This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Honor (given name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Honora.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Joy,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
—
Moops ⋠
T⋡ 03:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
— Moops ⋠ T⋡ 03:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Feričanci, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gazije.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing this! I tried various variations of "something" "nl" "something else" "Waard" "end something" but missed the right one, and gave up and copied the URL - just, unfortunately, picked the wrong tab to find the URL! Pam D 12:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your RM comment. You're right that the non-existence of the musical article doesn't make the film WP:PT, but so easy to create the musical stub I did so. but really shouldn't have to. These kind of moves are exactly what WP:PT exists to prevent. Thanks again. In ictu oculi ( talk) 12:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
See the discussion and initiative at Talk:Grand Principality of Serbia#Wp:Undue by Filigranski. Also, please, warn Theonewithreason to stop calling me Crovata. That's not in good faith. Thanks Miki Filigranski ( talk) 10:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
I note you reverted my edit on Smilja. In the "see also" there is a link to Smiljan (given name) which (as we do not have an article for it) redirects to the disambiguation page Smiljan. This is about places rather than peoples names.— Rod talk 18:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I tried to answer your questions at Talk:Maël#Requested_move_5_February_2023. Thanks, 121.127.212.32 ( talk) 13:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The editor continues to make disruptive WP:POINT edits ( [1]) and personal attacks on me and scientists ( [2]). Please warn first the editor to stop doing it, if not, in the next 24h don't have a choice but to report them to the admin's noticeboard. Miki Filigranski ( talk) 23:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello,
Could you keep an eye on
91.148.81.82, as he continues to vandalize both
History of Croatia and
List of 2022 FIFA World Cup controversies by removing well referenced claims. Thanks.
Franjo Tahy (
talk) 16:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi Joy, since I am familiar with your work on articles about Croatian currencies (and you probably with mine aswell), I would like to hear your opinion on something: What do you think about the infobox in article about the Croatian kuna mentioning the 25 kuna coin as "rarely used"? The question seems at first very simple and something that could without any doubt be answered with "yes", since it was indeed legal tender and you could have paid with them. However, in fact it was never used for any non- numismatics related purposes and I would go even so far to claim that it was not even really created as a coin for everyday payment.
Bez obzira na osobna iskustva ( WP:NOR), smatraš li da ima smisla spominjati prigodni numizmatički novac u infookviru?
Best regards, Koreanovsky ( talk) 19:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Came across this edit and am curious your take. Would calling someone an Ustasa count as calling them a facsit essentially? From the quick look, it seemed like the section was sourced based on the brief overview. Seems like a misunderstanding or different interpretations by various editors and ips. Thanks. OyMosby ( talk) 18:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Joy, your edit here of reverting because the IP seemed to possibly be a banned users doesn’t make sense for justifying the counter to the reasoning behind the edit. It does seem weird to bury the fact that it is one of the historical regions as it was even though for long periods it remaind a separate state. I agree, I don’t get the distancing of its relation. I can see the MariCro user has a perennial account dedicated to this which seems soapboxing as well. Heck they even removed Croatia from the lead and said it was located Wast of the Adriatic as if it’s own country. Seems weird. Why placate them? Between that and Italian Nationalist users doing the same, it been tiring over the years. :/ Stating “historical region” by itself doesn’t make sense as historical to what? For other countries, regions are stated as being part of that country. The details left to the article. I think it works best that way. OyMosby ( talk) 00:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bogdan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bożydar.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello,
I saw that you changed the Bosnian language to Serbo-Croatian. May I know the reason why?
