Hello, Sredina, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --Tone 18:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is important that you provide sources for the content you are adding. This is a sensitive political topic so unsourced content will be removed. --Tone 18:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, stop with edit warring. Also pinging @United Union: Stick to what the sources say and stop reverting the edits. If there are disagreements, take them to the talkpage. --Tone 09:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the content because you are croat and do not agree whit the things that are true is stupid and immature... Everythig that is written has references added so i dont see where is the problem, except that you are a croat. -- Sredina 11:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

As I said before, @Sredina again puts sources that clearly go directly against what he writes. Look at what he wrote about Austria. Up until my last revert, he claimed that Austrian president supported Slovenia which of course was false so I removed it. Once he actually read sources he provided, he saw he was wrong so he changed it. Good. It can stay now.

About the EU. Look at the part of citation you provided where Timmermans talks about verdict. He clearly said what I wrote in the article - "both Croatia and Slovenia should respect the verdict, adding that EC will help in verdict's implementation"-, this is the part about which we agree, but then comes this part which you removed although it's written in the citation he provided - "but that EU would not order implementation"-, and I also added this "since it's a bilateral issue which is not within the scope of the EU" because I think that it's necessary to explain to the reader who doesn't know much abut the "powers" of the EU, why the EU cannot order verdict's implementation although it clearly wants to. This is as neutral as it gets and I will bring it back if you don't explain to me why that shouldn't be written.

Next is France. @Sredina, please tell me in which of these three references it says that Nathalie Loiseau "made that statement during interview for Slovenian National Television RTV SLO." The last reference you provided is about Timmermans and has nothing to do with France so it's pointless to have it there but ok, if you want to add irrelevant citation so be it. First reference is the one I provided and is says nothing about that, and the one in the middle is the one your provided and it's Slovenian Government's statement so it's biased and fishy, and it also says nothing about her saying this on the national television. If you do not provide citation for your claim, I will remove it.

As of Germany. This part - "and international law respected"- cannot stay so I will remove it. The whole statement was made by a (biased) Slovenian Prime Minister and his statement implies that Merkel said that Croatia doesn't respect international law which is a very serious charge, and as long as we don't have her official statement it will stay hearsay and we cannot have that here. Also, references 145 and 146 are the same so it also needs to be removed. As of Sigmar Gabriel's statement, it can stay but I still think that it's pointless to have it there since he basically said the same thing as German Embassy whose work he oversees since he is a Foreign Minister. These kind of article passages are meant to be short and clear, so no need to repeat something two times but fine.

As of OECD, you must put quotations when you say thing like "if a particular country does not meet the membership criteria (especially the rule of law, respecting the international law and international courts)" because without quotations implies that Croatia doesn't respect international law which is Slovenian claim, while in the same time Croatia also claims that for Slovenia. That makes article one sided and biased which is against Wikipedia's policy. This is the version I would support:

"On 6 September 2017, Slovenia informed the Deputy Permanent Representatives of EU Member States that it could not support membership in the OECD "if a particular country does not meet the membership criteria (especially the rule of law, respecting the international law and international courts)", referring to Croatia's rejection of the arbitration verdict, although Slovenian Prime Minister Miro Cerar later added that the warning isn't meant just for Croatia, but for any other country."^[1] Croatian Foreign Ministry pointed out that Slovenia's position is against the stance of the European Commission which since 2007 advocates ascension of all EU member states to the OECD.^[2].

And again, while I was writing this, you made changes not waiting for me to respond. Childish, indeed. Russian minister said this, according to the citation: "According to the Russian Minister, in the case of a two-way dispute, it's most important that both sides openly and frankly talk about it. "That is why I advise Slovenia not to interrupt bilateral talks at all". It's clear that he refers to this particular case, and not "other opened disputes between the countries". It need to go back. Greetings, United Union (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

France: statement by the French minister is in thw video, i dont know why they didnt add it in the article, i thought it is there, i didnt read the article, cause usually everthing that is in the video is also in the article..but that statement was made by french minister Loiseau.

Germany: Where have i written that Merkel said that croatia doesn't respect the international law? All iit says is: "that her government believes that verdict should be implemented and international law respected." And statement by Gabriel is not the same as statement by Embassy.

Russia: "ali da Ljubljani ne savjetuje da prekine bilateralni dijalog o otvorenim pitanjima koji su nedavno započela dvojica premijera." This is from teh article and is obviosuly not rerefing to the border dispute but to the bilateral dialogue which Plenkovič and Cerar began in Ljubljana in July, when Plenkovič himself said that he wants to tlak about all the disputes between the countries.

