395:
444:
423:
375:
1270:, I am mentioning you as you have expressed opinions over the last week. Without some kind of linking 'editorial' text, I feel we have an apparently randomly organised set of, (relatively marginal), responses. Maintaining +first/-second avoids problematic arguments about the relative 'authority' of the reviews used, and I hope the proposed 'linking text', explains our organisation of those responses without being contentious.
517:
305:
965:. BTW the article did NOT say 'only Serbs liked the film', and I was careful to find positive remarks made by ALL reviewers, in addition to their negative responses. The positive responses are NOT full film reviews, one is a brief paragraph in a magazine, the other is a passing comment by a college tutor, written up by a student. They were included out of a sense of fairness to another editor.
277:
215:
315:
246:
562:
870:, FIRST. I believe this arrangement is wholly/generously fair. Are those who criticise this arrangement saying that the film has been widely praised OUTSIDE that country. Perhaps they need to find some reviews that corroborate that PoV, rather than attempting to rewrite the evidence or criticise its presentation.
1152:. I have on several occasions removed references to individual nationality, where that was not RS or was unnecessary. Also the reviews are not organised according to ethnicity/nationality, they are + first - second. Therefore I find some of the language/accusations flying around over the last few days perplexing
957:, I will answer more fully when I have time/should you wish, but briefly ALL 'proper film reviews' of this film are VERY negative and are ALL from UK/N.American sources. If present wording is 'synth' or OR, then let it be changed, but what is being objected to exactly? Noting the nationality is both necessary
903:. He added the national remarcs, they were opposed, and he is the one (with the help of bobrainer) who is edit-warring to keep his edit in place. That goes against WP:BRD and the discussion here was not over neither he got consensus for the edit (far from that), so his edir-warring is purely disruptive.
1967:. The only recent change has been to re-order the final criticism since it is the oldest. The order is chronological, and the reason it is chronological is because you previously edit-warred when reviews were ordered + first - second and also when reviews were ordered 'Balkan' followed by 'outsiders'.
2034:
I seriously question
Petkovic's qualifications for discussing Malagurski and his work, when he places Malagurski in a group that Malagurski didn't belong to. Just because Petkovic is a film critic doesn't give him the right to provide false information and get away with it. This is why I believe his
2007:
This is precisely what was rejected 2 or 3 years ago, any childish notion that + or - should alternate equally. 'Fairness' is decided by the character of the reviews given and listed in some neutral coherent fashion that reflects the range of reviews and their weight. This is called
Knowledge, not
821:
Pincrete, as
Bobrayner and yourself are forcing an edit war, I'd like to note that I will take no part in it. As can be seen from the above discussion, there is no consensus for classifying reviews by ethnicity or country of origin, let alone "Serbian" and "other". So, please remove this and let's
1484:
Update, I have ordered reviews by publication date, putting a brief explanatory sentence at the start of the section. Is this acceptable as a temp fix? At the same time I removed the sequel section and put a linking sentence in the lede. I don't regard publication date as a very logical basis for
1373:
I have re-instated the linking sentences between broadly+ and broadly- reviews. I draw attention to the discussion above. The alternative to some 'linking structure' seems to be either to get into the problematic area of which reviews should go first, second etc., or an alternating + - structure.
756:
What you're saying would make sense if there were a bunch of reviews from one country that had a certain slant. This could justify that the film is perceived a certain way in a country in general. But taking two reviews from Serbia, one from Canada, one from the United States, one from the United
598:
I've made one addition to 'Critical response' section (Miller - Socialist
Standard), this review had the agreement of UrbanVillager and Somedifferentstuff, though not agreement on actual text. I intend to add Brightest Young Things, which previously had the agreement of UrbanVillager (though not
1631:
to use the most adequate expression you think would be proper, you can certainly do it better than me because
English is not my native language. The sentence in Serbian is not easy to translate verbatin, but we can always simplify it and go straight to the point which in this case would be that
1596:
I noticed the omission of G17+ from the translation, but didn't realise there was a WP article. We should probably re-insert the mention of G17+ as there is such a link. 'Domestic culprits' implies dishonourable/didhonest behaviour, but therafter I'm not sure how 'accusatory' the tone should be.
