User talk:Biblbroks

Happy Wiki-ing. —Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs}

Hello, I'm a new wikipedian from Texas, and I've just translated the article on the Catholic Apostolic National Church of Brazil from the Portuguese page, using my knowledge of Spanish and a dictionary, and adding a single fact I knew.. It says on your page that you know Portuguese. Could you check over my translation and see if anything contradicts the Portuguese version? You can leave my a message on my talk page. And another thing: how did you learn all those languages!? Kennethmyers 16:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC

Thank you very much for responding! Yes, the source of the English translation was the Portuguese article, but I also added a fact which I am sure of (which is that the bishop who was re-accepted into the Roman Catholic Church had a wife and children). Also, I ommited some information about the previous attempts to create a national Brazilian church, because I thought they were a little non sequitur, and probably belong in another article. I would be extremely thankful if you could point out where I was innacurate, and either change it yourself, or tell me to. Thank you! Kennethmyers 22:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you so much for looking at the article. I used the word "National" in the title because that's how I had heard the name. It looks like someone has fixed that too, now. If I can ever help you with anything, please let me know! Kennethmyers 05:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm OrangUtanUK who has done some stuff on the Gyrodynes page. I'm sorry, ut I was doing a chuky big change today and I think it's conflicted with some things you put in. I hope i've identified the main changes and merged them into my update, but perhaps it would be a good idea if you had a look and checked that you like my contribution.

best wishes; OrangUtanUK 17:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 22:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, mate. I wasn't referring to your edit in that summary - your edit was good. I was talking about Ptcamn's revert, which undid a capitalization, and alphabetical orders, when they could have just re-added Bosnian instead of reverting. Sorry about the confusion. - King Ivan 07:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, Beeblebrox! I just hammered on the Bellows page for a while - is this what you had in mind for cleanup? Cbdorsett 07:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reply. I have a little request: can you help out with the translation from Slovenian to English on Slovenian parliamentary election, 2004? The only thing remaining is "Nepovezanih poslancev" and "Nepovezani poslanec", which I'm guessing are the plural and singular of something like "unaligned candidates" or "independent deputies". Thanks. Cbdorsett 05:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out there. I cleaned up a little bit, and I changed "Deputy group" to "delegation," which is the correct English term for a group of members of an elected body, who are all in the same party. In the US Congress, there is a Democratic delegation, a Republican delegation, and so on. I don't know about British usage - it could be quite different. Cbdorsett 04:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Biblbroks,

Thanks for welcoming me! I’ve known several people from the Balkan region at various times. It’s an interesting region, and I think the Balkan languages are fun as well. I wonder if you could do me a favor. The Wiktionary has an article on Interlingua with several translations, but one Balkan language, Croatian, isn’t yet included. I gather that you speak this language natively. Could you add the Croatian word for Interlingua? That would be great! The article is located here. By the way, the English Wikipedia article on Interlingua is here.

Thank you, 66.68.174.245 (not my real name :)

Hi Biblbroks, I have cited about a sentence on Dragan Stojkovic you have posted in August.(^^)v Hope you write about him in Srpski, and "Uncle Milé(Milé Servy)"in English.auto-translation about whom I am talking of<-- "lead star" is Red Star.So, "[Mire]pop and lead star" is "Grandpa Mile and Red Star". about donation lots of Japanese fans raised for him. picture of him.

Is him somehow famous, I wonder?

See you around.--Orcano 20:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Zoran Radmilovic.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 03:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on a form of Wiki before. I do not need any tips on how to do this site. hrwiki is where I started off, as Balmung and Sanjuro; I do not need any help starting off on this site.

--FireMan

If you want to see the lead shortened, then it would behoove you to either make a suggestion or tell me why you think that it is too long. Just slamming a tag on it is unacceptable IMO, especially when the lead is as long as it is because the article was chided for its being too short in the past.

