User talk:Joy/Archive/2013

Translation request

Hi Joy, happy New Year. :-) Could I ask you a favour? I'm nominating Icelandic Phallological Museum for Today's Featured Article but would like to increase its score. It's only 5 languages off being a "widely covered" topic (you'll remember we had the same issue with Battle of Vukovar. Would you mind translating the stub article at User:Prioryman/Icelandic Phallological Museum summary for the Croatian wiki? Also, do you know anyone who might be able to translate it into the other South Slavic languages? Prioryman (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: User talk:BDD#Marko Mesić (soldier)

Hello, Joy. You have new messages at BDD's talk page.
Message added 21:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks

Thanks for fixing my stupid typo! bobrayner (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A question of socks

Hi,
Recently, several different articles have seen some problems with socks (or meatpuppets) who take a certain stance on recent Balkan history, but who are based in Canada. There have been several different ones. Can you remember if any of them were based in the Vancouver area? bobrayner (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Operation Storm (2)

Hi! You may have noticed I reworked a part of the Operation Storm article. I aim to have it ready for a FAR some time soon (probably following GAN - ACR - FAR path), but now I'm up against a potential snag. What's really left are the refugees and war crimes/trials and a largely unsourced section on "battle figures" before the lead, infobox, images, reference formatting etc are tackled. I know what to do with the battle figures, but I'm not so sure what's the best approach with the other two groups sections (refugees and war crimes/trials). They contain much redundant information and much information that is hardly relevant to the article - which lawyer did what and stuff like that. On the other hand, I am aware I'm about to enter a minefield as I'd like to condense the current info, leaving only what's relevant. Do you think it would be advisable to split off those two groups of sections into two new articles linked from this one with the main template? What would you recommend as their potential names? Or should I just go ahead and condense them? Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, I think I'll try to consolidate the information in my sandbox first and see what I come up with. I was thinking about setting up an article on Trial of Čermak, Gotovina and Markač (not necessarily alphabetizing defendants), as that might have a potential in its own right and the current trials section in the article at hand contains nothing but information on that trial. As far as refugees issue is concerned, I have no specific idea about it - but as I said, I'll see what turns up in the sandbox first.

On a side note - commons regrettably offers virtually zero images on the topic, and I don't expect fair use applies here - or am I wrong? I'm thinking of drawing SVG maps for specific dates in the timeline as SVGs. Placing specific units in correct positions should not be difficult given the detail supplied by sources, but do you have any suggestions regarding the background map that has a suitable licence?Using OSM map hardly makes any sense, and if nothing turns up blank locator maps normally in use on wiki may be the only option I have.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I'll take it a step at a time - I expect to have limited access to wiki the next week and a GA review of another article just began, so there'll be no rush on this one. Thanks for your advice.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. I located some non-free images that would be interesting to use in the article, but I'm anything but sure how to proceed on those. I posted a query at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, but please let me know if you have any thoughts on the matter. Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Yugoslavia timeline

Hello Joy,

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AYugoslavia_timeline&diff=531931803&oldid=531919540

The "{{{1|...}}}" meant that the parameter name "state=" needn't be included. Okay to put back? CsDix (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You have a new message at CsDix's talk page.

You have a new message at CsDix's talk page.

You have a new message at CsDix's talk page.

Croatia-Slovenia relations

Hello, Joy. You have new messages at Talk:Croatia–Slovenia relations.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GregorB (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Prompt reply

Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.

Please respect Wikipedia:Administrators policy and promptly reply to query about your conduct at Talk:Ottoman conquest of Bosnia and Herzegovina.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion would go much more smoothly without statements that needlessly personalize the issue. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply

I haven,t been editing Balkan-related articles in a disruptive way, or engaging in a inappropriate manor so you can "quit" the accusations! TRAJAN 117 (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Bosnjani

Hello! I think we understand each other wrong. I do not hate anyone and please do not accuse me for nationalistic behavior ok. The topic Gotovina: I do not mean this bad at that time, but I thought at the time that you may be write as a Croat eventual not neutral, because many do not. In the end, I've retired. It should be no attack. At all other issues of course I will respond very sensible. I'm sorry, i had no evil intentions. Best regards Joy.--Nado158 (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Your block of 213.103.161.12

Hi, what was your block of User talk:213.103.161.12 about? I only see two contributions from them, and it's not at all clear that the second is unambiguously vandalism. Were there other contributions that have been deleted? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Nado158