652:
They were not arranged according to ethnicity, they were arranged + first - second, at Ricky's suggestion. If a - review comes from Serbia, it also will go with the other negs, and the converse. 'Serbian' to describe
Markovic was copy-pasted from you. It is perfectly NORMAL to describe which
633:
arranging sources according to ethnicity. In this case, it's also repetition. Saying that a source is
Serbian and then noting "Serbian historian..." is repetition. I think it's best to note what the reviewers said, not classify them according to their "Serbian" or "non-Serbian" nature. It's
1325:
Pečat is a weekly political magazine published every Friday. After four years t became the most readed magazine of this type in Serbia, and it made name as the only free published media which, without censorship, analizes social and political issues and the cultural reality of our country
1154:(I don't think that anyone would consider it an 'ethnic slur' if an article noted that a film with a UK connection was better received in the UK than elsewhere and the reviews THEMSELVES would be sufficient source for the assertion, could someone explain why this film is different?)
1147:
Let us be clear, neither the ethnicity nor nationality of ANY individual reviewer has EVER been mentioned by me in the 'reviews' section. Sufficient information to establish the who/what/where of the magazine/website/University HAS been included with every review/response
1246:
3). The text and order of reviews should remain unaltered (ie positive first/more negative second, and with no 'general summary' except the preceding comments) EXCEPT, The Pecat review needs to be identified to establish the who/what/where, therefore it should be altered
847:. Once again, if you can find me a source that explains why it is important to note the ethnicity or country of origin of certain reviewers, we can discuss the matter further. If not, please remove this as there is no consensus for the addition of what you're adding. --
1409:
Pincrete, why do you want to classify reviews in any way? What is your motive for doing so? Do you have a source to claim that a review is completely negative or completely positive? Or more negative than positive? How would you measure that? What is your goal here?
1315:
Magazin Pečat je politički nedeljnik koji izlazi petkom. Posle četiri godine izlaženja postao je najčitaniji list ove vrste u Srbiji, i stekao epitet jedinog slobodnog štampanog medija koji bez cenzure analizira teme iz društveno-političke i kulturne stvarnosti naše
634:
irrelevant which country they come from, as well as which ethnicity they have. Kilibarda, for example, is a
Serbian/Montenegrin last name, and it's not up to the article to discuss reviewers' ethnicities or countries of origin, but rather to note what they wrote. --
2035:
review should be removed altogether. It's not about criticism, there are other critical reviews of
Malagurski's film that are in the article, rightfully so, but rather a matter of Petkovic's credibility to comment on something he clearly didn't even research. --
1970:
Your reasons for rejecting reviews are ridiculous. Why is one writer publishing in an established publication, 'biased', but a student publishing in an online blog is 'neutral'. The arguments are absurd and do nothing except reveal your own lack of neutrality.
1395:: your recent reverts, I draw your attention to the discussion above. If any rewrite of the 'linking text' is called for, or some other basis for organising reviews proposed, can we discuss it here? However, simply removing it isn't very constructive.
1544:. I have been offered both versions and am not competent to make the assessment, as prepositions and expressions are both notoriously difficult to translate and dependent on usage. I will leave 'as is', until/unless there is some clarification.
1452:, I won't respond to that question. The other advantage to a linking text, is that it avoids any problematic discussions about relative positions of proper reviews/comments or the relative authority of the sources. This arrangement did have
1182:, there may be other responses/comments, however there are now unlikely to be further film reviews, since the film was released more than 4 years ago. Therefore I suspect that what is currently here has to be worked with. I am mentioning
679:". Countries don't give reviews. I think your attempt to tie in reviewers with their countries and present them as how people in a certain country see a film is POV. Once again, reviews are reviews, let's let them speak for themselves. --
1682:, I'm sure it could be made better, but I'm reluctant to go too far. I didn't add the stuff about difficulty of being shown in Serbia as, whilst it might belong somewhere, it didn't seem to belong as part of a 'critical response'.
1207:, apologies if the above is defensive. In case it is not clear, I ACCEPT your argument that the 'sample size' is too small to draw conclusions. I still reject other arguments and accusations, however they are no longer relevant.
1028:
My opinion seems to be that the classification of critics to
Serbian/non Serbian is OR and too early, and it seems to me it is more made in order to discredit Malagurski than being a real objective analysis of the critics -
153:
1523:. Relevant text: 'Boris je hrabro detektovao i glavne domaće (G 17 Plus) izvršioce u sakupljanju tog kajmaka za strance, zbog čega je verovatno njegov film u prvo vreme bio „nezgodan za prikazivanje“ srpskoj publici.'