Pročitajte više na: https://www.vecernji.hr/vijesti/nikolaj-nikiforov-arbitraza-granica-1185591 - www.vecernji.hr

Everything else is in the references...there are not just croatian media tho..

I'm still waiting for a source which would confirm this claim - "During his visit to Slovenia in May 2017, he stated that Slovenia and Croatia should accept the verdict."

Need an argument of the EU or I will include this.

France noted. Is this form ok: "French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development didn't issue an official statement on the matter, but has wrote on its web site in a section in which it responds to journalists' questions that France "hopes that territorial controversy will soon be resolved in a constructive spirit, a spirit of reconciliation and dialogue, that would be in favor of the European Union and regional stability of the Western Balkans". During 2017 Bled Strategic Forum, French Minister for European Affairs Nathalie Loiseau expressed her support for the "principle of respect for international law and decisions of international courts".

It think my explanation was clear so those words have to go. Merkel said nothing about respect of international law and as I said, in this form, it sounds biased coming from the Slovenian Prime Minister and implies that Croatia is violating international law.

Waiting comment on OECD. Greeting, United Union (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Van der Bellen hatte sich im Mai bei seinem Besuch in Ljubljana dafür ausgesprochen, dass Slowenien und Kroatien den Schiedsspruch akzeptieren." Currently reference 135

I have nothing to say about EU cause everything that is written there is in the articles as well. So i will replace with mine if u delete it

Merkel repeated the statement by german government (embassy or Gabriel), which is what i have written.

Here I'm. From what I can tell from this short news (and that one sentence) is that he said it during visit to Slovenia month before Grabar-Kitarović visited Austria when he miraculously decided to stick to the neutrality. Interesting.

Comments on the EU, France, Germany and OECD needed and expected. I will proceed at tomorrow evening with what I've explained since there are no reasonable arguments. Greeting, United Union (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you know nothing about unilateral or multilateral diplomacy. (Austria)

EU, OECD, Germany, everything that is written is taken from the sources provided, and will stay.

Rather than repeatedly making incorrect changes to the electoral system section, could you explain what you think needs changing, and I will try and incorporate it in correct English? Number 57 13:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can just correct those mistake if there is mamy of them.

(a) If you repeatedly re-insert text that you have been told contains numerous errors, then you are highly likely to end up being blocked. Please stop.

(b) I cannot understand what you are trying to write because it does not make sense. Please explain what you think is missing. Thanks, Number 57 13:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can explain to me, what you do not understand in that paragraph and where are the grammar errors.

I see you have reverted again. I'll give you ten minutes to self-revert before I request your account is blocked. Reinserting incorrect and error-strewn information is not acceptable. Number 57 13:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well you still did not explained what is wrong.

Please restore the correct text and then we can start a discussion. Number 57 13:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you explain to me, where are the errors in the current text.

OK, I'm filing a report at the edit warring noticeboard. I'll give you the link in a minute. Number 57 13:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is. Disappointing that you let it get this far. Number 57 13:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's bad when an editor of a page like this is someone who does not know the constitution and electoral system.

You are hereby warned not to edit war on Slovenian parliamentary election, 2018 or any other article, otherwise your account may be blocked. Your edits are made in good faith but your English may be a little weak, so please take advice from other editors. Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can take advice on my English, but not on a content, when it is obviously correct. Sredina (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Gladamas. I noticed that in this edit to Slovenian parliamentary election, 2018, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. –Gladamas (talk · contribs) 13:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Slovenian local elections, 2018, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the confirms on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HI Sredina, Please provide inline citations/source for reviewer to gauge the notability of the article. Pls do not revert back. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have an issue accepting others' edits at the Slovenian parliamentary election, 2018 article. Please read WP:OWN. Also, making blind reverts, as you did here, is frowned upon. Please actually look at what you're doing rather than blindly hitting the undo button. Number 57 14:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like it this way more, presentation with just numbers is not as clear as with the bars. If other pages use just number, that doesn't mean we have to do it too.Sredina (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've already been warned for edit warring at the article. You're now up to the maximum of three reverts. If you revert again, you'll be reported and blocked. Number 57 14:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see you've made a fourth revert. I'll give you a couple of minutes to undo your most recent one. In the meantime I'll be filing a report for you to be blocked. Number 57 14:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What right do you have, to decide, what is better and what is not? What right do you have to edit everything the way YOU like it? I can stop editing it, but in that case, all my contributions to this very page will be removed. Not much will remain.Sredina (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]