This is Iadrian yu's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

My Talk Archives

/Archive April,2010 /Archive May,2010 /Archive August,2010 /Archive December,2010 /Archive February,2011 /Archive August,2011 /Archive September,2011 /Archive May,2012 /Archive March,2013

File:ZuZu09.02.2011.jpg

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was "Arrrgh!" —PIRATICUS 13:7 

We keep moving forward, opening new doors, and doing new things, because we're curious and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths.  Walt Disney 

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at John Hunyadi, you may be blocked from editing. In future please follow the correct procedure for removing such nationalistic/hate rants. Wikipedia:Refactoring_talk_pages#How_to_refactor - here you can see that only certain people are allowed to delete comments, normal acceptable policy is to archive the material or use a drop down to hide it. If you need help on this, feel free to contact me. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have archived it here. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info, I will avoid doing this again in the future. Thank you. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chaosdruid (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Your contributions are backed by reasonability, righteousness and determination... you deserve it. Правичност (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!Adrian (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Serbia Vojvodina location map.svg is available now. Regards, NNW (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thank you. I will use it in the next couple of days. Greetings.Adrian (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newest 2011 census data on religion and mother tounge is now available for Serbia article on this official link (book 4): http://popis2011.stat.rs/?lang=en (Правичност (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Update the data if you wish, if you can`t I will see to do it in the next couple of days. Adrian (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder: When you add {{Infobox settlement}}, including coordinates, to an article that already contains a {{coord}} template—as you did at Mesić (Vršac), for example—please delete the {{coord}} template. If you don't, the result is ugly overlapping coordinates up at the top of the article. Deor (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw this problem, you can see that I was doing that [1], but at Mesic I guess I simply forgot. I will try to be more careful. Greetings.Adrian (talk) 07:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I've been watching the Vojvodina settlement articles that Oldhouse2012 and his socks were mucking about with, but you seem to be watching them and updating them as needed. I'm thinking of de-watchlisting them as they are not my main game, but if our friend re-appears, feel free to tap me on the shoulder and I'll lend a hand. OK? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Np, I will try to watch over this pages if I notice something strange. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Reliable sources noticeboard. It is evident that original sources are needed.--Zoupan 01:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how that applies to Blic though. I know it is a tabloid-format newspaper, but this is a far from controversial matter. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think a quick review of the article shows that it is unreliable for such notable subject as total number of a people; no sources have been put forward in the Blic article, such as (in my view, crucial) Ministry of Diaspora or other Academian works. It is clear that the number of Serbs in the diaspora is far greater than registered, but we need a better source.--Zoupan 02:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the Ministry of Diaspora or Academy be any more accurate? I fundamentally disagree with the premise that there are far more Serbs in the diaspora, assuming of course you could define what being "a Serb in the diaspora" was. They are highly likely to be inflated. Sorry Adrian, I'll get off your talkpage... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Np, we can talk here, as long as we can talk and solve this problem.Adrian (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did`t know that Joshua project was discussed so many times on the RS board, but after reading a couple of archived discussion there isn`t any conclusion that this source is unreliable, suspicious yes but not unreliable. For example take a look at this [2], where and Admin states: "It has been discussed here in the past, but without any definitive conclusion. ". So I am still unsure if the Joshua project is unreliable, it is not very solid but I am not sure if we should dismiss it, also because it is already used on several other pages about ethnic groups.