613:
BTW, reviews were not arranged by ethnicity, they were positive first negative second and it is perfectly normal to summarise, eg:- 'positive in UK, negative in USA'. I think such a summary relevant and justified.
1003:, the wording to which you object has been in place for 99% of the time since approx. October. If it is inappropriate, let us change it, but please don't misrepresent my actions HERE or at the edit-warring board.
1097:? I believe that there are also negative Serbian responses/comments, but have not had the time to track them down/verify their RS status, there are also other 'Balkan' responses, which are largely negative.
1092:
The only question is how to represent these facts without prejudice or synth. You are surely not saying that we should not state the nationalities of the magazine/University that the responses came from
861:
If anyone objects to the good first/negative second set-up, then reviews would need to be organised according to their authority. I don't think that a 'passing remark' by a media tutor at a film showing
836:
P.S. In your edit description for the revert, you noted "Undid revision as 1) they are not classified by country or etnicity 2) no consensus for removal of comments". 1) Saying that a source is Serbian
1178:
However broad consensus seems to be that the previous 'lead in' was 'synth'. Therefore could we agree on some other lead-in and how to organise/describe reviews/responses accurately and imformatively.
1520:
There is another question relating to the Pečat review, at present we have: 'Boris bravely detected the main domestic culprits in collecting the cream for foreigners as well'. … original here:
599:
which text). It's possible that I have included too much, but found it difficult to decide both what 'typified' the review and what were the distinctive points made by each reviewer.
404:
291:
980:
kind, this intro is almost always referenced ONLY by the content of the reviews which follow and in that sense is an editor's summary of response, and therefore technically 'synth'.
866:
would carry much authority, nor a passing comment in a magazine, these are not RS film reviews at all. At present there is an attempt to present the arguments in favour of the film
384:
287:
843:
classifying it by country and ethnicity (it can be "Serbian" as "from Serbia" or "Serbian" as "of ethnic Serbs"), while 2) there needs to be consensus for the addition of this
1989:
I suggest an order of positive, negative, positive, negative, positive, negative, etc. reviews. I think that's the most fair. It can start with either positive or negative. --
1470:
Other possibilities include listing alphabetically by name or by publication date. Whichever way is preferred, some linking text is needed to give coherence to the structure.
147:
2061:
Member of which group? This isn't a valid criteria anyway, I'm sure every film critic makes minor factual errors from time to time, that doesn't invalidate their opinion.
1485:
ordering reviews, but acceptable as a 'temp fix', if we are unable to agree some more logical basis and some linking text, I suggest we post a RfC to resolve the matter.
206:
528:
2111:
1897:
1893:
1879:
1769:
1765:
1751:
709:
certain countries than it did in others, that would be noteworthy. Even more so since the film proposes very controversial versions of recent historical events.
2101:
44:
653:
countries gave good reviews, which bad and was not phrased prejudicially. The alternative is to put 'proper reviews' first and articles and comments later.
2126:
2106:
493:
483:
79:
2096:
1351:, many thanks, to keep the description brief, I intend to insert: 'Vladislav Panov of Pečat, a weekly political magazine in Serbia, wrote that' etc.
2131:
1255:
If anyone has a better brief description of what/where 'Pečat' is, I would be happy to use that instead. Pečat doesn't have a WP article to link to.
568:
1845:
1640:
and because of that reason his movie was initially undesirable to be released in Serbia (as at that time G17 Plus was in the ruling coalition).
462:
and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
85:
2121:
202:
198:
194:
190:
2116:
1627:
He is directly accusing G17+ of working in the interest of the foreigners, so I guess the tone can be quite direct. Please feel free
918:
Without having read the above, it seems to me that, to say that Serbians are the only ones who liked it, is synthesis -- and possibly
1073:(one is written up by a student, perhaps that response should NOT be included at all, but was included at the wish of another editor)
168:
454:
428:
135:
333:
99:
30:
2091:
104:
20:
345:
337:
74:
1940:
547:
524:
257:
129:
65:
1226:
Since the article will be unlocked shortly, I propose the following alterations to the 'critical response' section,
900:
543:
341:
328:
282:
214:
185:
1540:? Q2 we have 'collecting the cream', is this correct or would it be more correct to use 'skimming off the cream'
973:) 14:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC) … … ps Schindler's list devotes an entire section to Jewish response to the film
125:
1896:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
1768:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
225:
1846:
http://web.archive.org/web/20140826115514/http://www.sense-agency.com/sense.48.html?case_id=84&type=gallery
2040:
1994:
1931:
1837:
1713:
1570:
were making the dirty work domestically for the foreigners. I am still trying to find the best expression.
