ovih preduzeća, već i njihov direktni jedini akcionar. Priče o holding kompaniji ne piju vodu.-- AirWolf  talk  22:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Image congestion???
Hi there, I'm just wondering what you mean by image congestion... if you go to any wikipedia article on any country, for example, Slovakia, you see A LOT more images than the article on Serbia.

Non-free image use
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload files. However, it appears that one or more of the files you have uploaded or added to a page, specifically Serbia men's national basketball team, may fail our non-free policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted file of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

South Morava
Hi, Klačko. One of your recent contributions on that article did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Do not delete sourced content together with the references without any explaination, please. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

SOURCES!!!
You need sources to revision a page, i see that it's not the first time you did this.ХЕРАЛДИКА СССС (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Tree-category predlog/pomoć
Zdravo,

Ne znam da li si kao i ja primetio da za brojne srpske teme nemamo propratni tree-category. Primera radi: Serbian literature (dok većina evropskih ima), Presidents of Serbian Academy of sciences and arts, Presidents of Matica Srpska, Rectors of University of Belgrade itd.

Lično ne znam da pravim ovakve kategorije a želeo bih. Ako znaš, molim te da me uputiš (ukoliko nije kompleksan kod).

Verujem da bi bilo dobro da se nekoliko nas organizuje i da svako pokriju po jednu od kategorija, a ima ih još praznih, naveo sam tek nekolicinu, i da posle proširujemo. Deluje mi kao šteta i minus što manjkamo sa ovakvim kategorijama.

Ovu poruku sam poslao nekolicini naših Wikipedijaša.

Veliki pozdrav,

Mm.srb (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Air Serbia
Hi. This is an article on Air Serbia so it is a perfect place for data on Air Serbia, and you deleted legitimate business info which was, accordingly, written under the business section. I will rewrite it, put it back, and expand the Air Serbia section as Aeroput and JAT have their own pages. If you don't have a problem with the misleading information (like profit section of the business indicators table), sneaky euphemisms (retrofitting seats for standardization [instead of cramming], replacement of inflight menu [instead of charging water]), obsolete data (Mali is no longer president of the board) or non-encyclopedic content and pure advertising (exciting new chapter!), there is no need to have a problem with this legit, true and explanatory data either. Also, being a state owned company, it is completely influenced by the politics and the entire deal is purely political rather than economic as the company became even more massive money pit. It is not ranting, it is a fact. Cheers PajaBG (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

It is a rant, rant can be based on facts, but the "tone" of your edit is a pure rant and nothing to do with the enciclopedic article. Try to reach consensus on the article's talk page instead - simply bring forth the case you are trying to make with this edit and if you get consensus among fellow editors that this kind of content is ok, go for it... Klačko (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

One of the major downsides of Wikipedia is that in time the truth and facts are pushed aside to make place for constant rotten consensuses and compromises about the most ridiculous stuff, which wears out and pushes away the editors. I am not the one "trying to make a case", you are. You are the one who is making a problem out of the truth here, cause you don’t care about the facts, but don’t like the ”tone”. Though I am inclined to believe that the "tone" is not the problem ("this kind of content")... PajaBG (talk) 09:29, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Really sorry if you got impression that I am the advocate of current or former management of Air Serbia, the way how deal with Etihad Airways has been carried out, governement's stance and spin about the whole thing, etc. - I have no problem with emphasizing that in the article. The way how it was edited and the section it's been placed in ("Bussiness trends" section - just take a look in comparable articles such as Austrian Airlines, Croatia Airlines, Air Bulgaria, etc.) was just not appropriate. Lets be constructive here: consider forming separate section e.g. "Controversies" in the article and we'll se how it will be received among other editors since you think reaching consensus at the article's talk page is a waste of time. Regards Klačko (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Serbia; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.Resnjari (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Klačko, you have made five reverts so far at Serbia on 12 September. We have a rule that says people get blocked for reverting more than 3 times in 24 hours. What do you expect to happen now? Would you consider undoing your last change, and promising to wait for consensus in the future? This might be enough to avoid a block. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston. The edit which triggered edit war was not mine but from the user @Resnjari who made that same edit 8 months ago which lasted for one day - simply saying it wasn't that I removed some undisputed content which was in the article for quite some time - just the opposite. If you check Serbia article's Revision history you will notice that I gave rationale for my editing: 1. there is no need for doubling of the content - minority languages were already thoroughly mentioned in the Languages section, didn't seem to be some existential need for having separate subsection on that in the infobox; 2. nor it is a common thing or some kind of universal rule to have such section (minority languages) in the infobox. Nevertheless, I urged fellow contributor Resnjari to try to reach consensus on the talk page before making such edit. Then, @Ktrimi991 jumped in siding with Resnjari and reporting me. The obvious way out of this mess is to try to reach consensus before making such edits, which is what I suggested at the first place the fellow user - hope that you share the same view. I will be more than fine with whatever consensus is reached on the talk page. Regards, Klačko (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want admins to take you seriously, you should still undo your last change. Your personal opinion that you are correct carries no weight under the WP:EW policy. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

A question
Why do you think that NS (Capital of culture) should not be in the lead? I see no problem with that and plus it is a nice promotion of the city. Sadko (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

October 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Serbia. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Points to note:

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.--InNeed95 (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 1) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from History of the Serbian Air Force into Serbian Air Force and Air Defence. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

List of equipment of the Serbian Armed Forces
Could you please refrain from removing content without a valid reason from this page, or under reasons which are not true.

