How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Croatian military personnel in Ottoman armies

A tag has been placed on Category:Croatian military personnel in Ottoman armies 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkl talk 17:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was 5 min late

Joy, :-) I just realized that we already have Category:People of the Ottoman Empire of Croatian descent.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I received a notification with my name in it showing that I would be blocked. Why? Why I would be blocked from contributing to Wikipedia? jeromeenriquez

Nomination of Čerčan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Čerčan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Čerčan 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.

Pichpich (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Partisan reprisal killings" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Partisan reprisal killings and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 27#Partisan reprisal killings until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Elections in Croatia before independence

Template:Elections in Croatia before independence has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joy

Can you check these sources[[1]] from Ip 216.8.128.225, i don't want to change anything maybe Admin Drmies is right. Thank you.93.136.28.101 (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Former Yugoslavia" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Former Yugoslavia and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 9#Former Yugoslavia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Heanor (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theonewithreason

Thanks for indirectly bringing me to notice what the user was doing instead of participating in the discussion. I doubt the reporting is solely their doing because happened too fast probably to stop me from starting the RfC, differs from their style and editing capacity, and even made such remarks about me. It seems I'm still target of Serbian editors trio including Amanuensis Balkanicus and Sadko becauce of my insistence to NPOV. AB was informed about it and if you missed or forgot check admin Peacemaker67's comments from a year ago: "appears to be another in a series of reports from Serbian POV editors against Croatian POV editors, all while both sides claim they are being NPOV... It is as weak as the others, and adds to a disturbing trend of Serbian POV editors trying to get rid of Croatian POV editors from en WP" and "Given their prompt appearance to support each other on diverse articles across many time periods of the Balkans, I have no doubt that there is some serious off-Wiki coordination going on betwen these editors".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of postal codes in Montenegro

The article List of postal codes in Montenegro has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTDIRECTORY: consensus to delete "just a list of postal codes" articles demonstrated in previous AfDs ([2], [3]).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. asilvering (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Government-in-exile again

Thanks for the explaination/Hvala na objašnjenju! Ostavio sam komentar na SZR. Lijepo te pozdravlja, Koreanovsky (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	😀 Sahaib3005 (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Empyrean (Warhammer)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Empyrean (Warhammer) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 11#Empyrean (Warhammer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sandstein 19:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imotsko Polje moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Imotsko Polje, is not suitable 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 click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merger of Template:BLP primary sources

Template:BLP primary sources has been nominated for merging with Template:Primary sources. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joy. Question about the Tomislav of Croatia article

Hello Joy. Hope all is well. I have a question about illustrations of kings in articles. For example for the Tomislav of Croatia just a few days ago there was a brief back and forth over removing or keeping the picture illustration of King Tomislav I. I restored it as I don’t get the reasoning of why the image of a king from a 1000 years ago is inappropriate? I came to you as I know you have experience with Croatian history articles and Wikipedia criteria. Your help would be great. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Slatersteven

Whether you're involved or not, I suspect that you're interested. Uncle G (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further to that: Is there any chance of you starting a talk page discussion? List the sources cited in the edit war, and start a discussion of whether and how they are problematic or best used? From Special:Diff/1081169519 it would seem that you have views more imaginative than simply the usual "Ethnicity A^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]}" versus "Ethnicity B^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]}" one-word-in-the-first-sentence-of-the-article silliness. Lurkers with imaginative views: the same. Uncle G (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isthmus

Thanks, at the time I couldn't even remember what it was called in Croatian :) Daß Wölf 04:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

You have over 100,000 edits, why aren't you autopatrolled?