1415:
976:, and this is clearly 'ethnicity' rather than nationality. Almost all WP film articles have an intro of the
852:
827:
770:
684:
639:
584:
575:
or licensed compatibly with Knowledge. They must be written in original language to comply with Knowledge's
175:
109:
1071:
are fairly devastatingly negative. The two Serbian responses are relatively positive, but are not reviews
535:
1120:
ps no apology needed, we all have other things to do in late Dec., and we may be on different time zones.
546:
may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the
1915:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1903:
1849:
1807:
1787:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1775:
941:
927:
579:. In addition, they should only briefly summarize the plot; detailed plot descriptions may constitute a
263:
1836:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1712:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
567:
Plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources, unless these can be
394:
1307:
which is sort of website which collects all publications in Serbia. It says the following about Pečat:
527:
procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been
1870:
1829:
1742:
1705:
1645:
1575:
1335:
1294:
1042:
908:
24:
245:
726:
You aren't even consistent UrbanVillager, the reviews MUST NOT have nationality, but the film MUST.
539:
161:
55:
1721:
141:
2066:
2036:
2017:
1990:
1979:
1602:
1549:
1490:
1475:
1461:
1411:
1400:
1392:
1383:
1356:
1275:
1212:
1195:
1126:
1008:
985:
970:
875:
848:
823:
812:
766:
731:
680:
658:
635:
619:
604:
230:
70:
1900:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1772:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1916:
1788:
1033:". I am not sure we have enough critics in order to make such a wide claim. It is definitely
51:
1521:
1974:
The removals on compromises which you yourself previously proposed are extremely bad faith.
1803:
1259:
1183:
1172:
954:
937:
923:
443:
422:
227:
1923:
1795:
1641:
1571:
1453:
1348:
1331:
1290:
1267:
1204:
1179:
1168:
1038:
1000:
904:
580:
374:
1882:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1754:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1922:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1794:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
2085:
2062:
2013:
1975:
1628:
1598:
1545:
1532:
There are two translation questions … Q1. should the preposition be 'FOR foreigners'
1486:
1471:
1457:
1396:
1379:
1352:
1286:
1271:
1208:
1191:
1122:
1004:
981:
966:
871:
808:
727:
654:
615:
600:
572:
516:
1025:
I am sorry, I wasn't on Knowledge since yesterday so only now I managed to respond.
919:
844:
458:, a collaborative effort to improve the Knowledge coverage of articles related to
765:". Glad you finally realize these are two completely different things. Cheers, --
332:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can
1889:
1761:
1674:
I have slightly tweaked the translation, adding G17+, used 'skimming the cream'
936:
Pincrete, if it is normal to summarize in that way, could you provide examples?
576:
320:
229:
2070:
2044:
2021:
1998:
1983:
1945:
1815:
1649:
1606:
1579:
1553:
1494:
1479:
1465:
1419:
1404:
1387:
1360:
1339:
1298:
1279:
1236:… 'The film has not been widely reviewed, however positive responses include:'
1216:
1199:
1130:
1046:
1012:
989:
945:
931:
912:
879:
856:
831:
816:
774:
735:
688:
662:
643:
623:
608:
2012:, arguing that that page is for his views only, not criticism of those views.
1888:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1760:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
1263:
1187:
800:
705:
If this film were Bambi and if it received significantly different reviews IN
459:
310:
304:
276:
1444:
My motive is that it provides some structure/coherence to the organisation
1374:
With no linking text at all, what we appear to have is a randomly arranged
1304:
1633:
1567:
349:
963:(since this film deals with FYR and Serbian/US/UK/EEC political matters)
677:
It is perfectly NORMAL to describe which countries gave good reviews...