For example you have removed T-72M tanks, and these tanks are still in use. 13 of them in active units, mostly used for training, and among other things our crews were using these tanks to prepare for tank biathlon in Russia. And there is also a reserve tank battalion in reserve Banat brigade of the Serbian Army. You can easily check all of this if you google a bit.

M-46 130mm gun is still in use in the active units of the Serbian army, you can easily check this on the Serbian army official site, they are the main armament in the 3rd and 4th Cannon artillery battalions of the Mixed Artillery Brigade. 36 of them in active use, with some in reserve.

D-30J howitzers are in use in the Serbian Army reserve Brigades, there are four battalions in use, 72 howitzers in total. If you try to google it a bit you will easily find images from recent training of the reserve army members.

BTR-50, BTR-60, MT-LBu… are not double listings, these are command vehicles, and this is the reason they are listed individually, these are not carriers for Strela 1 or 10, or Gvozdika, but separate vehicles.

M53/59 Praga was reintroduced into service since 2016. Proka89 (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


 * My intention is to list only the equipment which is in the OPERATIONAL USE as is the case with most other related articless.
 * T72M is not in operational use anymore, but are stored in reserve since the delivery in 2020 of the Russian donation of modernized T72B1MS which replaced T-72M and are deployed in the very same battalion where T72 had been. Check the site of balkansecurity network, they had the article about that in time of delivery of Russian donation. BTW, strictly speaking, even figure of M84 tanks in operational use is bit of exagerration as there are less than 100 tank crews in the whole of Army nowadays i.e. less than 50% of listed tanks (both M84 and T72B1MS) can be filled with the crews.
 * Same goes with D30J, not in operational use by active units, but kept in reserve...
 * BTR50 are replaced with new BOV KIV in mechanized battalions..
 * As for Praga, I know that there were some public announcments of then-Defence Minister Vulin about their reintroduction, but I am not sure did it acutally happen. Any actual photos or articles of Praga in use recently? There is long road between announcement and the actual deployment in the units, at least in Serbia...
 * You are right for M-46, BTR-60, MT-LBu. I will reverse edits regarding them and add them on the list.
 * Regards, Klačko (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Equipment which is a part of Serbian army reserve units is the equipment which is in use. T72M is not replaced by T72B1MS, these are all put into a completely newly formed tank battalion. Number of crews has nothing to do with how much equipment some country has, and equipment of reserve units is still a part of the army equipment. People are still being trained to use this equipment, and this equipment is not retired from service. There is no country which has all its units fully formed in peacetime.
 * Regarding the BTR-50PK I am not sure if these are retired from service yet, and even in that case there is a possibility that these will be transferred to the reserve units. And I am not sure if the BOV KIV will replace them since BTR-50PK is a command vehicle in tank and mechanized battalions, and BOV is a wheeled vehicle.
 * Praga is back Proka89 (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Serbian Air Force and Air Defence
DO NOT remove sourced content or clutter the article with images, as done on Serbian Air Force and Air Defence article. If you continue to edit disruptively, you may be blocked from editing. - FOX 52 talk! 15:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

October 2023
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Armorial of Serbia, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  -  Sumanuil  '''. ''' (talk to me) 07:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Crest of FKP 1947-1950.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Crest of FKP 1947-1950.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

File:FK Partizan grb 1950.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FK Partizan grb 1950.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

File:FK Partizan SD.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FK Partizan SD.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Joseph2302</b> (talk) 11:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Crest of FK Partizan 1992-2008.png
Thanks for uploading File:Crest of FK Partizan 1992-2008.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Aleksandar Vučić, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Vacant0 (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Order of the White Eagle with the swords (January 17)
<div style="border: solid 1px #FCC; background-color: #F8EEBC; padding: 0.5em 1em; color: #000; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Mach61 were:

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


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Order of the White Eagle with the swords and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Order_of_the_White_Eagle_with_the_swords Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mach61&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Order_of_the_White_Eagle_with_the_swords reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Mach61 (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

List of equipment of the Serbian Armed Forces
Поздрав, друже, не знам која је поента у томе да упорно враћаш своју верзију података о оклопним возилима, када то једноставно није истина, а и лако је проверљиво.

У преводу: - Не постоји "Лазар 2" у наоружању ВС, a посебно не у 72. БЗСО. Нема "Милоша" у наоружању бригада Ков, посебно не Друге, већ искључиво 72. БЗСО, 63. падобранске и од скоро батаљона ВП. Бројност истих је већа од 45, закључно са испорукама из новембра 2023. Из САД стиже још 52, а не 42 Хамвија. Купљено је 118 нових, а до сада испоручено 66.