As for the Blic source, I believe that is a solid reference. It is a respectable media and according to the WP:RS is acceptable. For example media(newspapers) source is used for total number of Bulgarians (http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2009/10/04/794490_bulgarite_v_chujbina_sa_mejdu_3_i_4_mln_dushi_zaiavi/) as a reliable source. I really don`t know what to do with Joshua source, maybe a request for comment? Or a simple vote and try to establish a consensus ? Adrian (talk) 11:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't think joshuaproject has the legs for a RfC, if you add together all the comments that have been made it's a net negative. Joshuaproject looks like a collection of what are supposedly RS (if you believe their press), and we should go to whatever sources they are drawing on, rather than using joshuaproject themselves. RSN hasn't been positive on balance, despite your observation. I agree Blic is as good as it gets, and I think it should stay. The foundational problem with this issue IMO, is that naturally Serbs want this figure to be large, but there just aren't the WP:RS to support a larger figure. The Australian figure is an example, it has been seriously reduced in the most recent census because the Australian Bureau of Statistics basically didn't understand that people that called themselves Yugoslavs weren't necessarily Serbs (who knew?). If that was occurring in other countries (which is a reasonable assumption), then the numbers would be even less than they are, not more. And that's without even defining what a Serb in the diaspora is. Many people in Australia that have Serb ancestors don't actually identify as Serbs, however offensive and unpatriotic that might be to other Serbs. Serbs marry Italians, Greeks, Aussies, Somalis whatever and then their children still Serbs? What defines them as such? Religion? That would reduce the numbers further, not increase them. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I understand. Then it is settled, we have a consensus that a Joshua project is unreliable for this usage. I just have to ask, since Joshua source is used on several articles, should it remain there? Adrian (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My view is no, but frankly this is a marginal issue for me, I only got involved because I watch Yugoslav-related templates that are attractive to POV-warriors. It is a matter for those that are interested in those articles. I make it a "relatively strict" rule to stick to articles that interest me rather than chasing every rabbit down every hole. As I am sure you understand, there is a lot of crap on WP, but I just try to focus on the crap is in front of me... :-) Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Of course I would like the number of Serbs to be greater, but you misunderstood my comment, I said that "It is clear that the number of Serbs in the diaspora is far greater than registered, but we need a better source" - meaning that I do not support the JP and Blic article (1m in USA, 800t in Germany, etc) which have "inflated" numbers; I wish too see the Serbs article a GA some day, thus without unrealiable sources. The thing is that there is a substantial number of Serbs registered as Croatians and Bosnians, but how can one exactly know how many Bosnian Croats, Croatian Serbs etc, there really is? I'll look to find better sources regarding the number of Serbs in diaspora and the specific classification of Serbians/Serbs/descendants in censuses.--Zoupan 07:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's immaterial to me, but how do you know that there are a substantial number of Serbs registered as Croatians and Bosnians? And how could you possible work out how many of them are calling themselves something else? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because censuses are problematic, every state has its own demographic studies, whether to register nationality or ethnicity, to include ethnic/national ancestry and to include permanent residents or naturalized people of national/ethnic origin. Wikipedians are good at finding information and there are many ways to study a subject. You are free to help out!--Zoupan 08:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If i may join in here, id like to support what Zoupan is saying - for example Germany lately registered all Germany born people as "Germans", while other groups that immigrated from some other places were simply registered for example (From Croatia - as Croats) eventough a significant numbe rof these could be also ethnic Serbs... in many other countries they just offer people a cathegory of "where you were born, or which country you come from etc..?" ... and a bosnian Serb would simply input "bosnia" there, not knowing he will be counted as a Bosnian at statistics- while only those who inputed Serbia would be Serbs or Serbians.... (Правичност (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I agree with peacemaker Its hard to define who or what a Serb in diaspora really is, its even hard to define that in the Balkans - for example in Montenegro, alot of people declare as Montenegrins and as Serbian native speakers, if youd ask such a person personally why, he would probably tell you because he is proud that he is from Montenegro, while inside he feels Serb, eventough he declared as ethnic montenegrin who speaks serbian. - And about the Yugoslavs... look at the demographic history of Yugoslavia, you will see how Serbian population starts to "not increase much" while number of Yugoslavs rises ... just compare... and it is quite obvious as some serbian historians said about 75% of those who declared as Yugoslavs are Serbs or of serbian descent (perhaps a same percentage of these would be in diaspora), even today Serbs are most Yugo-nostalgic from all other ex-yugoslav peoples.