974:
1850:
http://www.sense-agency.com/sense.48.html?case_id=84&type=gallery
1118:, sentence, it would have to say the reviews were VERY negative. … …
1114:
If we were to follow the custom of other film pages and start with a
1542:(an expression that suggests something dishonest about the process)
1566:
What the sentence wants to emphasize is that Boris found that the
804:
1150:(except currently Pecat magazine, which is not identified at all)
868:(which are almost wholly from WITHIN the country called 'Serbia')
761:" is simply stereotyping. However, I do agree when you say that "
1722:
http://www.pravda.rs/2012/06/23/protest-ispred-zgrade-rts-video
1289:
seems quite fine. You found a perfect neutral formula I think.
556:
511:
239:
231:
15:
1161:
Only Serbs gave positive review, the rest of the world didn't
1031:
Only Serbs gave positive review, the rest of the world didn't
799:
UrbanVillager, possibly you should check out the meanings of
1855:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the
1727:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the
1065:(and my wording was not as crude as you have represented it)
393:
373:
1253:… 'Vladislav Panov of Serbia's Pečat magazine wrote that'.
1840:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1716:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
534:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the
763:
the reviews MUST NOT have nationality, but the film MUST.
1190:
as they have expressed opinions over the last few days.
1116:
The film mainly received positive/negative/mixed reviews
978:
the film mainly received positive/negative/mixed reviews
2009:
1964:
1960:
1956:
1833:
1709:
1095:(since Pecat magazine would be unknown to most readers)
1063:
It is not a wide claim, nor indeed any kind of claim,
160:
1330:
Its a bit free translation of mine almost verbatim.
759:
significantly different reviews IN certain countries
1892:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1764:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1303:Regarding Pečat, I found this short description at
1249:… 'Vladislav Panov of Pečat magazine wrote that' …
1242:… 'However more negative responses have included:'
1240:
2). Add divider sentence before 'Kilibarda' review:
1167:", which is how the article is mis-quoted above by
629:Dividing sources into "Serbian" and "non-Serbian"
1636:were the main domestic allies(or culpits) of the
864:(written up by a student, with no context at all)
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
348:. To improve this article, please refer to the
2008:'We have to be equally-nice-ipedia'. Funnily,
1878:This message was posted before February 2018.
1750:This message was posted before February 2018.
174:
8:
1143:Ethnicity/Nationality/location clarification
1828:I have just modified one external link on
1704:I have just modified one external link on
959:(most people won't know who/what Pecat is)
417:
344:. To use this banner, please refer to the
271:
1069:(from UK, USA and a 'Canadian' academic)
2010:you reject all criticism on the BM page
1678:, and changing 'for' to 'on behalf of'
1165:Serbians are the only ones who liked it
419:
273:
243:
757:Kingdom and saying that the film has "
2112:Documentary films task force articles
1959:, on material which you then removed
1867:to let others know (documentation at
1739:to let others know (documentation at
7:
326:This article is within the scope of
2102:Canadian cinema task force articles
1234:1). Intro sentence on section, add:
262:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
2127:Low-importance Yugoslavia articles
2107:C-Class Documentary films articles
1676:(which suggests something 'dodgy')
14:
1832:. Please take a moment to review
1708:. Please take a moment to review
402:This article is supported by the
382:This article is supported by the
2097:C-Class Canadian cinema articles
1448:. Since the wording says MORE -
560:
515:
468:Knowledge:WikiProject Yugoslavia
442:
421:
342:regional and topical task forces
313:
303:
275:
244:
213:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
2132:WikiProject Yugoslavia articles
1720:Corrected formatting/usage for
1632:Boris Malagurski detected that
1228:(italicised text is my comment)
488:This article has been rated as
471:Template:WikiProject Yugoslavia
1534:(ie 'on behalf of foreigners')
1:
1957:here you propose a compromise
1217:14:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
1200:17:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
1159:Also the article NEVER said "
1131:01:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
1047:22:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
1013:14:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
990:17:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
946:05:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
932:05:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
913:05:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
880:01:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
857:20:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
832:20:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
822:try to get along. Regards, --
663:20:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
644:18:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
624:16:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
609:19:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
548:contentious topics procedures
42:Put new text under old text.
1495:09:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
1480:20:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
1466:21:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
1420:20:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
1405:12:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
1388:23:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
817:17:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
775:12:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
736:19:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
689:10:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
405:Documentary films task force
2122:C-Class Yugoslavia articles
2071:22:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
2045:20:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
2022:17:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
1999:17:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
1984:11:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
1650:02:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
1607:01:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
1580:04:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
1554:13:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
1361:13:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
1340:04:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
1299:04:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
1280:14:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
1037:not to add such synthesis.
