Add new comments below.

I am requesting a name change to Joy. --Shallot 12:16, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This page is now archived. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)

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. Qwerfjkltalk 17:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

• 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]

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

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

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]

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]

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]

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! Schwede66 21:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of most popular given names, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gaspar and Jakob.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Tanasko Milovich Submitted today to AfC... Missvain (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.[[8]] This new article is made in Serbian POV. Nothing has been proven and Croatia denies this event. Can you edit this article. Thanks 93.136.20.114 (talk) 10:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

John (given name)

added links pointing to Jan, Jo, Giovanni, Xan, Johan, Janez, Joan, Ifan, Jeanne, Jean, Jovan, Xoán and Xoana

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Kingdom of Enclava and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 25#Princedom of Ongal until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Croatian vilayet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Strmica.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I don't understand other revert after my edit: that Australian admin reverts several my edits and if you understand the reason of linked revert, you are my mediator with him. Forza bruta (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you reverted Verdis into being a redirect again. I think that it has the notability for its own article as I listed about 17 references, most of which were independent except for their national website.

I'm just wondering why this isn't considered notable enough as a micronation when many micronations (example like the ones listed below) are approved on the Wiki with such fewer references and notability? I also recently made an article for an individual (Carolyn Shelby) which was approved and has very few references compared to Verdis?

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Vikesland
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_World_Kingdom
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_of_British_West_Florida

MicroSupporter (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of that has much bearing on the fact that these 'micronations' making claims on the Croatian-Serbian border are not notable, and giving them articles is a violation of the undue weight part of the NPOV policy as it promotes something that doesn't have that status in reality. Fundamentally, an encyclopedia describes, it does not prescribe. There's very little to describe here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds quite biased. It has described Verdis as a micronation for which it is. Verdis and Enclava are just as notable as other micronations. Not as much as Liberland, but notable enough to the ones I referenced above beforehand. I don't see how you can say its a violation of the undue weight policy when its described as a micronation which is indeed its status in reality, recognised or not? That would mean Liberland would have to be deleted too, and anything else that is referred to as a micronation. MicroSupporter (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Liberland has an article is dubious at this point, because even if it had attracted some vaguely relevant media attention at the time, that time is long past and we can see today that it has no real long-term significance. I have no particular opinion on any other micronations, every topic should be judged according to its own coverage in reliable sources. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In which Verdis has. If you think Verdis shouldn't have an article, then you should request a deletion or redirect for Liberland too, but I doubt other admins would support that. With all due respect, I don't think you understand that both of these micronations should have their own articles. Could a discussion/consensus be opened up on whether it can be turned into an article if that is potentially possible? If not, could we give the article a chance and revert it back to being an article instead of a redirect? I put in a lot of research to make that article. MicroSupporter (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the policies I've referenced, please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like the sole reason the article should be deleted. The micronation has notable status for what it is, a micronation. MicroSupporter (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That argument seems like a tautology. Your arguments should instead be based on the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article violated any policies or guidelines. If that were the case, then almost all micronations would be deleted from wikipedia. MicroSupporter (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for identifying the source of the material in your edit.

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved. Linking to the source article is also desirable.