The standards call for the lead to be between one and four paragraphs long. It is. --EMS | Talk 14:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... for your welcome! --Nice poa 07:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some comments on your removal of Ptolemy on the timeline's talk page. Rjm at sleepers 06:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Nrm, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per speedy deletion criterion A1.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Toddst1 17:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let you know that now BlueAzure has been skipping boards and placing multiple tags on a group of articles, one of which you helped to edit. The Milena Lukich article is among that group affected and is now facing Afd. If you have anything to add, I think it is important to disallow a single editor from continuing this kind of harassment. Thank you for your timeHollywoodFan1 (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Zoran radmilovic.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Nick of time.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Female_race_defiler2.svg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 19:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For me is surprise to tell this but user:Nikola Smolenski has been right. See this compromise version which has been destroyed by nationalistic SPA accounts:"Mehmedalija "Meša" Selimović (Cyrillic: Мехмедалија "Меша" Селимовић) (26 April 1910 - 11 July 1982) was a Yugoslavian writer, one of the greatest 20th century novelists of Bosnian and Serbian literature."--Rjecina (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to User:Luna Santin, you will be blocked from editing. Gwernol 01:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Gwernol 01:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite gone, actually. But thank you. :) Best, Durova^Charge! 07:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Biblbroks. Concerning your contribution, International relations regarding Kosovo, a page move cannot be done by simply copying and pasting the contents of a page into a new location, as such a process does not transfer the page's edit history and therefore violates the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). As a violation of the page move process, International relations regarding Kosovo needs to be temporarily deleted under the speedy deletion criteria so that the page you intended to move may be properly moved in a way that will preserve its edit history. International relations regarding Kosovo has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If not, please refrain from editing either the page you intended to move or International relations regarding Kosovo until the latter has been deleted according to Wikipedia's speedy criterion G6 (non-controversial housekeeping).

If you did not intend to make a page move, then please insert the {{hangon}} tag right below the {{db-copypaste}} tag in International relations regarding Kosovo and state your intentions on Talk:International relations regarding Kosovo. An administrator will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do. Thank you for your contributions.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biblbroks, I have placed a note on the Administrators' Noticeboard because of your disruptive behaviour. I know you are acting in good faith, but your recent actions have led me to this. Bazonka (talk) 07:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too believe that you are acting in good faith, but controversial edits such as moving or redirecting a page require a majority consensus. Your proposal was rejected by an overwhelming majority. There was a recent discussion about renaming the article and it led to renaming the article "International recognition of Kosovo". Here is the discussion, which had a consensus to rename the article. Also once/ if you have a consensus, you have to perform the rename via WP:RM. Please take this into consideration. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could argue that, but a lot of people will revert your edits without a consensus and say WP:DONTBEADICK Ijanderson (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you not claiming that this article has a POV title: International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia? Ijanderson (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to your belief, I wasn't being ironic. Bazonka (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Biblbroks. You have new messages at Andrewcrawford's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Biblbroks, I have brought this discussion to your talk page because it is taking up waaay too much space on the Talk:International recognition of Kosovo page. And I apologise for spelling your name incorrectly before.
Let me explain the meaning of "flogging a dead horse". You completely misunderstood it. The "horse" refers to your argument which you are "flogging" (whipping) by trying to continue it. In other words, you are working very hard to make something work, but it is a waste of time because it is "dead" - it will never, ever work.
Now for answering some of your questions:

1. "Who can be authoritative enough to connect the context and the meaning in every given case?" I don't understand what you mean. Why do you need authority for this? There is no authority amongst Wikipedia editors - things are done by consensus. And the consensus (with the exception of you) is that the title adequately covers the context of the article.
2. "If it is about recognition of independence, why couldn't it be also about recognition of dependence?" I suppose that a country that doesn't recognise Kosovo as an independent state, by default "recognises" it as a province of Serbia. But this isn't really how it works diplomatically. Diplomatically, countries recognise other countries, not bits of countries. For example, all countries "recognise" that California is part of the USA, but no countries have an embassy to California because they don't diplomatically recognise California - their embassy (and official recognition) is with the USA. So the "recognition" in the title of this article obviously refers to recognition as an independent state, not as part of a larger state.
3. "There are many ways of recognitions. With how many should this article deal with?" My statement "...entities recognise in a variety of ways..." was a response to your argument that recognition is a process. I was pointing out that there is not just one process for recognition, but many. I do not understand why the "process" element of recongition is at all relevant.
4. It could be considered POV that the article's title assumes that we mean recognition of Kosovo as independent, not recognition as a Serbian province. I think there may a valid case for renaming the article to "International recognition of the Republic of Kosovo" to remove this ambiguity. Yes, I said that there may be some ambiguity in the title - but not in the word "recognition"! The potential ambiguity is in the meaning of "Kosovo" - do we here refer to the state or to the province? But as I have said in point 2 above, this change is not entirely necessary because it should be clear that we are referring to Kosovo as an independent state. Hence my comment about "pedantic semantics". Semantics are, as you say, important. But extreme pedantry is unnecessary - it could turn a useful article into something unreadable.
   