WikiUserFromTheBalkans (
talk) 16:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I was told that creating citations without using them as references wastes resources. It also raises harv:warning messages. Also, your reversion changed Sedov|2013 to Sedov|1995, so the links no longer work. (Only the date is recognized in the template, not the orig-date, although there are work-arounds with sfnref if you don't want to see 2013 displayed.) Andy02124 ( talk) 20:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Joy! A new page was created on the English wikipedia a few days ago. If you can edit it properly, see how it looks here [ [3]] and this is how it looks on the Croatian wikipedia,[ [4]]. I looked at the sources from the newspapers that were put there and nothing says what is written there on the page. I didn't want to touch anything, because I'm not very good at editing wikipedia. I hope you will edit that page and fix it. Greeting 78.0.115.249 ( talk) 04:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello, can you join the conversation on the Kajkavian topic [ [5]] ,and here are the latest changes to the site[ [6]] Thanks. 93.138.3.122 ( talk) 08:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Did you find any broken links? If so, which ones? We are in the process of moving over to permalinks and more stable URLs, so any help would be appreciated. Thank you! Ivan ( talk) 16:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi Joy. I have HR population data → article title → Qid mapping from hrwiki and it shouldn't take me long to set up a bot to update the Croatian settlements infoboxes on here (upon approval). But one thing is confusing: Rijeka, Split, Zagreb use different sets of population_ params in their infoboxes. HR census data only contain "naselje" and "grad/općina" values. Do you think those should be population_urban and population_total of {{ Infobox settlement}}? In Rijeka we now have City:108,622 and Urban:191,293, but what does the latter number represent? What do you think of this whole idea? Thnx, Ponor ( talk) 14:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi Joy, I see that you've been removing the Template:Kosovo-note on a few articles, do you mind leaving the reason in the edit summary such as "per the result of the discussion" so editors can understand. Thank you Sculpordwarfprunesea ( talk) 14:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
First, thank you very much for your edits. I don't know any "Yugoslav" language, so I need all the help I can get :P
Second, could you help me with two things? One very easy and more complex. First, can you scavenge the list and check if I categorised all the members by sex correctly? I find it challenging to decipher female names since I don't know the language! Last, there are eight members I can't find any birth information on, and there are 37 other individuals I can't find any information on the year of death. Some of them may be alive, but others are probably dead. I mean most people born in the 1930s or earlier are dead or dying at this point.
Of course, I understand if you have other things to do. This is Wikipedia, and you edit what one deems fun. But if you have the time, thank you in advance :) TheUzbek ( talk) 08:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Podgorica Capital City, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Prifti and Budza.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page A1 (Croatia), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 21:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi Joy, hope you are doing well. There seems to be some pov pushing going on by a single purpose account. Looking at other Hisotrical Region articles like Moravia, it lists historical regions of Czechia. It doesn’t “restrict scope” as the term Historical Region literally means region that transcend modern borders. The user claims “ especially for a region which (let's be real) was part of Croatia for a relatively short time in its long history.” which is clearly pov pushing and not academically correct. I don’t think. It ignores Mediaeval history. They also proposed this edit with no consensus.
Dalmatia today is literally in Croatia. I don’t see why it controversial. Also why other Historical regions of said country also mentioned at the top like other articles.
I came to you as you undid this IP edit believing they had some agenda but they simply reinstated a version you yourself reverted to before. I could say the same about the other participant as well. I returned the original wording as it doesn’t claim Dalmatia as a Croatian exclusive land. I’m not sure why the same edit is fine now but not before as in both edits Dalmatia being one of four regions of Croatia is being buried despite today it being a region alomg with the rest.
What are your thoughts? Do you deem their version more logical and the original too Croatian nationalist pov? My concern is it seems double standard compared to the Czech historical regions articles. You had reverted them a year ago when they did the same edit and I agree it does only have a purpose of burying the lead. You were right to call it an “irredentist argument”. I agree. They will likely ince again push their version and refuse using the talk page as you originally suggested. OyMosby ( talk) 22:13, 29 June 2023 (
Why are you promoting this fringe theory? Its own page says it's widely rejected. If you find evidence that it is widely accepted, then please add that evidence on Nostratic languages. Then it would make sense to include Nostratic theories on other pages, such as Župa. 173.206.79.106 ( talk) 14:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Please pay attention to this user [ [7]], his vandalism has been going on for years. This is the same user blocked on one year which will expire soon [ [8]] but he returns again from another ip address. I hope some administrators will block him. 89.172.84.249 ( talk) 10:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi Joy just wanted to check. This addition on July 4th to the Bosnian Genocide does it seem warranted? Would people confuse the Bosnian Genocide witth the Genocide of Serbs in Croatia during WWII? Should Genocide of Bosniaks and Croats during WWII also be mentioned? There hadn’t been a description above the article at all and I removed it as I interpreted it as a new jumbled name account making nationalist point according edits. They keep adding Cyrillic to various Croatian regions as well which I guess makes sense being a minority language set? Or perhaps a pov that these are Serbian lands? The user even changed Ratko Mladic to being birn in “Kingdom of Yugoslavia occupied by NDH”, however NDH was already an occupied territory by thr Axis. I question their goals on wikipedia. Wikipedia has made be quite a cynic over the years. I trus your judgement so I came to you for a second opinion. OyMosby ( talk) 16:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