I've noticed that this guideline is not very well known, even among editors with tens of thousands of edits, so it isn't surprising that I point this out to some veteran editors, but there are some t's that need to be crossed.S Philbrick(Talk) 12:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vidim da si vratio moj edit. Molio bih nekoga da netko preimenije naziv članka iz Zovi samo zovi u Oj Hrvatska mati jer postoji članak Oj Srbijo, mila mati [9] , jer netko je namjerno stavio naziv pjesme Zovi samo zovi tako da može ubacivati drugu različitu pjesmu za koji je već napravljen članak i koji nema veze sa Hrvatskom pjesmom. 89.172.10.241 (talk) 07:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mozete to objasniti na Talk:Zovi, samo zovi. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neću ništa tamo pisati i nisam brisao materijal koji ima izvora ,nego samo brisao materijal koji nema izvora.89.172.10.241 (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia je enciklopedija čije uređivanje podliježe pravilima ponašanja, u ovom slučaju radi se o onima koja su objašnjena na WP:EPTALK. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pravilo ponašanja je i da se mora staviti neki izvor gdje mogu to pročitati ,a ne da se dodaje bilo šta tako svatko može nešto napisati bilo što. Samo sam obrisao ono što nema izvora i mislim da je i to pravilo i da sam u pravu.89.172.10.241 (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trebao bi netko dati prijedlog da se taj naziv preimenuje u Oj, Hrvatska mati a ne zovi samo zovi jer tako joj je naziv pjesme. Srbi su svoju inačicu pjesme uredili kao članak i tamo se ne može ubaciti hrvatska inačica ,a ovdje je netko namjerno stavio takav naziv zovi samo zovi tako da može ubaciti i srbijansku inačicu koja je sasvim drugačija pjesma i nema veze sa hrvatskom. Ja ne mogu to mijenjat jer to ne znam i ne znam baš engleski za stranicu za razgovor da bih to drugima objasnio. Pa ako se slažeš sa mnom mogao bi ti dati prijedlog tamo i objasnit ,a ako se ne slažeš u redu nek bude tako , ali to po meni nije ispravno kako bi trebalo zapravo biti.89.172.10.241 (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Na Talk stranici tog članka se vidi kako su drugi korisnici spojili članke o tim pjesmama u jedan, i nema naznaka da to nisu napravili u dobroj vjeri; svakako se može ukloniti sadržaj koji nije citiran, ali bilo bi dobro da se raspravi zbog čega je to spajanje napravljeno. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nije u redu zašto je to spajanje napravljeno kad ima Oj Srbijo, mila mati [10] onda treba biti i Oj Hrvatska mati i stvar riješena svi zadovoljni. Ovako je netko namjerno tako ostavio sa zovi samo zovi, a tako se pjesma zapravo ne zove da se može ubaciti i ovo što sam obrisao što je bez izvora. 89.172.10.241 (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Našao sam još jednu grešku na engleskoj wikipediji kad su preimenovali hrvatski naziv prije 3 godine iz Nikola Šubić Zrinski u Nikola IV Zrinski [11], a ostavili mađarski naziv njegovog praunuka Miklós Zrínyi [12] ,a nisu ga promjenili u Nikola VII Zrinski i to nije u redu . Mislim da isto to netko treba promjeniti iz Miklós Zrínyi u Nikola VII Zrinski kad su već promjenili iz Nikola Šubić Zrinski u Nikola IV Zrinski.89.172.10.241 (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Joy I wanted to ask why you are removing the lead figures, I will correct the source of the page count by Enver Hoxha, but I see no reason to remove the others. They are mentioned here in the article Albanian 7 (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason is that in no other sources I used to write the article did I see such a pronounced mention of Enver Hoxha, to warrant a mention, let a lone an infobox mention that makes it stand out. And I mostly read Yugoslav-related sources, which would presumably not be shy to point out this kind of an irredentist intervention. Please see WP:UNDUE. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify if Jakov Lukarić or Giacomo Luccari refer equally to the bishop and the historian. If not there should be redirects to the relevant person. Inwind (talk) 09:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is in fact all of them. See the discussion at Talk:Jakov Lukarić that led to the creation of that page. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Joy, can you edit and keep an eye on this site [[13]], they are constantly deleting sources 93.138.100.222 (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Joy. I need some advice. While looking at a description of various Bosnian Muslim officials in the NDH, I noticed for many of them it is said they were Croatian politicians, with articles linking to the Republic of Croatia specifically. In some instances, the link is made to the Croats as an ethnic group. As far as my knowledge goes, Bosnian Muslims are generally not regarded as being ethnically Croats and describing certain NDH politicians as Croatian politicians, honestly seems a little off and out of touch. My thinking was that they should be described as Bosnian Muslim officials who served in the NDH. Do you have a take on this? Governor Sheng (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! What kind of disambiguating hatnote should be added to the Severin County page? I don't expect there will be a wiki article on Croatian Severin County (1778-1786), but I imagine someone may look for the term (I did) and stumble on the Romanian county page. Info on establishment and and abolition of the Croatian county is included in the Counties of Croatia page, but there's really little info to go about except that the county briefly existed. Hope everything's well. Cheers --Tomobe03 (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an afterthought: The Severin County was divided between Zagreb County and Hungarian Littoral (subsequently short-lived Riječka županija) and had its seat in Karlovac. It occurred to me a potential section on history of the present-day Primorje Gorski Kotar County or Karlovac County might have a reference to the Severin County - especially (maybe) the former. I noticed that the arms of the Severin County [14] are quite likely the basis/inspiration for the Primorje Gorski Kotar County. No such "history/forerunner section" exists right now in either of the two articles.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, makes no sense to have a red hatlink. What about a hatlink to a page section or to redirect leading to the same page section? I found this [15] to confirm that the present-day arms of the Primorje Gorski Kotar County is identical to the arms of the Rijeka County (1861-1868) and based on the arms of the Severin County, so a "Forerunner counties" section is possible at the PGŽ page. I would not add any such hatlink before such a section is in place.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While the Counties of Croatia provides a summary, there is potentially another way out without doing anything to the PGŽ article. I'm wondering if it would be better to cover Severin (1778-86), Rijeka (1861-66) and Rijeka-Modruš (1866-1922) in the latter article, or start an article on Hungarian Littoral as it fills the gap betwen the Severin and Rijeka counties, encompasses establishment of the Hungarian Littoral, a part of which was then organised as the Corpus Separatum. In that case, the Severin Co and Rijeka Co might be sections providing background and (a part of) legacy - the other part being the Corpus Separatum. I'm not quite sure how much development potential there is in the hypothetical HL article, but it appears it might provide at least a timeline for otherwise quite poorly covered (but later significant) period in the area. Thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks for the advice.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Julianne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Juliane.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to reach out and say I'm super glad the 216.x.x.x anonymous editor was rangeblocked. I feel it's hard to overstate the damage they made in Serbian history articles, and the years it'll take for someone to come along and clean it all up. Aleksamil (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You blocked Overthrow-dictator (talk · contribs) recently, who last edited on November 28 and then We stand for editing (talk · contribs) started in the same pattern on November 30. This was noted by the reporting user, at the bottom of User talk:We stand for editing. We stand for editing was asked, and will not answer. Is this grounds for a report at WP:SPI or what? I mean two concurrent accounts can't exist under these terms, but checkuser would be required, hence SPI, right? Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 04:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, never mind, we got it worked out as a coincidental misunderstanding. Sorry to bug ya, thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 02:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see your response at WP:Articles for deletion/Danilo (disambiguation) before it was closed. Though I'm still not sure how it's fundamentally different than Joseph (disambiguation). Nfitz (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewers are slow and one of them made a substantial mistake accepting changes by IP from Republika Srpska. For hours on the article of Luka Modrić can be read false information that his mother is an ethnic Serb, his grandfather wasn't killed by Serb rebels yet Yugoslav army and so on. This information cannot be verified in the cited reliable sources. These days the article has between 100,000-200,000 pageviews. Please accept my recent pending edit (it is pending because 5 minutes before an IP made a partial revert). Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again...