Biblbroks, please can you repond to this post here, on your talk page. That way the whole discussion will be easier to read. Bazonka (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will indulge you and answer on this page. A bit, though, because my opinion is that the debate should continue on the talk page for the matters of continuity, consistency and especially transparency. Therefore, I will transfer a part from it there, too. And apology accepted, but with a note of you being careful in the future - too much has had me disturbed (as personal attacks) in your words. Not to mention the hostility of some other contributors. The term hostility was used here instead of the terms personal attacks - as they do in England with euphemisms, don't they. Sincerely I'm not not taking you very neutral at the moment. Especially not objective. Maybe not even sincere.

As for the explanation of the phrase: there's no need for you to do that. I got your point. The very first time. Unfortunately you haven't got mine. I hope you get it now: don't take the role of some kind of authority whether consensus exists or could exist. Neither do describe my actions. I don't yours. And if I may be a bit sarcastic with you not to mind that too much and explain my figure of speech (if you haven't got it yet): a person is much more humanely AND/OR reasonably "metaphored" with a horse, than an issue could be personified with anything else, not even a horse.

The other issues I will answer on the talk page. All the best, --Biblbroks's talk 15:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove links from these pages that have not been fully repaired, as you did with Norwood. The page still has a direct link to the disambiguation page, Norwood Park, which means that it still shows up as a page needing repair to disambiguators. Intentional disambig links must be piped through a "Foo (disambiguation)" redirect, to remove the link from the reports of those needing repairs. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is perfect. That way, when a disambiguator generates a list of pages needing repair, Northport will not show up on the list. Cheers again! bd2412 T 17:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just thought I'd mention that I saw you recent edit to this template, and I would suggest you take a look at Help:Magic_words#Conditional_expressions for the correct syntax of the #ifeq parser function: it was a good effort, but you didn't use the syntax correctly. I need to rush offline now, but I'll give you some help with the syntax later if you want it. Regards, GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I rushed that message a bit. The correct syntax for the #ifeq parser function is {{#ifeq:x|y|result1|result2}}. If x is equal to y, the result is result1; otherwise, it's result2. You tried to add an extra pair of conditions I believe, but since the result is either x equals y or x is not equal to y, that doesn't work. Take a look at the syntax for "#switch" at Help:Magic_words#Conditional_expressions, this seems to be what you were trying to do. Hope that helps; happy editing. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you've seen, my youtube reference is genuine contribution from German TV. Agricultural tool called "Sheaf knife" in English or "Gerber Messer" in German. While this tool might have been used for killing people, it definitively ISN'T "specially designed" for killing humans as first sentence says. Big effort is being done by certain Serbian extremist circles to increase number of victims (as if, for example, 70-100.000 really killed in Jasenovac concentration camp isn't hedious enough), mostly in order to justify crimes done by Serbian paramilitaries in 1990's.