My friend, Ivan Gundulic has been proven to be Croatian and not Serbian. Due to the grand hatred of Croats in the 1990s as of his Wikipedia Page, Serbs started to claim Gundulic as theirs. Which is definitley pathetic and propaganda. Bawix ( talk) 19:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I have just found an email you sent me some time ago in my spam folder. It was an IP block which I thought was not anon-only, and you said it was. I have now checked, and you were right. I don't know how I made that mistake. JBW ( talk) 13:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Category:Use of the term Illyrian in modern history has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
I received a bunch of notifications where the editor mentions me. The self-called (non-)expert new editor is editing walls of text and comments based on outdated or unreliable sources on articles and talk pages, but not being constructive and making personal attacks on other editors (myself and others) for reverting or making any comments against their liking. Reading all the notifications was confusing, I reverted at Nikola IV Zrinski, Siege of Szigetvár, and Talk:Siege of Szigetvár reverting edits by editor NikolaZrinski. They alike editor ZidarZ (who added outdated sources in the "Further reading") based their edits and talk page comments on same outdated sources, have same commentary style and wording, arguments, date of editing. NikolaZrinski edited for example Talk: Šubić family, yet ZidarZ with whom I did not have any correspondence and who did not edit or comment anything about Šubic or Zrinski family and the siege of Szigetvar on articles or talk pages, suddenly shows big fascination and concern about the Šubic and Zrinski families (also claims to be an expert on the Zrinski family), instead of NikolaZrinski, ZidarZ went to report me and comment about Šubic family and again on their Talk page, stating "because he told me that for stuff I try to write about Nikola Zrinski and events during the 1500s that books written in the 1500s and 1600s lack credibility because these primary sources are "outdated sources". To me, that is absurd", I said that to editor NikolaZrinski not to ZidarZ, NikolaZrinski also said the same "Miki Filigranski's deletion based on the comment “outdated soures” is absurd". Miki Filigranski ( talk) 00:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Seasons in Federal Republic of Yugoslavia basketball indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
The Categorization Barnstar | |
For efforts in standardizing FRY and S&M categories. – Vipz ( talk) 00:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC) |
What happened is that other subcategories (establishments in/disestablishments in) were prematurely moved into the new "YYYY in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" categories while they were still redlinks, so they all showed up at Special:WantedCategories as non-empty redlinked categories — and when I checked the "YYYY in Yugoslavia" categories, none of them were tagged with the CFD template at all, because those tags appear to have been already removed from the categories in preparation for the renames that hadn't happened before this showed up at WantedCategories, so I had no knowledge of any CFD discussions relating to the base YYYY categories at all because the CFD tags weren't present when I looked at them.
But redlinked categories are strictly forbidden in all circumstances, which means that I couldn't just leave them there as redlinks — anytime redlinked categories are present on an article or another category, they always have to be either created or deleted immediately, and cannot be left sitting red. So, since the "YYYY in the FRY" categories were template-generated redlinks that I couldn't remove or edit, and the "YYYY in Yugoslavia" categories didn't have any tags on them to indicate that they had been subject to any CFD discussions, my only option was to redirect the redlinks to the existing categories.
If there actually are real CFD renames involved, then it's quite easy to fix by doing the indicated category moves — but they have to be done, and stuff can't be left sitting in the redlinks in advance of the moves being done, and since the categories to be moved weren't tagged I had no way of knowing that CFD had already weighed in on them. So I'm sorry for the confusion, but it's easy to fix if you just get the category moves done. Bearcat ( talk) 14:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
The infobox qualifies as supporting material under Milhist. See if you can find a photo of him… Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 14:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
On the page Time_(disambiguation) you cancelled my addition, on the ground that it would be an "unexplained addition of a weird pipe link".
It seems to me quite arbitrary. Where should I have explained this addition before ? Should I have added some references ? It is not a common practice in disambiguation pages. So please explain me.
Here are some links proving that a Time magazine existed in England. [9] [10]
Varlin ( talk) 14:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nikola, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Niko.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your contributions. I believe that Neuilly as a primary redirect works best, and object to your recent move of the disambiguation page to that title.