Исто важи и за БОВ М-21 ОТ, то није возило за војну полицију, већ за превоз пешадије и замена за део камиона ТАМ у копненој војсци.

Не знам ни који је смисао у томе да наводиш податке о ГМ-200, например, јер нити из јавних извора знамо колико је истих наручено, нити је било који испоручен. но ајде. Markec95 (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Поздрав!
 * За Лазар 2 се слажем, прихватам исправку. Такође и за Хамвије, омашка.
 * БОВ М-21 ОТ је, у овој првој (и досад јединој) транши бар, био намењен као замена за старе БОВ-ове Војне полиције.
 * Проблем са твојом изменом је паушално навођење бројног стања предметних оруђа - исто се не слаже са изворима који стоје поред.
 * Конкретно, једина цифра Лазара за коју досад знамо да је испоручена Војсци Србије је 30 (извор: https://tangosix.rs/2021/22/10/partner-2021-sve-o-oklopnim-premijerama-modernizacijama-i-modifikacijama/), од тада је било више најава о новим поруџбинама, једина конкретна цифра (39) је била из фебруара 2023. (https://tangosix.rs/2023/21/02/idex-2023-srbija-od-domace-industrije-kupuje-200-orudja-u-vrednosti-od-300-miliona-evra-jugoimport-investira-u-utvu-pr-dc-potpisao-sporazum-o-saradnji-sa-cerkom-kompanijom-edza/). Твоје навођење 42+ нема никаквог утемељења у дотадашњим изворима, нити си доставио неки нови извор, а овај концепт са додавањем плусева поред броја је реално бесмислен. Једино што до данашњег дана имамо као потврду је 30 испоручених Лазара и 39 новонаручених. Зато мислим да једино има смисла навести те две цифре.
 * Што се тиче БОВ М-16 Милоша, опет се намеће питање: одакле ти цифра од 45+? Ниси приложио ниједан извор у прилог таквом наводу. Једину вест са конкретном цифром имамо да је у 2022. испоручена прва транша од 20 Милоша (https://www.rts.rs/lat/vesti/drustvo/4645540/stefanovic-kornet-nabavka-oruzje.html) и са смотре "Гранит 2023" о максимум 43 возила. Иначе, одустало се од даљих набавки Милоша (оних 109 најављених из фебруара прошле године) већ су одлучили да набаве 81 "продужених" Милоша. Пошто се ради о једном моделу у две верзије, мислим да у листи није их потребно одвајати већ ставити под једно, са напоменом за продужену верзију (као што је учињено и са другим оруђима, БОВ-М80 нпр.). Исто као и за Лазара, једино је смислено навести досад познату цифру испоручених (ових 43) и у напоменама навести ових наручених 81 продужених Милоша.


 * Одакле ти бројка (40) за БОВ КИВ, извор?
 * Klačko (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * мислим да нисам ја ставио 40 за БОВ КИВ. Ако јесам, јасно, грешка.
 * Што се тиче Лазара, на "Граниту" их је било 50, међу њима један Лазар-3М, али и 6 или 8 жандармеријских, што је дакле 41 или 43 у маскирној шеми ВС.
 * Накнадно, Мојсиловић је у новембру изјавио да је завршен план испоруке по 10 возила у по један пешадијски батаљон у свакој бригади КоВ. То се, дакле, уклапа.
 * Што се тиче Милоша, на Граниту су била представљена 43 или 44 возила, али је у Новембру Вучевић у Никинцима обишао тестирање нових средстава, где је била још једна нова серија, која је, сасвим очигледно, отишла у војну полицију, а ради се о још 5 возила. Markec95 (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ево баш данас изашао чланак на Балканској безбедносној мрежи где се помиње да је 37 Лазара у ВС. Извор: https://www.balkansec.net/post/vojske-balkana-imaju-9-vrsta-oklopnih-osmoto%C4%8Dka%C5%A1a
 * Поздрав Klačko (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Они овде "процењују" број "Лазара" у ВС тиме што од 49 одузимају оних 12 у Жандармерији, а да притом уопште нису ни проверили да ли су сви њихови били на приказу.
 * Конкретно, гледајући фотографије са "Гранита", попут ове, на главној стајанци јесте било 50 возила, али свега њих 7 у задњем реду имало је ознаке Жандармерије и њихову маскирну шему, онај један њихов са топом од 30мм нпр. уопште и није био ту, а сви остали на поменутој стајанци су били у бојама ВС.
 * Тиме долазим до закључка да нису у праву. Поздрав. Markec95 (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to join New pages patrol
Hello Klačko! Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
 * We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
 * Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
 * Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
 * If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Concern regarding Draft:Order of the White Eagle with the swords
Hello, Klačko. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Order of the White Eagle with the swords, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Order of the White Eagle with the swords has been accepted
<div style="border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:#E6FFE6; padding: 0.5em 1em; color: #000; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> Order of the White Eagle with the swords, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Order_of_the_White_Eagle_with_the_swords help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Theroadislong (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)