594:Critical response additions
50:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
2148:
1909:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1825:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1781:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1701:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1222:Critical response proposal
494:project's importance scale
385:Canadian cinema task force
358:Knowledge:WikiProject Film
2117:WikiProject Film articles
1946:14:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
1816:18:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
1285:In my view your proposal
585:Knowledge's Copyright FAQ
550:before editing this page.
487:
437:
401:
381:
361:Template:WikiProject Film
298:
270:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
1680:(which is more explicit)
899:I reported Pincrete for
544:normal editorial process
1821:External links modified
1697:External links modified
1067:the three film reviews
922:if not properly cited.
531:as a contentious topic.
452:is within the scope of
540:standards of behaviour
455:WikiProject Yugoslavia
398:
378:
252:This article is rated
75:avoid personal attacks
2092:C-Class film articles
1450:(not wholly negative)
1376:(relatively marginal)
397:
377:
207:Auto-archiving period
100:Neutral point of view
1890:regular verification
1830:The Weight of Chains
1762:regular verification
1706:The Weight of Chains
1446:(as explained above)
1310:Original in Serbian:
536:purpose of Knowledge
450:The Weight of Chains
105:No original research
25:The Weight of Chains
1880:After February 2018
1859:parameter below to
1752:After February 2018
1731:parameter below to
1536:or 'OF foreigners'
1378:, set of responses.
474:Yugoslavia articles
334:join the discussion
1951:Bad faith removals
1934:InternetArchiveBot
1885:InternetArchiveBot
1757:InternetArchiveBot
961:, and appropriate
525:contentious topics
399:
379:
258:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
1910:
1814:
1782:
1513:Pečat translation
920:original research
845:original research
591:
590:
555:
554:
508:
507:
504:
503:
500:
499:
416:
415:
412:
411:
336:and see lists of
238:
237:
66:Assume good faith
43:
2139:
1944:
1935:
1908:
1907:
1886:
1874:
1810:
1809:Talk to my owner
1805:
1780:
1779:
1758:
1746:
1538:(ie 'from them')
1456:'s endorsement.
577:copyright policy
564:
563:
557:
519:
512:
476:
475:
472:
469:
466:
446:
439:
438:
433:
425:
418:
366:
365:
362:
359:
356:
329:WikiProject Film
323:
318:
317:
316:
307:
300:
299:
294:
279:
272:
255:
249:
248:
240:
232:
218:
217:
208:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
2147:
2146:
2142:
2141:
2140:
2138:
2137:
2136:
2082:
2081:
1955:Urbanvillager,
1953:
1938:
1933:
1901:
1894:have permission
1884:
1868:
1838:this simple FaQ
1823:
1813:
1808:
1773:
1766:have permission
1756:
1740:
1714:this simple FaQ
1699:
1515:
1454:User:FkpCascais
1393:UrbanVillagerre
1320:My translation:
1305:novinarnica.net
1268:User:FkpCascais
1224:
1205:User:FkpCascais
1180:User:FkpCascais
1169:User:FkpCascais
1145:
596:
581:derivative work
561:
538:, any expected
473:
470:
467:
464:
463:
431:
363:
360:
357:
354:
353:
319:
314:
312:
285:
256:on Knowledge's
253:
234:
233:
228:
205:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
2145:
2143:
2135:
2134:
2129:
2124:
2119:
2114:
2109:
2104:
2099:
2094:
2084:
2083:
2080:
2079:
2078:
2077:
2076:
2075:
2074:
2073:
2052:
2051:
2050:
2049:
2048:
2047:
2027:
2026:
2025:
2024:
2002:
2001:
1952:
1949:
1928:
1927:
1920:
1853:
1852:
1844:Added archive
1822:
1819:
1806:
1800:
1799:
1792:
1725:
1724:
1698:
1695:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1514:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1468:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1343:
1342:
1328:
1321:
1318:
1311:
1308:
1301:
1223:
1220:
1144:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1026:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
995:
994:
993:
992:
949:
948:
934:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
834:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
668:
667:
666:
665:
647:
646:
595:
592:
589:
588:
565:
553:
552:
520:
506:
505:
502:
501:
498:
497:
490:Low-importance
486:
480:
479:
477:
447:
435:
434:
432:Low‑importance
426:
414:
413:
410:
409:
400:
390:
389:
380:
370:
369:
367:
325:
324:
308:
296:
295:
280:
268:
267:
261:
250:
236:
235:
226:
224:
223:
220:
219:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2144:
2133:
2130:
2128:
2125:
2123:
2120:
2118:
2115:
2113:
2110:
2108:
2105:
2103:
2100:
2098:
2095:
2093:
2090:
2089:
2087:
2072:
2068:
2064:
2060:
2059:
2058:
2057:
2056:
2055:
2054:
2053:
2046:
2042:
2038:
2037:UrbanVillager
2033:
2032:
2031:
2030:
2029:
2028:
2023:
2019:
2015:
2011:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2000:
1996:
1992:
1991:UrbanVillager
1988:
1987:
1986:
1985:
1981:
1977:
1972:
1968:
1966:
1962:
1958:
1950:
1948:
1947:
1942:
1937:
1936:
1925:
1921:
1918:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1905:
1899:
1895:
1891:
1887:
1881:
1876:
1872:
1866:
1862:
1858:
1851:
1847:
1843:
1842:
1841:
1839:
1835:
1831:
1826:
1820:
1818:
1817:
1811:
1804:
1797:
1793:
1790:
1786:
1785:
1784:
1777:
1771:
1767:
1763:
1759:
1753:
1748:
1744:
1738:
1734:
1730:
1723:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1702:
1696:
1681:
1677:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1651:
1647:
1643:
1639:
1635:
1630:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1581:
1577:
1573:
1569:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1535:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1522:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1512:
1496:
1492:
1488:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1412:UrbanVillager
1408:
1407:
1406:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1350:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1327:
1322:
1319:
1317:
1312:
1309:
1306:
1302:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1243:
1241:
1237:
1235:
1231:
1229:
1221:
1219:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1176:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1157:
1155:
1151:
1142:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1096:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1027:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1002:
999:
998:
997:
996:
991:
987:
983:
979:
975:
972:
968:
964:
960:
956:
953:
952:
951:
950:
947:
943:
939:
935:
933:
929:
925:
921:
917:
916:
915:
914:
910:
906:
902:
881:
877:
873:
869:
865:
860:
859:
858:
854:
850:
849:UrbanVillager
846:
842:
841:
835:
833:
829:
825:
824:UrbanVillager
820:
819:
818:
814:
810:
806:
802:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
776:
772:
768:
767:UrbanVillager
764:
760:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
737:
733:
729:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
708:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
690:
686:
682:
681:UrbanVillager
678:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
664:
660:
656:
651:
650:
649:
648:
645:
641:
637:
636:UrbanVillager
632:
628:
627:
626:
625:
621:
617:
611:
610:
606:
602:
593:
586:
582:
578:
574:
573:public domain
570:
566:
559:
558:
551:
549:
545:
541:
537:
532:
530:
526:
521:
518:
514:
513:
510:
495:
491:
485:
482:
481:
478:
461:
457:
456:
451:
448:
445:
441:
440:
436:
430:
427:
424:
420:
407:
406:
396:
392:
391:
387:
386:
376:
372:
371:
368:
364:film articles
351:
347:
346:documentation
343:
339:
335:
331:
330:
322:
311:
309:
306:
302:
301:
297:
293:
289:
284:
281:
278:
274:
269:
265:
259:
251:
247:
242:
241:
222:
221:
216:
212:
204:
200:
196:
192:
189:
187:
183:
182:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1973:
1969:
1954:
1932:
1929:
1904:source check
1883:
1877:
1864:
1860:
1856:
1854:
1827:
1824:
1801:
1776:source check
1755:
1749:
1736:
1732:
1728:
1726:
1703:
1700:
1679:
1675:
1637:
1541:
1537:
1533:
1449:
1445:
1375:
1324:
1314:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1245:
1244:
1239:
1238:
1233:
1232:
1227:
1225:
1203:
1177:
1164:
1160:
1158:
1153:
1149:
1146:
1119:
1115:
1094:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1034:
1030:
977:
962:
958:
901:edit-warring
898:
867:
863:
839:
838:
762:
758:
706:
676:
630:
612:
597:
533:
522:
509:
489:
453:
449:
403:
383:
327:
264:WikiProjects
210:
184:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
1871:Sourcecheck
1743:Sourcecheck
1260:Jsharpminor
1184:Jsharpminor
1173:Jsharpminor
955:Jsharpminor
938:Jsharpminor
924:Jsharpminor
675:You wrote "
321:Film portal
292:Documentary
148:free images
31:not a forum
2086:Categories
1941:Report bug
1642:FkpCascais
1638:foreigners
1572:FkpCascais
1349:FkpCascais
1332:FkpCascais
1326:(Serbia)".