Adrian you remember when i posted you a source from a historians book from 1994, where it said there are around 11,5 million Serbs throghout the world, but not all in diaspora neccesarily declare like that... i suppose it is normal that populations like the serbian one grow through time... in distant parts of world they ofcorse degrade, but in countries where serbian communities are strong (like austria, germany, swiss, sweden) they grow even further, i heard and read alot of times that there are already 200.000 serbs in vienna, while whenever i travel to vienna i can hear serbian language and meet really alot of serbian people, even i ask my self how come so many... and alot of these are actually bosnian serbs, among the serbian serbs ofc... While talking about the distant lands; i dont see why there wouldnt be more than 1 million people of serbian descent in the usa which is a state of over 300 million people from all over the world, eventough most of these serbs assimilated into other groups and started to declare differently, surely i wouldnt count them into serbs but i would surely count them as people of serbian ancestry (if they still got any of that in their blood)... If joshua project isnt reliable... maybe this source could replace it for a higher estimation of the total figure, so we could put a figure of 10,5 - 12 million ... if it is reliable ofc?... http://frontal.rs/index.php?option=btg_novosti&catnovosti=0&idnovost=19032 (btw pašalić is a respected demograph from Republika Srpska (Bosnia) and he gave this interview to republika srpska news agency according to frontal.rs). (Правичност (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Or just recently i found an online version of book which i consider a reliable source ofcourse, made me very excited, as this book reveals also my personal opinions. The book is from 2002, it is called "the "Croatian storm" and Serb migrations" by Stanko Nišić--- on start of page 14 under "2. Rasprostranjenost Srba" it is written (i will literally translate): "Serbs live today in aprox. 100 countries of the world, on all 5 continents. They number alltogether around 12 million people, out of which most live in their home lands: In Serbia around 6 million, Montenegro ca. 600 000, Republic of Srpska ca. 1,5 million. In diaspora live around 4 million Serbs, out of which around 1 million live in the united States alone" etc.... People i propose we use this source, it is my latest discovery i have been looking for so long - as i knew that estimated 12 million number existed somewhere (as 4 million serbs live in diaspora and around 8 million in the balkans). I propose we replace the joshua project number with 12 million as this source says so, and put a figure of ca. 10,5 (blic source) - 12 million (stanko nišić book or frontal.rs source). and that way we would make the article figure estimations very similar to the one that the Croats article has (the croats article has their figure refferenced by a 2004 book). What say you fellow editors?. heres the book: http://www.krajinaforce.com/dokumenti/Stanko%20Nisic%20-%20Hrvatska%20oluja%20i%20srpske%20seobe.pdf (Правичност (talk) 06:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry for my late response. I don`t believe that [frontal] and [karijna force] is reliable enough. I don`t know, maybe Peacemaker67 and Zoupan could examine this sources too. However I have examined the articles on the Serbian wikipedia and I have found this source [Serboam unity page] which looks to me pretty official and it is controlled by the State of Nebraska, USA [3]. This source states that the total number of Serbs is by the NIN magazine 12.117.650 and by the ministry of Diaspora 12.445.350. I would like to hear what others have to say about this source. Greetings.Adrian (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, greetings again. Well i personally also dont think frontal.rs is reliable enough idk. But the other source i presented is by my opinion reliable, as it is a book from 2002, written by a writer Dr. Stanko Nišić,.. while the "krajina force" page is only a page where i could find the online version of the book. - the book originally talks about causes of ethnic cleansing of serb population in croatia (1995 - "oluja" or "operation storm") and widely about the serb migrations throughout the world. ... My opinion on your found source is even more positive, it trully seems very reliable, and very official, controled by the state of Nebraska and has its seats in Washington, Belgrade and alot of other places, thus working with both the US and Serbian official authorities; thus it contains mixed estimations of serb population by both NIN magazine and the Ministry of Serbian diaspora itself (which the congress mainly cooperates with).... I support your source. And since the highest figure of all these sources is aprox. 12,5 mil. ... i propose an idea of putting that estimation at c. 10,5 - 12,5 million (supported by both blic and that congress refferences - or either that book i have found) (Правичност (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not sure about any of these. I know the Australian figures are a small proportion, but two of those give a figure that is twice the Australian Bureau of Statistics figure. The Australian census is very reliable for population figures, and that makes me very concerned about the accuracy of these sources. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alot of articles have higher estimations of peoples, im not concerned much about "the accurate censuses" as i know alot of censuses "swallow up" alot of ethnic groups, while alot of people dont declare on censuses at all...the figures estimated on these sources are definetly based on figure of Serbs and people of Serbian descent all over the world, which is a normal habbit that ministries of diaspora all over the world do, thus they seem very reliable sources, (look at the croats article for example - its got a source that says there are 8,5 million croats in the world - while if you count their numbers from censuses you wont even get to 7 million, still its a reliable soure and also the figure is one of the figures alot of times mentioned by croatian diaspora itself) ... here, my opinion is we cant ingore the fact, we found so many sources mentioning the 12 million figure and especially reliable sources, so id like to include that number in the total figure as a higher estimation, backed up by one of the two sources ive mentioned earlier. (Правичност (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Not reliable. List all sources regarding the total number of Serbs at Talk:Serbs/Total number and we'll go through them.--Zoupan 06:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs			Cleanup
	Bačko Novo Selo			Christianity in Serbia
	Velebit (Kanjiža)			Human rights in Serbia
	Pobeda (Bačka Topola)			Danube
	Opština		Merge
	Ostojićevo			Officers' Training Corps
	Mol (Serbia)			Hubris
	Ravno Selo			Massacres of Albanians in the Balkan Wars
	Podlokanj		Add sources
	Đala			Vojvodina
	Sanad (Čoka)			Serbian Vojvodina
	Engagement (military)			Association of Southeast Asian Nations
	Sterijino		Wikify
	Novi Slankamen			History of Novi Sad
	Vojvoda Zimonić			Waffen-SS
	Majdan, Novi Kneževac			Zakonopravilo
	Nerve root		Expand
	Siget (Novi Kneževac)			Central Banat District
	Filić			South Banat District
	Padej			Bavanište monastery

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-Somebody keeps filling in ~197.000 figure for Germany. This number is unreliable, its taken from 2011 German census, which didnt have a possibility to ethnically declare, but only to declare as which country they immigrated from (with citizenship of country of origin) - therefore this data is useless - i wrote more about it and added a proposed solution on the talk page, you can check it out.