I'm not exactly sure, however, if this should be discussed by WP:RM or WP:RFD. If the latter, the back should be moved back first, I'd imagine. Your thoughts? 162 etc. ( talk) 21:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ursula (name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Úrsula.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antė until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 05:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Honor (given name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Honora.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Joy,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
—
Moops ⋠
T⋡ 03:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
— Moops ⋠ T⋡ 03:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Feričanci, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gazije.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing this! I tried various variations of "something" "nl" "something else" "Waard" "end something" but missed the right one, and gave up and copied the URL - just, unfortunately, picked the wrong tab to find the URL! Pam D 12:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your RM comment. You're right that the non-existence of the musical article doesn't make the film WP:PT, but so easy to create the musical stub I did so. but really shouldn't have to. These kind of moves are exactly what WP:PT exists to prevent. Thanks again. In ictu oculi ( talk) 12:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
See the discussion and initiative at Talk:Grand Principality of Serbia#Wp:Undue by Filigranski. Also, please, warn Theonewithreason to stop calling me Crovata. That's not in good faith. Thanks Miki Filigranski ( talk) 10:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
I note you reverted my edit on Smilja. In the "see also" there is a link to Smiljan (given name) which (as we do not have an article for it) redirects to the disambiguation page Smiljan. This is about places rather than peoples names.— Rod talk 18:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I tried to answer your questions at Talk:Maël#Requested_move_5_February_2023. Thanks, 121.127.212.32 ( talk) 13:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The editor continues to make disruptive WP:POINT edits ( [1]) and personal attacks on me and scientists ( [2]). Please warn first the editor to stop doing it, if not, in the next 24h don't have a choice but to report them to the admin's noticeboard. Miki Filigranski ( talk) 23:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello,
Could you keep an eye on
91.148.81.82, as he continues to vandalize both
History of Croatia and
List of 2022 FIFA World Cup controversies by removing well referenced claims. Thanks.
Franjo Tahy (
talk) 16:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi Joy, since I am familiar with your work on articles about Croatian currencies (and you probably with mine aswell), I would like to hear your opinion on something: What do you think about the infobox in article about the Croatian kuna mentioning the 25 kuna coin as "rarely used"? The question seems at first very simple and something that could without any doubt be answered with "yes", since it was indeed legal tender and you could have paid with them. However, in fact it was never used for any non- numismatics related purposes and I would go even so far to claim that it was not even really created as a coin for everyday payment.
Bez obzira na osobna iskustva ( WP:NOR), smatraš li da ima smisla spominjati prigodni numizmatički novac u infookviru?
Best regards, Koreanovsky ( talk) 19:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Came across this edit and am curious your take. Would calling someone an Ustasa count as calling them a facsit essentially? From the quick look, it seemed like the section was sourced based on the brief overview. Seems like a misunderstanding or different interpretations by various editors and ips. Thanks. OyMosby ( talk) 18:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Joy, your edit here of reverting because the IP seemed to possibly be a banned users doesn’t make sense for justifying the counter to the reasoning behind the edit. It does seem weird to bury the fact that it is one of the historical regions as it was even though for long periods it remaind a separate state. I agree, I don’t get the distancing of its relation. I can see the MariCro user has a perennial account dedicated to this which seems soapboxing as well. Heck they even removed Croatia from the lead and said it was located Wast of the Adriatic as if it’s own country. Seems weird. Why placate them? Between that and Italian Nationalist users doing the same, it been tiring over the years. :/ Stating “historical region” by itself doesn’t make sense as historical to what? For other countries, regions are stated as being part of that country. The details left to the article. I think it works best that way. OyMosby ( talk) 00:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bogdan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bożydar.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello,
I saw that you changed the Bosnian language to Serbo-Croatian. May I know the reason why?
