Welcome!

Hello, Stlunatic071, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Sarajevo. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Marek.69 ^talk 18:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually stopped watching the page weeks ago. It seems that the consensus is somewhat against your view (you can count me out if you want), but the next step in dispute resolution for you may be a Wikipedia:Requests for comment, since it's an issue that's going to repeat itself. It doesn't seem further discussion will get anywhere, but there are still methods of discussing. If you still need help, feel free to contact me again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot list this as a country of birth for people who were born before the country existed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? What country didn't exist? It clearly says SR Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was an independent state within SFR Yugoslavia just as is England within UK.--Stlunatic071 (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SR Bosnia and Herzegovina was independent as recognized by whom? Certainly not the UN, the European Union, FIFA, UEFA or the IOC. --JonBroxton (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a country then. The status of England is irrelevant. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Well that's convenient "The status of England is irrelevant". Why is the status of England irrelevant? We're talking about double standards here on Wikipedia and your argument fully supports that notion.--Stlunatic071 (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an issue with the David Beckham article or the categorisation of England, take it up on the relevant talk page. It is usual to state the country of birth, not the state. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is you who should check the David Beckham talk page. Here, I'll make it easy for you: Talk:David_Beckham/Archive_3#David_Beckham.27s_Nationality.--Stlunatic071 (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't like facts do you? First you say that Ibisevic was born in Bosnia and Herzegovina, until it was pointed out to you on many, many, many occasions that Bosnia and Herzegovina did not exist as an independent nation when Ibisevic was born. Now you're trying to convince people that the Socialist Republic of B&H was a fully recognized independent nation when it clearly wasn't - not by the UN, or UEFA, or FIFA, of the IOC, or any other international body. So now you come up with this Beckham rubbish trying to insinuate that, because Beckham's sporting nationality is English and not British, that somehow affects Ibisevic's country of birth? If Bosnia and Serbia and Croatia and all the other countries had independent football teams when Ibisevic was born, you would have a point - but they didn't. Beckham didn't have a *choice* but to play for England, because there is no UK football team... just as, if Yugoslavia had not split, Ibisevic would now be playing for the Yugoslav national team, because the Bosnian team wouldn't exist. How can you possibly keep on with your position when all the consensus and historical fact is overwhelmingly against you? --JonBroxton (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this talk is held at Talk:Edin_Džeko as indicated by an administrator up above. Secondly, should you had followed the link as described on the Ibisevic discussion page you would have realized that the point you are arguing is the same thing that's already been discussed. Ibisevic and Dzeko are two no different issues in this case. When me and others were arguing the constituent independence of SR Bosnia and Herzegovina within SFRY as was the case, I didn't see your comments. By the way, no one is claiming that SR Bosnia and Herzegovina was recognized by the UN, until 1992. At the time when all of this was being "thrown" around, all were exclaiming the rule's of Wikipedia. Once I quoted the rule which fully supports my argument and the argument's of others, all seem to regress from the importance of following to now this non-sense that you are beckoning. Now, you want to discuss David Beckham? Good. From David Beckham "Nationality Discussion" I quote: "On a more serious note, you need to remember that for footballers (and other sportsmaen on Wiki?), natiionality is the country they play for." Now, no one argued with that and it there is further evidence that no one challenged this by seeing that his infobox displays country of birth as England not UK. You want to have double standards and support them, do whatever you like, but I won't tolerate that and neither will others as you will see on the Dzeko discussion page. As a heads up, if you want to next time personally address me on something use this page, but if you're coming here to discuss this which is already discussed at least on four different pages I will delete your comments and you won't get an answer.--Stlunatic071 (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't enjoy facts. I am sorry to let facts cloud the argument but please stop being so silly. People point out the facts yet you still insist on acting in your own interests. PLEASE STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dribblingscribe 07:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out previously, what happens on the Beckham page and the status of England is not relevant. Decisions made there about what is right for that article do not necessarily apply to all other articles. Please stop using this as a reason for your edits. Argue the merits of your changes on the basis of what they mean to the articles involved. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stlunatic, you make no sense. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stlunatic071 - can I call you Loon for short? Why are you saying my language is bad enough to be reported? Care to explain? I'm baffled. Dribblingscribe 13:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That was there before I began editing. PRODUCER (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting(!?), because when I click on the history of changes it clearly says "Revision as of 12:49...PRODUCER". Normally, I don't care, but I've spent a good deal of time on this article and someone coming along and making senseless, pointless and unnecessary changes after all is done, especially one like this one that did nothing, but disable a perfectly good link, get's on my nerves. Again, thanks for the nuances you made, but saying this was there before is insane!

[1] 05:10, August 30, 2009 Stlunatic071. Check the url for the official website. PRODUCER (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[2] and the person who made the mistake... PRODUCER (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:File:Avaz Twist Tower SA.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

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

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought I had put it up for deletion when I realized that I didn't have all the information at the time I needed for a proper Wikipedia upload. --Stlunatic071 (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there for File:Radoncic.jpg. you ended up with this:

When copyrighted material is donated to Wikipedia it cannot be just for Wikipedia. The idea is that it is free for any one to copy and use. So this means that a picture has to have a free license, such as the creative commons CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. So we need the photographer or whoever owns the copyright to be able to grant this kind of license that allows any one to copy or modify the image. Do you think that this is likely? If a photographer does not want to grant a "commercial use" permission then they can consider permitting a smaller version of the picture. The next step is even harder, and that is to prove that such a license was granted. If it is your picture published for the first time, this is easy, you follow the instructions and say created by yourself. Otherwise follow the instructions in WP:PERMIT. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Ok, well I will reply back to the owner and re-request an authorization to have a free license on this image and then follow the proper steps per CC-BY-SA-3.0 and send the copy of the e-mail to: permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Thanks for your quick response.--Stlunatic071 (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, it is clear and simple, well done. Off2riorob (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I really appreciate that you are so open to different approaches and fair information.--Stlunatic071 (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Radoncicf.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

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

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, 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, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 02:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Premijer liga bih.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari 03:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Otoka Stadium 2009.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

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

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 21:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, join the discussion.

Regards, --Wustenfuchs 12:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dust off your Polaroid camera and pack your best lenses. The first-ever Wikipedia Takes St. Louis photo hunt kicks off Sat, Sept. 15, around noon in downtown St. Louis. Tour the streets of the Rome of the West with other Wikipedians and even learn a little St. Louis history. This event is a fun and collaborative way to enhance St. Louis articles with visual content. Novice photographers welcome! Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 08:15, 1 September 2012 (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) 14:05, 24 November 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) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]