-Someone also inputed figures for Kosovo- which i dont know if they are correct- especially the south part, i didnt find that figure in the source. The infobox is kinda messy after this, its "miss-deployed".

-And somebody also removed Bosnia & Herzegovina from "regions with significant population" where it was before - as Serbs are one of constituent nations there.... and moved the bosnia and herzegovina flag and data down to "rest of the Balkans" ... i see this as kind of a denial that serbs are constituent in bosnia. (Правичност (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I see that now is is reverted. It was probably a mistake. For Kosovo too, Zoupan reverted to stable version. Everything is corrected, that was just temporary. Adrian (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i saw everything is in order now, he did a good job, It was reverted twice by now. (Правичност (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Whoever it is, i think he should be warned and restricted from vandalising the infobox, as he has done it 5 times today now. I gave my idea to Zoupan aswell. (Правичност (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

If he continues to makes edits without explanations, he could get a warning. Adrian (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you say explanations, i hope you dont mean his personal opinions regarding what sources have to say - like he said (by his personal opinion) that 10 million are estimated "pure serbs" while 12 million number also includes all ethnic minorities of serbia together with people of serbian descent... no source said anything like that... and adding sources of 200-400.000 serbian citizen immigrants or temp. workers in germany thus counting them as "all ethnic serbs of germany" tells alot about his "miss-infromation" about Serbian people or Serbian diaspora, + he makes infobox look messy.... i would like to personally talk to him, but i cant see who he is, since im not acredited to edit the infobox (coz its semi-protected) this is why i ask you if you could reveal me his name/his editor page. greetings. (Правичност (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I did`t noticed this changes, I will take a look. Adrian (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How the heck is an IP editor editing this page? Usually many nations pages are semi protected if my memory serves me well. I thought that it is semi-protected. If he is editing you can do so too. If you notice changes to the already referenced info (various interpretations of the references) fell free to revert. I will try to protect this page due to the continuous disruption. Adrian (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor? Thats a lol. I have no idea, but hes been doing it 10 times by now. . Actually i cant do nothing; to me it says it is semi-protected, thus i can only edit some of the textures, while i cant do nothing about the infobox, thats why i turn for help to you mostly, otherwise id revert it my self. (Правичност (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

You are trying to edit the article. The data is in a template [4]. Adrian (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh now i see it, thank you for your help :). (Правичност (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Np. Adrian (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, i made 2 changes (for south africa which i believe is 100% ok) and for germany- i used a new source from 2009 i noticed its used on many articles for estimation of all ethnic serbs in germany... you can check the source and its website and feel free to revert it back if you dont think its reliable enough. I was also thinking about removing the Denmark data and replacing it with a United Arab Emirates figure, since the denmark data is from joshua project, but i left everything as it was. greetings. (Правичност (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

This changes looks fine to me. Joshua Project should be removed, but in my opinion only if you have a better source. This is a matter of personal opinion, whatever you do is OK. I am looking at this better to have some info(since Joshua Project is not totally unreliable) than none. Adrian (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear that. Anyways... ive decided to leave it as it was, because like you said, atleast it is sourced with a source which isnt "totally unreliable". (Правичност (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Ive haded with that guy, someone new also joined into the action doing same things as him... messing info on Serbs and on Serbian Diaspora articles, i reverted it back, warned them, but they keep doing it agian and again. (Правичност (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

The important thing is to start talking and seeing what is the problem of this reverts. As long as somebody refuses to talk there are zero chances of a compromise. I will start a thread and hope that we will solve this problem, if this doesn`t help there are always administrative measures. Adrian (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this template will be probably deleted. This will happen in the next couple of days and the info will be moved to the Serbs article which is semi-protected so in general this problem will be solved. I suggest waiting this to happen and if a constructive editor has any questions about this info, we can discuss them without any blind reverts.Adrian (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, that is the problem, they ignore talk and ignore warnings and act like they own wikipedia. Its a good thing when the template will be placed under the whole page and therefore semi-protected. I dont know if i will be able to edit however. Will see. (Правичност (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Well everybody is entitled to edit wikipedia and that is generally OK, sometimes this anonymous changes bring a lot of improvements but we must avoid edit wars and blind reverts. You can check if you are autoconfirmed user under preferences on your profile. It should look something like this "Member of groups: Autoconfirmed users, Reviewers, Users". If you have Autoconfirmed users, you can edit semi-protected pages.Adrian (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree ofc. and Yes thank you for letting me know, i have checked and i have autoconfirmed users and users. (Правичност (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Here we go again, we got ourselves another "know-it all" User talk:130.204.81.170 I dont know if its the same IP editor under another IP. But i propose an immediate warning, as i have already told him i will report him for his data vandalizing, but he refusses to listen and claims he didnt do anything wrong. (Правичност (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