Do you know how to fix the title in Križančevo selo massacre, since Selo should be written in a capital S. Tried to move the article, but it's impossible. Governor Sheng (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, did you receive the notice about Talk:Dejan Lovren#Social views?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did, yes. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Joy,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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! PamD 12:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :) --Joy (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@In ictu oculi In general, I often observe WP:PTOPIC not being applied judiciously, I seem to see so many proposals where folks are overzealous in trying to short-circuit navigation, even when we have no real reason to think that the average reader is having trouble with less trivial navigation methods. Maybe we'll need to make an effort to temper the text of the guideline in order to clarify that. --Joy (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for the response. If a link to the dab page is the best option then this should be formatted per WP:INTDAB (ading (disambiguation) to the link otherwise it will still show up in the lists of links which need to be disambiguated and someone else will come along and do what I did.— Rod ^talk 19:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You could do [[Smiljan (disambiguation)|Smiljan (given name)]] which would take them to the same place, with no extra text for the reader. If there was a page at Smiljan (given name) obviously this wouldn't be needed, so it might be better just to create that.— Rod ^talk 20:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The editor continues to make disruptive WP:POINT edits ([16]) and personal attacks on me and scientists ([17]). 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I just saw your message on my page. WikiUserFromTheBalkans (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ima problem na ovoj stranici žele ostaviti nešto što ne piše u izvoru i što je napravio vandal [[18]] ,a u izvoru ne piše srpsko-hrvatski jezik samo hrvatski [[19]] ali oni uporno stavljaju nešto što ne piše pogledaj povijest uređivanja [[20]],nadam se da im možeš objasniti da moraju poštivati izvor. 93.143.79.158 (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]