Here is one more link: http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.hr-online.de/website/fernsehen/sendungen/index.jsp%3Frubrik%3D22664%26key%3Dstandard_document_33193668%26lugal%3D1%26ibp%3D0&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhiyZmWTmWOdaN-grFgN2KzFkfNmew —Preceding unsigned comment added by MahnitiTapir (talk • contribs) 22:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could be of help. Thanks for your note. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern. I am dedicated to making positive contributions to the project, and I like to think I am a patient person, but unfortunately the actions of other editors have made me lose my patience. I am glad I could have contributed to this project before this happened, and I am happy to have interacted with more pleasant editors, yourself included. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work in cleaning up Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Disambiguation pages that link to disambiguation pages/43 (which is now finished, but for a few hard cases which likely will require the writing of articles to conform to those links). Would you like to collaborate on another section of this list? Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Disambiguation pages that link to disambiguation pages/10 looks like fun: Bozo to Bunge. bd2412 T 02:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Let's pick another - discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links/Disambiguation pages that link to disambiguation pages#Next?. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! We're really pounding through the list now, having conquered nearly a quarter of the original total in just a few weeks. We're up to Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Disambiguation pages that link to disambiguation pages/12 - you are welcome to pick off some more! bd2412 T 14:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. There is no point to put "Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic" if that's just a redirect. But, I don't really know about your idea to redirect "Serbian Cyrillic alphabet" to "Vuk's Cyrillic alphabet". At least, You can try with a move request. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got this message on my talk page: Vanjagenije (talk) 09:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for butting in (accidentally had Vanjagenije's talkpage on my watchlist): it is not true that "General guideline, as you may know, is that links shouldn't point to redirects but to their respective articles." See WP:NOTBROKEN. While I'm here, as for that particular edit by Vanja's, I don't have strong opinion either way, but "Serbo-Croatian" phrasing can be perceived more neutral in this particular situation, I don't see particular reason why it shouldn't be used. The title of Gaj's Latin alphabet article is sort of rotten compromise in order not to ascribe any (supra-)national label to the alphabet, and does not conform to WP:COMMONNAME. No such user (talk) 07:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please join the discussion at Talk:Bosnia#Primary topic. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have noticed that you have removed the Slackware reference from the KVIrc article. As slackbuilds.org is an authoritative reference I'd like to keep it in the article. I have re-added it specifying that this is a third party source (so not official as you correctly pointed out). I hope that you don't mind :) Pragma2 (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, CSS was meant to replace SC. It's not central in a cladistic or even geographical sense, but just a means of avoiding the offending phrase "SC". I think there were theoretical claims to justify this, but they haven't been accepted. And yes, there has been some discussion on this, esp. on the SC talk page.

(I'm unable to answer on that page. I can edit the article, but not the talk page.) — kwami (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the discussion at Template talk:Country data Kosovo, please stop making Template:Country data Republic of Kosovo a copy, and keep it as a redirect as originally implemented. Note that {{flag|Republic of Kosovo}} already produces the output you desire, namely  Republic of Kosovo. There is no need to turn the redirect into a full template, since it already works as expected. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I was trying to change it was discussed at the aforementioned talk page, so I think it can't be simply regarded without this discussion. I understand that the clarification (of the reasons for my actions) could be not quite fit to the task, and I will try give a better explanation - there, at that talk page. To put it shortly: I saw the current situation with titles and topics of articles as different than before, therefore I opined that the original implementation of the redirects required a change to reflect these new topics/titles. Cheers, --Biblbroks (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell from the main site (and my own experience) Quora is no longer invitation only. You can sign up via Facebook, Twitter, or via email. Let me know why you think this isn't the case. ToastIsTasty (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article. However, it might contain some grammatical errors. Also, I dont know how to put reference/source in, so, can you do it instead? I used info from (except for last sentence):

Mala eciklopedija Prosveta: opšta enciklopedija, Beograd, Prosveta, 1986, ISBN 86-07-00001-2

It's not much, but ебига, немам тренутно приступ литератури. Нису неке контраверзне информације, па да их треба референцирати, ал ето...

I changed it to "Serbian Cyrilic", because it's more precise (there are letters that don't exist in all Cyrilic alphabets).