You must assume good faith, even if the case is an IP editor, until proven otherwise. You know the saying "Innocent until proven otherwise" :) in the case of wikipedia "he wants to improve the article until proven otherwise". If the user changes something of course you can revert him but try to ask for his reasons and see what is the problem. If there are valid reasons start talking and try to see what is wrong. It will be much better when the template moves to the Serbs article. Greetings.Adrian (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed i have in the beggining, but in this case the IP editor was edit warring on some other articles, where he would confront all sources before moving to "Serbs" article aswell and input again his "personal opinions" regarding what refferenced data has to say, this is why i have "warned" him in the end. I will take your advice however :) Greetings. (Правичност (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Since the infobox has been totally messed up... I have updated the infobox after a few hours of work searching for sources also. Ive left some of the edits other editors made but generally refreshened it with a help of editor PRODUCER. All countries now have updated sources, they arent groupafied .... i only failed to update Turkey.... You may check it and express your opinion of it and also revert some things if you like. We are having a discussion on "talk:Serbs infobox" over it atm. (Правичност (talk) 04:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I have also inputted a new mosaic picture with more persons, which was respectedly made by Mm.Srb. So you can check that out too. (Правичност (talk) 04:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

It looks fine to me. The data has been moved to the article now. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it has finally, thats great and thank you, greetings. (Правичност (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Ok i recently spotted a raid of croatian editors on the serbs article (2 or 3 of them) but the only one who would repeatedly despite being warned continue to do so is User:Sokac121. His continuess actions are unreasonable and he keeps falsly accusing that i am doing something im not and refuses to talk normally, but keeps on pushing and raiding "Serbs infobox". First of his actions is reducing total population of Serbs and the other is reducing number of Serbs in USA and removing 3 of my reliable sources (Blic, BBC and USASerbs) just because they include a higher estimation with an explanation- (If other articles of ethnic groups can have higher estimations for their ethnic ancestral groups in USA regardless of what census had to say; then i dont see a reason why Serbs shouldnt have a same right- when we have many and i repeat many reliable sources pointing out a figure of ~1 million serbs in usa, it was simply used as a higher estimation thats all. This is why i expect Sokac to be "calmed down" by another warning or a block if he doesnt simply stop raiding Serbs infobox by reducing number of Serbs, removing sources and refferenced citations and continuessly accusing me for some sort of manipulation which is definetly false and a lie. (Правичност (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Ok. I will try to see what is the problem. PS: Try to ignore any possible personal attacks, and not replying in the same way. Adrian (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good, thnx. (Правичност (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Yes i have made one mistake by replying the same way, but i will let the "provocating party" do so on their own. therefore ill avoid attacks. (Правичност (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

If you "fall" in this kind of conversation you are just as "guilty" as the other party and the solution to the problem just gets harder. If someone makes continuous personal attacks there is a personal attacks notice board where you can present your problem and solve it. Adrian (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will look forward to that. Regards. (Правичност (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Ive had a talk about the issue with User talk:Scrosby85 also, whitnessing also a language of bad behaviour and also after talking with both of them (Sokac and Scrosby) i must say i cant take them seriously. (Правичност (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Try not to get "sucked in" this kind of discussion. Try to focus on facts and sources only and continue the discussion here ([5]) where it is public. Adrian (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ofc, the discussion is on. I would like you to participate and input your opinion on the latest discussion were having about a solution for USA population. (My opinion is if majority thinks "187k -1 mil." is too large, we should put an estimate of 187k - 500k (as more then 300k Yugoslavs reside in U.S. and unknown number of Serbs declared under race as just "Slavs" or "Eastern Europeans" or something else + illegal immiggrants.) Please join. Regards. (Правичност (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

• Serbs of Croatia‎; 22:39 . . (-32)‎ . . ‎Iadrian yu (Serbs speak Serbian) [rollback]
• m Croats of Vojvodina‎; 22:39 . . (-30)‎ . . ‎Iadrian yu‎ (Croats speak Croatian) [rollback]

I've rolled both of these two edits back because they seem to prescribe rather than describe, which is not what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. In particular, see the census records on ethnicity and mother tongue, in both countries, before making such sweeping statements. Also, please don't mark any such edits as minor.

I trust I don't have to elaborate on the meaning of WP:ARBMAC to someone who's been here as long as you have...

