Reminder about WP:ARBMAC
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
It looks like you've last been notified about the existence of WP:ARBMAC in a few years back, and I don't know if the recent communication with AC dealt with that specifically, so I'm re-posting this just in case anything is unclear. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Everything is clear.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Vangelis
On 20 May 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Vangelis, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC) |
Disambiguation link notification for July 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Genetic studies on Croats, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pag.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
DAI
There has been another instance of DAI edits causing conundrums and original research from it as a primary source. Secondary sources are batted away as “Croatian sources” and non-Croatian sources still on deaf ears. Please see Foibe massacres. See the edit history and there is a talk page discussion too with just person research arguments that I don’t really understand. Seems Fines’ book is being selectively used as well with additional edits deeming “Croat” “not a ethnicity but political identity” which seems to misrepresent what Fines is trying tk say. Of course Fines says similar things about Croats and Serbs but an editor only included the Croat criticism. Maybe I have this all wrong but it seems off to me. You have experience with DAI and are apposed to Croatian revisionist fantasy so figured you could bring insight. Cheers OyMosby (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- First and foremost, what the hell have 7-10th century events to do with modern 20th century and even less with Foibe massacres in the mid-20th century???--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Haha. Exactly. That’s another thing I have been trying to understand. OyMosby (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- @OyMosby: in the same time we have same issue with Serbian editors at other articles, see User talk:Santasa99#They never learn.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- It seems to me that articles related to Dalmatia the past year have been rewritten with a Italian pov as can be seen here. The entire section implies any sort of Croatian elements were newly imposed in the 1800s. Could you take a look at the 19th and 20th century sections? I’m surmised they went unnoticed for a year. OyMosby (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- @OyMosby: in the same time we have same issue with Serbian editors at other articles, see User talk:Santasa99#They never learn.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Haha. Exactly. That’s another thing I have been trying to understand. OyMosby (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)