P.S. У Просветиној енц. пише и да је 42-43. био у усташком логору, али нисам хтео то да додајем пошто се не поклапа са информацијом која је тренутно у чланку. --Supercooleskimo (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Biblbroks. You have new messages at Template talk:Thanks.
Message added 20:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please see my sanction request about you at WP:AE. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have. --biblbroks (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Kosovo article is *already* under a one revert per week restriction, which you have broken. My hope was that you would apologize for violating the restriction. In addition, it would help if you would promise to stop pushing a nationalist cause on this article, to stop tweaking the interwiki links, and to wait for consensus before making any changes. EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I know it is. And i knew that quite some time before i was violating the rule. And i think you understand i did. As for your hope or expectation of me to apologize... well, i think that it/they are legitimate and understandable. And i think others would agree that they/it are/is. But i'm not sure it is completely justifiable. Anyway, if you think i should apologize, i will. No matter to whom. Or where. I will. Help me in deciding where and i will apologize. As for the promise, ok, you think it would help. But again, where would it be appropriate to put such a promise? If you have an idea share it, please. If it were still needed, i will make and put a promise like that. Best regards, --biblbroks (talk) 06:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I expressed my apology at WP:VPM in my comment there. I hope this satisfies some expectation. Anyway, best regards from biblbroks (talk) 07:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Biblbroks. Please see the closure of a complaint at WP:Arbitration enforcement about your editing of Kosovo-related articles. Under the terms of WP:ARBKOS#Modified, you are banned for three months from Kosovo and all closely-related articles, including their talk pages and any interwiki links. This topic ban includes anything about the constitutional status of Kosovo and its relationship to Serbia. This ban can be enforced by blocks, but it expires on 30 July 2011. Let me know if you have any questions.

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to the Balkans if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Final decision. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, adding a name of someone/anyone that has not got a wikipedia article without a supporting citation is worse that useless. If they are Serbian and notable then a citation explaining who they are and that they are Serbian is not much to ask - as for not moving them to the talkpage - I have tried without any success at all to get the IP24 to discuss and they keep adding such additions unendingly - so now the list is quite tidy I am just deleting the new ones now, regards. I have though perhaps the account does not speak English, would you try and communicate with them? Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply at User talk:EdJohnston#Arbitration. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise my report against you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents because of your constant vanadalism of Branko Lustig Wiki page. Thank you.--Eversman (talk) 09:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's encouraging to get messages from the experienced wikipedia editors. Indeed I've now reviewed most of the policies for the English Wikipedia (much more mature than for the Spanish one). Best regards and let me know if I can help in a specific article, my specialty is in math, science and philosophy in South America mainly... --Akma72 (talk) 05:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really liked your comments re: Quora discussion. NCSS (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off, Wikipedia articles must be accurate. Whether you support Kosovar independence or support Serbia's claim as Kosovo being it's territory, the current situation is that Kosovo is physically and politically distinct. Second, the file with Kosovo as part of Serbia is up for deletion, so it won't be here much longer anyways. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just a pic. First, it's an inaccurate map. Second, it's up for deletion. Third, it's only purpose is to inaccuratly pretend that Kosovo is still part of Serbia, which the reality is that it is not. If you care about Wikipedian accuracy, you will understand why it can not be used. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have performed four reverts in the space of 24 hours on LGBT rights in Serbia and Belgrade anti-gay riot. You should undo your last revert, per WP:3RR. DrKiernan (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule. 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 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me also add that your behavior on User talk:Fry1989 after he was blocked was unacceptable - you took advantage of the fact that he was blocked before you to taunt him on his own talk page. I don't care who was right or wrong in this dispute, but if the two of you start back up when your blocks expire, I will not hesitate to start re-upping the blocks. Hash it out on the article's talk page, or a noticeboard, or on your own talk pages if you must, but blatant edit warring like you were carrying out is simply not ok, period. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you stop moving the edit war you are involved in to new language versions all the time. Discuss things on one language version (why not here on enwp?) and then move on to other language versions. GameOn (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Assuming you are the same Biblbroks that left me a message here. {{{1}}} ) You were right, it was a big welcome in many many words! Take care and see you soon! Atlantia (talk) 07:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your edits on the Kosovo article. "Control" is this very peculiar word, but really control distills down to your ability to kill and kidnap with impunity ("arrest" and "imprison" in legal vernacular). That power primarily rests with the Kosovo Police at the moment as far as I can tell. It appears to be an EU institution under the auspicies of EULEX. I will try and de-Kosovarize that article, as it seems quite clear to me who runs the country and the police legally: the UN and the EU, not the Republic of Kosovo. That includes the police. A BBC article from 2008 accredits the creation of the police to the EU, not the Republic of Kosovo.

This is important because really the rest comes down to de facto recognition of the populace of civil institutions, and how those civil institutions are controlled and by whom. From what I could tell last I checked, Northern Kosovo recognized Serbian civil institutions on a widespread basis (they even outright hold elections there in violation of UN/EU military/police laws/regulations/edicts), which is why they are referred to as controlling the area.