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a discussion with a user and by WP:BOLD I have edited this articles, where I have also said if someone has something against I will not insist on this changes, it was only an attempt to improve this articles. I was not aware of any ARBMAC decision regarding this kind of edits - nor it was my intention to start an edit war or any similar conflict. By simple logic I have edited that Croatians speak Croatian and Serbs speak Serbian.. and Martian speak Martian language.... But ok, there is no need for immediately ARBMAC "reminder" after one simple edit where a conflict doesn`t even exist. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As our "project" failed, i have changed other articles as well (adding language of country). (Правичност (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Yep :). Adrian (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs			Cleanup
	Sanad (Čoka)			History of Novi Sad
	Nadalj			Death rates in the 20th century
	Serbs of Slovakia			Decree of Turda
	Jazovo		Merge
	Serbs of Budapest			Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen
	Ravno Selo			Multinational state
	Padej			Roasted piglet
	Vajska		Add sources
	Srpski Miletić			Glogonjski Rit
	Vrbica (Čoka)			Serbian Vojvodina
	Maradik			Jabučki Rit
	Novi Slankamen		Wikify
	Ostojićevo			History of Serbia
	Bačko Novo Selo			List of most popular given names
	Serbs in Greece			Ruma
	Crna Bara (Čoka)		Expand
	Serbs of Zagreb			Central Banat District
	Ratkovo (Odžaci)			Croatian language
	Opština			North Banat District

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed your report on ANI, closely followed by Ljuboni's own report about you. Mind describing the situation as you see it? I'll see if there's anything I can do to help. Damage, Inc. 01:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, before anything I will copy my report here for the difs (if archives it will be harder to get).

Copy:

I am reporting the problematic behavior of User:Ljuboni (WP:TEND, he targets only specific articles - WP:SPA). This user in my opinion is not respecting the NPOV when editing. He is not very active therefore I have avoided bringing this problem up, but he shows some activities again, and whenever he does so, he makes nonconstructive edits.

His favorite articles are:

• Ruđer Bošković, - Beside in starting and participating in several edit wars some of his problematic edits: [6], [7]
• Vlach language (Serbia) - Where he is trying to create a dummy article with problematic POV . The article history shows numerous attempts of this practice [8]. Ex: [9], [10], [11], [12]
• Vlachs of Serbia - Where the main activity is the removal of referenced data and leaving (or inserting) data that suits his editing practice. Ex: [13], [14], [15]. He was also blocked for edit warring and unconstructive edits on Vlach language in Serbia article [16].
• Bay of Kotor - Where he removes other languages and inserts the Serbian only [[17]]

I ask for help with this user since this is a single-purpose account(WP:SPA). Especially with the consult of WP:ARBMAC regarding this kind of problems when editing Balkan related articles of which this user is informed [18]. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC): Ebd[reply]

Please note that User:Ljuboni is probably editing with an IP address now [19] to avoid the 3RR (WP:GAME). Adrian (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

End of copy

If you take a look at this user`s contributions you will notice that this is a single purpouse account (WP:SPA) used for advocacy in my opinion. If you take a look only recent edits [20], or [21] (where he almost removes over 20 references for no apparent reason) where he removes a bunch of data with references while calling me "represent the ideas of the Romanian nationalist point of view". As far as I noticed, he removes every referenced data that has something to do with the Romanians and the Romanian language, that is why I believe that this user is not respecting the NPOV.

I think I said everything in my report and provided many diffs. Actually I am a little disappointed that my report is archived with the Ljuboni`s report because I have actually provided diffs for the explanation of this problem and I don`t believe when someone removes this kind of data/references is a content dispute. There is not a problem about a certain subject, he is simpy trying to remove more than half of the article or creating a dummy article - WP:HOAX - Ex:[22]. Also according to the WP:ARBMAC decision, Ljuboni`s behavior is problematic. Greetings Adrian (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I've asked Ljuboni to respond on their talk page; I'd like to hear their side, too. m.o.p 06:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I am very curios, especially after this confusing comment [23]. If there is any need to explain any diffs provided by Ljuboni there(I have explained some of them in my edit summaries) I`l be happy to do so. I saw there almost everything I have pointed out in my report about him(Wikipedia policies) so atleast I know he is reading this comments but wonder why doesn`t he participate, especially about the single purpose account. Please note that User:Ljuboni since the creating on his account (00:12, November 18, 2010) has edited only a handfull of articles, while the majority of edits on 4-5 articles, all related. I just hope that all this diffs and violations I have pointed out wont go unnoticed. Because in a month or so, same problem will reappear. Adrian (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hello again adrian i think we have a small problem. One of the croatian editors has inserted a new kind of text on "Serbs" article, which he claims is also written in "De administrato imperio". Eventough its already written the name "Serbs" is of Proto-slavic origin (Serbs were mentioned in 1st century first time; alot before they moved to live in Balkans and the East Roman Empire) This text says that Serbs actually means slaves for romans--- i find this quite controversial and would like to know if it is a reliable source and should be used on the article at all? ... Ive reverted the edit of this editor for once.:

Constantine VII in his work "De administrando imperio" in chapter 32. "Serbs and lands they dwell in" says that name "Serb" means a "slave" in the tongue of the Romans.^[1]

(Правичност (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Hello, the source looks ok to me but there is some discrepancy in the data. At the time, part of the Slavic nations, as Serbs, Bulgarians, Croats, Slovaks, etc were not mention in the distinctive way. They were all simply Slavs (Sloveni).