1291:FkpCascais
1039:FkpCascais
1001:FkpCascais
905:FkpCascais
801:stereotype
707:(not from)
529:designated
465:Yugoslavia
460:Yugoslavia
429:Yugoslavia
350:guidelines
338:open tasks
1961:yesterday
1924:this tool
1917:this tool
1796:this tool
1789:this tool
542:, or any
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
2063:Pincrete
2014:Pincrete
1976:Pincrete
1930:Cheers.—
1802:Cheers.—
1634:G17 Plus
1629:Pincrete
1599:Pincrete
1568:G17 Plus
1546:Pincrete
1487:Pincrete
1472:Pincrete
1458:Pincrete
1397:Pincrete
1380:Pincrete
1353:Pincrete
1316:zemlje."
1287:Pincrete
1272:Pincrete
1209:Pincrete
1192:Pincrete
1123:Pincrete
1005:Pincrete
982:Pincrete
967:Pincrete
872:Pincrete
809:Pincrete
728:Pincrete
655:Pincrete
616:Pincrete
601:Pincrete
569:verified
288:Canadian
186:Archives
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
1857:checked
1834:my edit
1812::Online
1729:checked
1710:my edit
1251:becomes
1163:" or "
492:on the
254:C-class
211:90 days
154:WP refs
142:scholar
1865:failed
1737:failed
1186:, and
583:. See
571:to be
260:scale.
126:Google
1965:today
1264:Bbb23
1247:thus:
1188:Bbb23
805:irony
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
2067:talk
2041:talk
2018:talk
1995:talk
1980:talk
1963:and
1861:true
1733:true
1646:talk
1603:talk
1576:talk
1550:talk
1491:talk
1476:talk
1462:talk
1416:talk
1401:talk
1384:talk
1357:talk
1336:talk
1295:talk
1276:talk
1266:and
1213:talk
1196:talk
1171:and
1127:talk
1043:talk
1035:safe
1009:talk
986:talk
971:talk
942:talk
928:talk
909:talk
876:talk
853:talk
828:talk
813:talk
803:and
771:talk
732:talk
685:talk
659:talk
640:talk
620:talk
605:talk
523:The
355:Film
340:and
283:Film
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
1898:RfC
1875:).
1863:or
1848:to
1770:RfC
1747:).
1735:or
1156:.
484:Low
176:TWL
2088::
2069:)
2043:)
2020:)
1997:)
1982:)
1911:.
1906:}}
1902:{{
1873:}}
1869:{{
1783:.
1778:}}
1774:{{
1745:}}
1741:{{
1648:)
1605:)
1578:)
1552:)
1493:)
1478:)
1464:)
1418:)
1410:--
1403:)
1386:)
1359:)
1338:)
1297:)
1278:)
1262:,
1230:.
1215:)
1198:)
1175:.
1129:)
1045:)
1011:)
988:)
944:)
930:)
911:)
878:)
855:)
840:is
830:)
815:)
807:.
773:)
734:)
687:)
661:)
642:)
631:is
622:)
607:)
290:/
286::
209::
201:,
197:,
193:,
156:)
54:;
2065:(
2039:(
2016:(
1993:(
1978:(
1943:)
1939:(
1926:.
1919:.
1798:.
1791:.
1644:(
1601:(
1574:(
1548:(
1489:(
1474:(
1460:(
1414:(
1399:(
1382:(
1355:(
1334:(
1323:"
1313:"
1293:(
1274:(
1211:(
1194:(
1125:(
1075:.
1041:(
1029:"
1007:(
984:(
969:(
940:(
926:(
907:(
874:(
851:(
826:(
811:(
769:(
730:(
683:(
657:(
638:(
618:(
603:(
587:.
496:.
408:.
388:.
352:.
266::
203:4
199:3
195:2
191:1
188::
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