It is so convoluted, and the Republic of Kosovo out and out claiming authority over stuff, and the EU quite obviously de facto letting them in a partisan manner, makes things very hard to discern. I guess they let the Republic of Kosovo people hold elections, but not Serbia, which is still recognized by the occupying power (the UN) as the sovereign. What's your take on the situation? Int21h (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reference No6: "Earlier Thursday, the Kosovo parliament backed Prime Minister Hashim Thaci's measures aimed at asserting the government's authority over the north and passed a resolution ordering the government to exercise its authority over the whole country, in line with the constitution." Therefore stating that Pristina is administrating Kosovo apart from the North. "Kosovo Serbs have had political and financial support from Belgrade and have often resorted to violence whenever the pressure on them to submit to authority has increased." Stating that Belgrade is trying to administrate Northern Kosovo and block Pristina from administrating Northern Kosovo.
• Reference No7: "11 pct of the territory is not under Pristina's control" which is in reference to the North per the rest of the article, which talks about Pristina attempting to take control of the north.
• Reference No8: "Serbian Ministry for Kosovo State Secretary Oliver Ivanović says that the current government had politically “lost a little bit of control“ in northern Kosovo." therefore stating that Belgrade has control of the north but has 'lost a little bit of control'.
  

Anyway I have proved to you what the references have stated regarding who controls where/ who's authority is respected where. Anyway you stated that it could be rewritten. If you believe it should be rewritten I will help you rewrite a new neutral way of explaining the authority situation. I am always open to compromise as long as the outcome is status neutral. However until then the status quo should remain. Regards IJA (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the first article on today's B92? Minister: We will not leave northern Kosovo "Serbia’s Minister for Kosovo Goran Bogdanović has said that Serbia will not abolish its institutions in northern Kosovo... He told daily Večernje novosti that a request to withdraw from the institutions in northern Kosovo was unacceptable for the Serbian government. Requests for Serbia to withdraw from the institutions in the north of the province, that are not parallel but the only ones, are unacceptable for the government". He has stated that the institutions governing the North are apart of the Republic of Serbia. What more proof do you want? IJA (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also I've said to you, how do you think it should reworded? And what is POV about it? It just states who administrates where. Also we use status quo until a consensus can be reached to change something, this is a fundamental part of wikipedia policy. Regards IJA (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So basically you're trying to deny that the RoK has control in Kosovo? Even though UNMIK only exists on paper (staffing levels were cut by 70% in Aug 2008 and there has been further cutting to staff levels since as well as the transfer of power to the Kosovo Assembly) and EULEX is a policing/ judicial mission which is set to expire in June 2012. I get it, you're opposed to the RoK but they do administrate the majority of Kosovo (even if you don't agree that they should) and they're much more of a government than a lot of third world countries. This is as bad as the time you tried to claim that countries don't recognise Kosovo, they just acknowledge Kosovo instead. I would love for you to produce a source stating that RoK does not control and administrate Kosovo (not incl the North) IJA (talk) 10:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And no Belgrade doesn't directly control Northern Kosovo as it is considered local government. And that happens all over Serbia. IJA (talk) 10:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Int21h is stating something very different to you. You're stating that RoS and RoK don't not control Kosovo but UNMIK and EULEX do, not true. That is false. We can't write false information on an encyclopaedia. I have produced sources, but just simply claiming they're not true means nothing as I have quoted where it states who controls what. Simply saying they're wrong bears no weight, how is it wrong? Please provide me with a source stating that RoK doesn't administrate or control Kosovo. IJA (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me quote you from this morning: "if anyone is in control, UNMIK and EULEX are." proof You're the liar. IJA (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. IJA (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Biblbroks,