As for the term, I have stumbled on more than one occasion on the Latin term "Sclaveni" or "Sclavs" as refereed to Slavs which translated means "slave" , "slaves". But that term was ONLY used for the Slav term, I have never seen to be used to refereed to Serbs or any other Slavic group. On this article there is even a mention about this [24] - "The English word Slav is derived from the Middle English word sclave, which was borrowed from Medieval Latin sclavus "slave,"" but as I said, it was never used to the Serbs or any other Slavic group. I don`t know what to make of this, the data looks ok but there is clearly some problem because in the Latin language Sclavs were simply translated to "slave", but if you translate Serbs it doesn`t translate to anything really. Adrian (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also even if this data would be ok, I am not sure if that should be present at the Serbs article, because if so, then we should add this data to all Slavic nations, to Croats also. I think that the mention on the Slavs article is more than enough. Adrian (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it under the Slavs ... indeed... i totally agree and myself find it unnecessary. Thanks for help. (Правичност (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

But there is a problem when it is refereed to Serbs only, I have never seen used like that and translated it doesn`t make sense. Adrian (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many words on this planet are similar from one language to another but have absolutely nothing in common. It also doesnt make sense because there are no official claimes that name of Serbs is from that kind of origin in any "historical, moral or whatever you call it" thing. I have only seen these kind of propagandal theories for example on youtube that were made by albanian nationalist or some other anti-serb "wannabe historians". The origins might have come from there... But from proffesional perspective it doesnt make any normal sense like you said. (Правичност (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs			Cleanup
	Ip massacre			History of Serbia
	Nahid Kulenović			Decree of Turda
	Kisvárda			Arad, Romania
	Gothic Lolita Propaganda		Merge
	Srpski Miletić			Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen
	Maradik			Kingdom of Croatia (medieval)
	Sanad (Čoka)			Roasted piglet
	Nova Crnja		Add sources
	Berezka			Opština
	Lago Bayano			Hungarian Soviet Republic
	Sečanj			Žitište
	János Batsányi		Wikify
	Crna Bara (Čoka)			History of Novi Sad
	Ada, Serbia			Ruma
	Vajska			Magyarization
	Nadalj		Expand
	Transylvanian Plain			Matthias Corvinus
	Acquaviva (San Marino)			Central Banat District
	Bukovel			South Banat District

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are one of the commenters at Talk:Ethnic clashes of Târgu Mureș on and I want to ask your opinion abouy my lead proposal:

Târgu Mureş (Hungarian: Marosvásárhely) is a Romanian town, with an ethnically mixed population that was almost equally distributed between Romanians and Hungarians after the fall of the communist regime in December 1989. Located in Székely Land, it is an important cultural and political center for the Hungarian minority in Transylvania. In March 1990, short-lived, but violent clashes occurred there between the two ethnic groups in the town, involving ethnic Romanians from neighboring villages, too

Raysdiet (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don`t agree with the mention of the Szekely land in the lead because it is not a valid designation. Koerfeta and I agreed that there would be an additional section where the background and history (Szekely land) will be included. Everything else is fine with me, just exclude the Szekely land because today there is no Szekely land even as a geographical region. You can simply say "it is an important cultural and political center for the Hungarian minority in Transylvania." Greetings. Adrian (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post this reply to the article talk page? Raysdiet (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. However I have not checked the talk page since my last post and I haven`t heard other people`s opinions/arguments but I will post this there. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
19		Opština (talk)						Add sources
17		Čoka (talk)						Add sources
182		Hungarian Soviet Republic (talk)						Add sources
32		Bulcsú László (talk)						Add sources
3		Neradin (talk)						Add sources
60		Miloš Obrenović I, Prince of Serbia (talk)						Add sources
636		Packard (talk)						Cleanup
7		History of Novi Sad (talk)						Cleanup
56		Gabriel Bethlen (talk)						Cleanup
11		North Banat District (talk)						Expand
15		Central Banat District (talk)						Expand
14		South Banat District (talk)						Expand
216		Subotica (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
4		Decree of Turda (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
15		Serbs in Albania (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
277		Quebec French (talk)						Merge
68		Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen (talk)						Merge
8		Yugoslavs in Serbia (talk)						Merge
200		History of Serbia (talk)						Wikify
56		Ruma (talk)						Wikify
3		Teleki Library (talk)						Wikify
1		FK Napredak Banatska Topola (talk)						Orphan
1		Živa (Vajska, Serbia) (talk)						Orphan
3		Péter Apor (talk)						Orphan
2		Sanad (Čoka) (talk)						Stub
14		Gothic Lolita Propaganda (talk)						Stub
20		Bukovel (talk)						Stub
4		Crna Bara (Čoka) (talk)						Stub
14		Nova Crnja (talk)						Stub
6		Glogonj (talk)						Stub

We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:

Views/Day

Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.