This user's edit history testifies of a state of mind clearly affected by POV, not least with regard to the user's ruthless deletion of the article content of Bosnjani. This user seems to have been previously mainly concerned with soccer-related articles but appears to have recently moved over to various contentious aspects of Balkan history; a subject matter with should always be approached with proper citations and overall finesse. Lately, user Nado158 has been engaged in an edit controversy on Republika Srpska where I am currently in effort of explaining that territorial Serb claims in 92 cannot be said, as per fact, to be based on the persecution of Serbs in WWII (resulting in their alleged minority). I managed to convince user:WhiteWriter of this by posting him/her demographic maps of Bosnia based on Astro-Hungarian and Yugoslav censuses and which clearly show that Bosnian Muslims comprised the majority in large areas of Eastern Bosnia even prior to WWII (and the persecution of Serbs in this period), however user Nado158 remains to be convinced of this (informed him/her only a few minutes ago). I would kindly like to ask you to visit the article on Republika Srpska where the controversy is currently revolving around the word allegedly. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Aqif Bluta

Mind taking a look at this puzzle? When starting the RM, I was aiming at a fact-checking debate, which given the latest-of-many instances since Peacemaker67's AE about Antid. won't happen and I doubt that anyone who might check it at RM will want to take part after a quick glance.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't looking for admin intervention but another view as regards the original request.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

help

Hello Joy,

Can you help at hr:Naglasak? I am trying to fix confused iw's across 60 projects, but the WP-hr article has been protected; that one project with disrupt all the rest. (At every other project, if I was reverted, I would explain myself and that would be the end of it. At WP-hr, however, I've been reverted 3x despite trying to explain myself on their talk pages. The confusion is accent = stress vs. accent = regional speech. It's a real mess.) Thanks, — kwami (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

User talk:213.103.161.156

I popped a template on there as you forgot to. Remember there are other admins out there if someone is attacking you; I would have given more than 24 hours if you had asked me. How are things? --John (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it was a pretty trivial bit of profanity from a person who changed IPs numerous times, so I used minimum length because it was more of a token effort. Enforcing policies isn't much fun. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it just me or?

As the headline says I have a feeling a certain member is possibly abusing Wikipedia by creating several accounts and basically trying to change them to fit his own personal agenda. The reason why I am writing this at your personal page is because I believe you have come across this person as did I. I have a reason to believe that the person behind the accounts SkepticalBiologist, Taktika and Amir071 are all the same person also posting under the IP of 67.248.128.225. Identical interest, identical rhetoric and identical aggressive behavior. Now I have no intention in arguing with him or cross-edit certain articles but I am fairly certain this is somehow against the Wikipedia policy. Is there something that could be done or we are powerless against his seamless destruction of the quality of various articles? Shokatz (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Rad (journal)

This is ridiculous. We have thousands of articles on academic journals and almost all of them have their homepage listed by means of an "official website" template. Are you going to change all those? Note that this is not a reference, it's the journal's homepage. --Randykitty (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Why are you insisting on saying that I'm linking the official website as a reference? I'm not doing that. I've explicitly added it to the external links section, not a Sources or References section. The fact that I'm using a citation template is a technicality, but a useful one - one that allows us to tag the language and the unique ID of the document. Why are you insisting on using the bland {{official website}} template? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I suggest then that you propose {{official website}} for deletion. For my edification, where does that mysterious "unique ID" come from? UDC is not an id listed in the doc of the cite web template. --Randykitty (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Why are you reducing this to absurdity? UDC is the Universal Decimal Classification. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks for telling me what UDC means. I had a look at our article on UDC, but I still don't get where the code that you added to the Rad website (061.12(05)) comes from, as I cannot find it on the Rad website itself. Is this perhaps your personal evaluation of this website? --Randykitty (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• • • • • When you click on the first link on the web site, Bibliografski opis izvornika ("Bibliographical description of the source"), http://katalog.hazu.hr/WebCGI.exe?Tip=Listic&Jbmg=000006&Baza=1 it says that, UDK in Croatian. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Wow, well hidden... Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Google translate gives "The work of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts" for "Rad Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti". Could it be that a more appropriate translation of this title would be "Proceedings of the Croation Academy of Sciences and Arts" (many journals published by national academies are called "proceedings")? --Randykitty (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It's possible, and I was actually looking for an official translation, but I wasn't able to find it, so I went with the short common foreign name. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely, I agree that the article title should be as it is, because the journal has no "official" English name. I was just wondering whether Proc would be a better translation to give in the article. "Work" to me sounds like this is a journal about labor... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 12:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Joy/Archive/2013,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC).