thank you for noticing the faulty POV-tag posted by me to the Bosnian language page. The title is of course perfectly correct. The issue, as throughly presented in the discussion, is the attempted classification of Bosnian as a subunit of "Serbo-Croatian"; a defunct and today invalid language term with highly controversial undertones. I would like to ask you which POV-tag would be appropriate for this matter? MarcRey (talk) 11:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I urge you to pay the talk page a visit. Attempts are currently made, and succeeded with over the last few months, in completely reviving "Serbo-Croatian" as a classification standard on Wikipedia. This is nothing but original research with extremely controversial undertones. I am however confident that such plans will not be successful in the long run. If it has taken you months to poison these articles, so am I prepared to spend months on sanitary actions. A simple search on goggle proves your misguidance, but this will most likely not be sufficient as I fear outside editors (non-Yugoslavian) with administrative privileges will have to be included into the discussion. I am currently collecting an extensive body of contemporary literature work (most recently from Duke university) which will have the administrators of Wikipedia realize that ex-Yugoslavian language articles will require protection in the future following the chauvinistic maneuvers concerning Serbo-Croatian. In clarification, given your uncomprehending answer I presume you to be part of the neo-Serbo-Croatian movement on Wikipedia. Maybe you could help me answer the following rumor: Serb editors on Wikipedia are on a pay check from the government (or individual municipalities) in Serbia to protect "the interests of the Serbian nation"? Would explain a great deal. MarcRey (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How the heck do you guys find the time to sit in front of Wikipedia 24/7 in that case? Personally, I have a work, which is certainly well-paid, but prevents me from doing editing on Wikipedia during the hours I have to put bread on my table. Grateful for answer. MarcRey (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My answer is that I do not know, but you should? Please refrain from taunting the Srebrenica genocide as you did on the administrator's page.MarcRey (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone isn't logged in when they make minor edits (or major ones, for that matter) doesn't mean they're new to Wikipedia, or that they're not already registered. It only means they're not logged in. Those messages get annoying. 74.65.210.76 (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you participated in discusion before, please see here the last proposition. Thanks! --WhiteWriter ^speaks 22:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Osman Đikić, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bosnian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my notice here [1]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain more about this? Why do you think it's POV. Well, historically, it's a fact. HOS was founded way back in 1991 (year before Bosnia become an independent state) and HVO was organized and officialy established way before Amry of Bosnia and Hezregovina. It's not POV, but fact. And also I don't see the reason why the neutrality of this secion comes to question because Croatian units were first to organize themselves agains the agression. --Wustenfuchs 20:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to report that there were not enough accounts available for you to have one. I have you on our list though and if more become available we will notify you promptly.

We're continually working to bring resources like Credo to Wikipedia editors, and this will very hopefully not be your last opportunity to sign up for one. If you haven't already, please check out WP:HighBeam and WP:Questia, where accounts are still available. Cheers, Ocaasi 19:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:DPL/D2D. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:DPL/D2D redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Steel1943 (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have just missed my block of Slavić a few minutes ago. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Biblbroks, we are a Croatian team of researchers who are looking at the editing dynamics on different language Wikipedias and are focusing specifically on the topic of Kosovo. We are looking for editors who have participated in editing, or discussing, articles about this topic, and who would be willing to be interviewed for the purpose of this research project. This is a project approved by the Wikimedia Foundations´ Research Committee and you can find more information on this meta-wiki page. Research results will be published under an open access license and your participation would be much appreciated. If you would like to participate you can reach us at our talk page or directly at interwikiresearch@gmail.com and we will set up an interview in a way that best suits your needs.Pbilic (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Biblbroks, I'm contacting you because we need some Serbian translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on sr.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need help with a personal message for the Serbian Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 02:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help here? [2] (Lilicneiu (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Working on it. Such a weird issue I must say. Thanks anyways. (Lilicneiu (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Hello! You have received preliminary approval for access to Credo. Please fill out this short form so that your access can be processed. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Kosovar —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. T*U (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You had a sample of what I have been facing alone there for some months. As far as I understood, you would like to review the issue and you saw some obvious flaws in the outcome there. Fortunatelly it is all there for the records because it is ammong the most, if not the most, blatant cases I ever saw. You saw the unwilingness in adressing your questions, and further discussion there is useless cause objectivity and neutrality there are replaced by wall or willingness to prove you wrong. Would you be willing to really adress the issues there? Several concerns cleaarly pointing to the flaw of the outcome are not adressed and that situation was possible cause the side having those concerns was clerly outnumbered by being just one editor facing a group. The concerns should be adressed in a more balanced discussion with more participants, would you be able to participate more actively in some near future? FkpCascais (talk) 07:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Biblbroks. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Biblbroks. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Buford, Texas (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]