Quality

Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:

Content

Is more content needed?

Headings

Does this article have an appropriate section structure?

Images

Is the number of illustrative images about right?

Links

Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?

Sources

For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings ladrian again. i am here to ask for some little help, after a long break i have researched some articles of other ethnic groups (Like Greeks, Polish people, English people, Romanians, Bulgarians etc...) and have noticed that alot of them have dual figure estimations for certain states - these would mostly include states like USA, Australia, Canada etc.. - or in other words, states where people easily and quickly assimilate or have alot of illegal immigrants or foregn state workers, students who reside there etc... So i have come up with an idea to set a higher estimate on Serbs in the USA using this link: http://www.usaserbs.net/states/immigration-waves.html. The text has an author and the link itself is probably from a Serbian consulate from Chicago if im correct, thus it looks pretty reliable to me - the figures arent biased aswell- (as you can see in this link: http://serbia.usembassy.gov/general20100226a.html .. the embassy of USA in Serbia itself estimate ~350-500.000 people of Serbian ancestry in Chichago and Illinois area alone.) So the usaserbs link says total number of serbs and montenegrins count between 700.000 and 1 mil. people in usa today... because we already have a smaller estimation - t.i. census info of ~187.000 declared Serbs (not counting ~300.000 Yugoslavs) how do you recommend we put the higher estimate using the 2 numbers from usaserbs ? should i use the middle number - like 800 or 850.000? (~187-850k) .. or perhaps the lowest one (700k) or the highest one 1 mi. ? what would you recommend? (Правичност (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Hello, sorry for the late response I am a bit in a rush right now, I will see to it tomorrow. Adrian (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, as you know I am for higher estimate based on the sources I have seen till now. The problem in this case is that the source state the number of Serbs and Montenegrins. Because of that I think that the community will not accept it. I personally have nothing against for using the middle estimate because the source is not for the Serbs alone (Montenegrins are also counted in this estimation). You can try and make the change and see if anyone has anything against it, then it can be discussed on the talk page in more details and hope reach a compromise.Adrian (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, i apologize for a late response aswell, .. yes i am aware of the text saying "Serbs and Montenegrins", eventough Montenegrins as an ethnic group wouldnt count much. I will use the middle number estimate then and as you said, rest can be discussed on talk page. Thank you :). (Правичност (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

However a talk has started over this situation on the talk page, so i would kindly ask you to participate and input your own view or recommedations on this matter for reaching a concensus. Greetings. (Правичност (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
4		Neradin (talk)						Add sources
17		Čoka (talk)						Add sources
28		Miloš Obrenović I, Prince of Serbia (talk)						Add sources
15		Opština (talk)						Add sources
57		Senta (talk)						Add sources
30		Žitište (talk)						Add sources
202		History of Serbia (talk)						Cleanup
39		Gabriel Bethlen (talk)						Cleanup
7		Christianity in Serbia (talk)						Cleanup
15		Central Banat District (talk)						Expand
5,507		Hungary (talk)						Expand
10		North Banat District (talk)						Expand
3		Decree of Turda (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
198		Subotica (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
469		Tomislav Nikolić (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
13		Lodomeria (talk)						Merge
7		Yugoslavs in Serbia (talk)						Merge
15		Axis occupation of Serbia (talk)						Merge
7		History of Novi Sad (talk)						Wikify
4		Teleki Library (talk)						Wikify
49		Magyarization (talk)						Wikify
0		FK Napredak Banatska Topola (talk)						Orphan
1		Živa (Vajska, Serbia) (talk)						Orphan
1		Péter Apor (talk)						Orphan
15		Gothic Lolita Propaganda (talk)						Stub
10		Nova Crnja (talk)						Stub
6		Grebenac (talk)						Stub
4		Sanad (Čoka) (talk)						Stub
7		János Batsányi (talk)						Stub
4		Crna Bara (Čoka) (talk)						Stub

We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:

Views/Day

Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.

Quality

Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:

Content

Is more content needed?

Headings

Does this article have an appropriate section structure?

Images

Is the number of illustrative images about right?

Links

Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?

Sources

For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]