WikiUserFromTheBalkans (
talk) 16:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I was told that creating citations without using them as references wastes resources. It also raises harv:warning messages. Also, your reversion changed Sedov|2013 to Sedov|1995, so the links no longer work. (Only the date is recognized in the template, not the orig-date, although there are work-arounds with sfnref if you don't want to see 2013 displayed.) Andy02124 ( talk) 20:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Joy! A new page was created on the English wikipedia a few days ago. If you can edit it properly, see how it looks here [ [3]] and this is how it looks on the Croatian wikipedia,[ [4]]. I looked at the sources from the newspapers that were put there and nothing says what is written there on the page. I didn't want to touch anything, because I'm not very good at editing wikipedia. I hope you will edit that page and fix it. Greeting 78.0.115.249 ( talk) 04:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello, can you join the conversation on the Kajkavian topic [ [5]] ,and here are the latest changes to the site[ [6]] Thanks. 93.138.3.122 ( talk) 08:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Did you find any broken links? If so, which ones? We are in the process of moving over to permalinks and more stable URLs, so any help would be appreciated. Thank you! Ivan ( talk) 16:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi Joy. I have HR population data → article title → Qid mapping from hrwiki and it shouldn't take me long to set up a bot to update the Croatian settlements infoboxes on here (upon approval). But one thing is confusing: Rijeka, Split, Zagreb use different sets of population_ params in their infoboxes. HR census data only contain "naselje" and "grad/općina" values. Do you think those should be population_urban and population_total of {{ Infobox settlement}}? In Rijeka we now have City:108,622 and Urban:191,293, but what does the latter number represent? What do you think of this whole idea? Thnx, Ponor ( talk) 14:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi Joy, I see that you've been removing the Template:Kosovo-note on a few articles, do you mind leaving the reason in the edit summary such as "per the result of the discussion" so editors can understand. Thank you Sculpordwarfprunesea ( talk) 14:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
First, thank you very much for your edits. I don't know any "Yugoslav" language, so I need all the help I can get :P
Second, could you help me with two things? One very easy and more complex. First, can you scavenge the list and check if I categorised all the members by sex correctly? I find it challenging to decipher female names since I don't know the language! Last, there are eight members I can't find any birth information on, and there are 37 other individuals I can't find any information on the year of death. Some of them may be alive, but others are probably dead. I mean most people born in the 1930s or earlier are dead or dying at this point.
Of course, I understand if you have other things to do. This is Wikipedia, and you edit what one deems fun. But if you have the time, thank you in advance :) TheUzbek ( talk) 08:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Podgorica Capital City, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Prifti and Budza.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page A1 (Croatia), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) ( talk) 21:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi Joy, hope you are doing well. There seems to be some pov pushing going on by a single purpose account. Looking at other Hisotrical Region articles like Moravia, it lists historical regions of Czechia. It doesn’t “restrict scope” as the term Historical Region literally means region that transcend modern borders. The user claims “ especially for a region which (let's be real) was part of Croatia for a relatively short time in its long history.” which is clearly pov pushing and not academically correct. I don’t think. It ignores Mediaeval history. They also proposed this edit with no consensus.
Dalmatia today is literally in Croatia. I don’t see why it controversial. Also why other Historical regions of said country also mentioned at the top like other articles.
I came to you as you undid this IP edit believing they had some agenda but they simply reinstated a version you yourself reverted to before. I could say the same about the other participant as well. I returned the original wording as it doesn’t claim Dalmatia as a Croatian exclusive land. I’m not sure why the same edit is fine now but not before as in both edits Dalmatia being one of four regions of Croatia is being buried despite today it being a region alomg with the rest.
What are your thoughts? Do you deem their version more logical and the original too Croatian nationalist pov? My concern is it seems double standard compared to the Czech historical regions articles. You had reverted them a year ago when they did the same edit and I agree it does only have a purpose of burying the lead. You were right to call it an “irredentist argument”. I agree. They will likely ince again push their version and refuse using the talk page as you originally suggested. OyMosby ( talk) 22:13, 29 June 2023 (
Why are you promoting this fringe theory? Its own page says it's widely rejected. If you find evidence that it is widely accepted, then please add that evidence on Nostratic languages. Then it would make sense to include Nostratic theories on other pages, such as Župa. 173.206.79.106 ( talk) 14:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Please pay attention to this user [ [7]], his vandalism has been going on for years. This is the same user blocked on one year which will expire soon [ [8]] but he returns again from another ip address. I hope some administrators will block him. 89.172.84.249 ( talk) 10:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi Joy just wanted to check. This addition on July 4th to the Bosnian Genocide does it seem warranted? Would people confuse the Bosnian Genocide witth the Genocide of Serbs in Croatia during WWII? Should Genocide of Bosniaks and Croats during WWII also be mentioned? There hadn’t been a description above the article at all and I removed it as I interpreted it as a new jumbled name account making nationalist point according edits. They keep adding Cyrillic to various Croatian regions as well which I guess makes sense being a minority language set? Or perhaps a pov that these are Serbian lands? The user even changed Ratko Mladic to being birn in “Kingdom of Yugoslavia occupied by NDH”, however NDH was already an occupied territory by thr Axis. I question their goals on wikipedia. Wikipedia has made be quite a cynic over the years. I trus your judgement so I came to you for a second opinion. OyMosby ( talk) 16:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