People who can write good articles should get autopatrol. The NPP queue is bad enough as it is. (t · c) buidhe 13:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Delnice

added links pointing to Lučice, Turke, Suhor, Malo Selo, Crni Lug and Kuželj

Unisex name

added links pointing to Valya and Zhenya

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Tepić

Hi. There is a problem with the article Milan Tepić where the sources are deleted. Editor user:Amanuensis Balkanicus has requested [[4]] that the site be protected and is now protected so that it can no longer be edited. Again, the User Ранко Николић vandalizes and deletes reliable sources [[5]]. Here is the editing history [[6]]. I hope they look at you and solve the problem. Thanks89.172.92.112 (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Joy, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Schwede 66 21:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Petrovići

I just noticed this. Why change the direct link to a redirect? I've gone with this which gives both spellings. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 03:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VTE

Pozdrav, Joy. Hello. Let me do something about THIS: I'd like to find a better place for it because that one letter V looks like a template glitch when it's standing alone at the bottom of the graph. What say you? Ponor (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Report IP

Hi! According to my research, this range of IPs [[7]] is vandalized every day on sites related to Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Serbia and Macedonia. Please pay attention to the editing of that IP range and if the vandalism continues please report it to someone in charge to block it. Thanks78.3.85.128 (talk) 08:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent manor edits on Croatia

There have been a lot of edits that seems to be a bit weird and make the article less concise. Could you take a look at the removed content? Edits such as removing “of Croatia” or “Croatia” from a lot of places, perhaps looking to remove repetition, but don’t seem to make sense just remove context in the greater paragraph. I don’t understand the reasoning. For example the “Croatian Dialects” image where Croatia was removed and it was just map of dialects and Bosnia. If you could take a look it would be appreciated. A second opinion. These edits seem bigger than simply grammar and may need proofreading. Cheers OyMosby (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but I was hoping for a second opinion on the edits side from myself. I figured you would be a good person to turn to given you have edited on the pages before. OyMosby (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Hrvatska metropola

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Hrvatska metropola. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remete

Hi Joy, red links have different guidelines in DAB pages and articles. I unlinked Remete, Zagreb according to MOS:DABRED - Remete isn't linked in Maksimir, so it's a MOS:DABMENTION. That's easily changed, of course, but I wasn't sure if Remete, Zagreb is notable, so I didn't link it myself. Leschnei (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Familiar with this issue?

Hey again Joy. Are you familiar with this user or this issue? I am Not aware with any controversy with the intro. Do you have any input on whether the original intro I restored or their revised intro is more accurate? I would think that Dalmatia being a part of Croatia today would make it relevant in relation to the country today. Seems weird to remove that. OyMosby (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I am asking what is your opinion on the matter? Was the editor correct to remove it or was I correct to restore it. Dalmatia is currently one of the regions that makes up modern Croatia. So it would seem most relevant present day in the intro. Or perhaps you are disagreeing? Well, unfortunately for them, the history of Dalmatia predates the past 600 years. I’ll go by what Reliable Sources label it rather than editors with a self concluded pov. :). {[1] Frucht, Richard C. (2004). Eastern Europe: An Introduction to the People, Lands, and Culture. Vol. 1 } Even before Venice rule, it was at times part of forms of a “Croatia” so I would think that it isn’t wrong to day it historical was. And is today. Slavonia for a long time before Savic Migration was not Croatian, but that is not made a foul point. Seems more like pov pushes from certain Italian viewpoint that continues to be a problem on these articles. The pattern of everyone owns Croatia except for... Croatia. I mentioned to them that they may bring it up on the talk oage if they are looking to make such changes in the future. OyMosby (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thanks Joy! Well then I’ll go with what the sources say. Being on the topic of intros... Recent in February this edit was added to the Croatia article. File.it is factual, is it sort of undue to place it in the modern country’s intro? I don see Bosnia or other articles discuss in the intro historic war crimes. Seems odd and for a long time stable. Is it warranted? It is already discussed in the article among the other comes of the era as well such as those by Italian forces and the Slavic concentration camps and Chetniks and their smaller genocidal massacres. Should then other crimes such that of Chetniks during WWII and so on be mentioned as well? Or should the focus just be the difference form a of Croatia that took place? I understand that these articles are at times used to for WP SCORE SETTLING” which is a concern. And thank you for your time. OyMosby (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. It definitely does not follow the simple formulation most other country intros follow. But if I were to make the changes, I fear the controversy I will stumble into as one can see already when a part of the intro was removed, it already met discontent. As Balkan articles typical do. Frustrating and at this point tiring to see. Might as well write the whole article in the article intro as a form of articleception. Like the film Inception. Lol. Sigh... OyMosby (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]