My friend, Ivan Gundulic has been proven to be Croatian and not Serbian. Due to the grand hatred of Croats in the 1990s as of his Wikipedia Page, Serbs started to claim Gundulic as theirs. Which is definitley pathetic and propaganda. Bawix ( talk) 19:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I have just found an email you sent me some time ago in my spam folder. It was an IP block which I thought was not anon-only, and you said it was. I have now checked, and you were right. I don't know how I made that mistake. JBW ( talk) 13:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Category:Use of the term Illyrian in modern history has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
I received a bunch of notifications where the editor mentions me. The self-called (non-)expert new editor is editing walls of text and comments based on outdated or unreliable sources on articles and talk pages, but not being constructive and making personal attacks on other editors (myself and others) for reverting or making any comments against their liking. Reading all the notifications was confusing, I reverted at Nikola IV Zrinski, Siege of Szigetvár, and Talk:Siege of Szigetvár reverting edits by editor NikolaZrinski. They alike editor ZidarZ (who added outdated sources in the "Further reading") based their edits and talk page comments on same outdated sources, have same commentary style and wording, arguments, date of editing. NikolaZrinski edited for example Talk: Šubić family, yet ZidarZ with whom I did not have any correspondence and who did not edit or comment anything about Šubic or Zrinski family and the siege of Szigetvar on articles or talk pages, suddenly shows big fascination and concern about the Šubic and Zrinski families (also claims to be an expert on the Zrinski family), instead of NikolaZrinski, ZidarZ went to report me and comment about Šubic family and again on their Talk page, stating "because he told me that for stuff I try to write about Nikola Zrinski and events during the 1500s that books written in the 1500s and 1600s lack credibility because these primary sources are "outdated sources". To me, that is absurd", I said that to editor NikolaZrinski not to ZidarZ, NikolaZrinski also said the same "Miki Filigranski's deletion based on the comment “outdated soures” is absurd". Miki Filigranski ( talk) 00:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Seasons in Federal Republic of Yugoslavia basketball indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
The Categorization Barnstar | |
For efforts in standardizing FRY and S&M categories. – Vipz ( talk) 00:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC) |
What happened is that other subcategories (establishments in/disestablishments in) were prematurely moved into the new "YYYY in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" categories while they were still redlinks, so they all showed up at Special:WantedCategories as non-empty redlinked categories — and when I checked the "YYYY in Yugoslavia" categories, none of them were tagged with the CFD template at all, because those tags appear to have been already removed from the categories in preparation for the renames that hadn't happened before this showed up at WantedCategories, so I had no knowledge of any CFD discussions relating to the base YYYY categories at all because the CFD tags weren't present when I looked at them.
But redlinked categories are strictly forbidden in all circumstances, which means that I couldn't just leave them there as redlinks — anytime redlinked categories are present on an article or another category, they always have to be either created or deleted immediately, and cannot be left sitting red. So, since the "YYYY in the FRY" categories were template-generated redlinks that I couldn't remove or edit, and the "YYYY in Yugoslavia" categories didn't have any tags on them to indicate that they had been subject to any CFD discussions, my only option was to redirect the redlinks to the existing categories.
If there actually are real CFD renames involved, then it's quite easy to fix by doing the indicated category moves — but they have to be done, and stuff can't be left sitting in the redlinks in advance of the moves being done, and since the categories to be moved weren't tagged I had no way of knowing that CFD had already weighed in on them. So I'm sorry for the confusion, but it's easy to fix if you just get the category moves done. Bearcat ( talk) 14:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
The infobox qualifies as supporting material under Milhist. See if you can find a photo of him… Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 14:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
On the page Time_(disambiguation) you cancelled my addition, on the ground that it would be an "unexplained addition of a weird pipe link".
It seems to me quite arbitrary. Where should I have explained this addition before ? Should I have added some references ? It is not a common practice in disambiguation pages. So please explain me.
Here are some links proving that a Time magazine existed in England. [9] [10]
Varlin ( talk) 14:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nikola, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Niko.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your contributions. I believe that Neuilly as a primary redirect works best, and object to your recent move of the disambiguation page to that title.
I'm not exactly sure, however, if this should be discussed by WP:RM or WP:RFD. If the latter, the back should be moved back first, I'd imagine. Your thoughts? 162 etc. ( talk) 21:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ursula (name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Úrsula.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antė until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 05:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)