Operation Flash

Hi! Do you have any ideas regarding possible online or offline sources of photographs related to the Operation Flash? Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Croatian nationalism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Medieval Croatian state (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

A hatnote and two possible redirects

Hi! I just reworked a bit the Operation Winter '94, and I got two questions: Could you take a look a the Battle of Daugavpils? Since the Operation Winter redirects there, I placed a hatnote in the article, but I'm not quite sure if another type of hatnote should be used instead. The second bit is about Operations that followed the Winter '94 - Skok 1+2. There are few sources on those, but the Balkan Battlegrounds lists them as Leap 1 and Leap 2 and I expect that will inevitably be the name looked up by non-Croatian readers interested in the subject. In that vein, I added Leap 1 and 2 as sections to the Winter '94 following (cited in the article) reasoning of Gotovina. Now, there is a potential problem that someone someday might go after "Operation Jump 1" or 2... Should I create a redirect?--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

A small and quick favor

G'day Joy, I would like to ask you for a small favor, namely moving the article Bosnian Sanjak to Sanjak of Bosnia which is the slightly more accurate title in English, while "Bosanski Sandzak" is the more common in BSC. Compare with Sanjak of Smederevo for example. I'd do it myself but the title in question has already been used up by a redirect. Thanks. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

List_of_World_War_I_memorials_and_cemeteries_in_Champagne-Ardennes

Hi

You have added two tags to the above.

On the question of verification I will revisit the article and see where I can add citations to substantiate what I have written.

The article is indeed long this relecting the amount of activity in this area in the Great War.

What I propose to do is create two articles.

List_of_World_War_I_memorials_and_cemeteries_in_Champagne-Ardennes- West of Reims List_of_World_War_I_memorials_and_cemeteries_in_Champagne-Ardennes- Reims and east of Reims.

I would then divide the article into parts.

Here I would appreciate your help as creating the new article "List_of_World_War_I_memorials_and_cemeteries_in_Champagne-Ardennes- Reims and east of Reims" would not be a problem but "List_of_World_War_I_memorials_and_cemeteries_in_Champagne-Ardennes- West of Reims" would be the rump of the old article but would need renaming. I am not sure how to do this and suspect that only an administrator could do this.

Please let me know that you would do this. I would then make the changes and when this is done I shall let you know so that you could effect the change of article name.

Many thanks

Weglinde (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Srbobran, Vukovar

Hi. It seems that the Vukovar Cyrillic problem is going to spill over to Wikipedia [1]. It's a followup from my recent involvement at Srbobran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and harrasment on my talk page [2][3][4].

For the record, I would support addition of Cyrillic into Vukovar articles, but it's a rather sensitive topic and the moment, and I'd prefer a calm discussion and a riddance of aggressive IPs first. Not that I'm bothered too much... No such user (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

help find sources project

Hello Joy, last time we discussed on the Template_talk:Primary_sources. This time I seek for your comments on my drafted IEG grant proposal here m:Grants:IEG/find_sources_2.0. The basic idea is to enhance source-finding and thus citing practices for contributors old and new by providing lists of online and offline resources and some basic general description on the nature of the sources in these resources (per general research/librarian perspective and per WP policies WP:PSTS WP:V WP:RS.

I hope that you will can provide comments to improve the grant proposal. Thanks. --_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 00:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

IP Vandal

Hi, I think that this IP [5], [6] associated with this Sockpuppet_investigations/Oldhouse2012--Sokac121 (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Da da ajde pokušaj da me zabraniš možda ti i uspe.

24.135.73.223 (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous user 94.189.197.200 few days ago on articles about Croatian football clubs in Zemun (HŠK Zemun, HŠK Dunav, HŠK Hajduk...) edited history (he changed some informations although they are there since 2009) calling it Ustasha propaganda. He also told that Croats are liars and for Croatian Wikipedia he told it is Nazi propaganda. After my reaction on his edits, he started with writting of nonsense mesages on my talk page. He told that my opinions are sick, hideous and Ustasha. Few days every day he wrote something like that on my talk page. Pinnacle of his insolence was vandal deed, by which he wrote on my user page that I am Ustasha. Now I see he is already mentioned here because of his edits on article Zemun, where he also "edited history" although facts are sourced. He should be blocked because it is evident that he is problematic user. --IvanOS 16:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Pa zabrani me onda,šta čekaš?What I wrote is true and I stand behind these statements.Many Croats here lie, and post progandada.Croatian Wikipedia is a Nazi Wikipedia because they mention the liberation of Zemun and east Syrmia from Ustashas under quotation marks.They also lie how Serbs made Croats leave Zemun which are lies.Then they lied how Zemuin is undeveloped even thouh it is one of the most developed municipalities of Belgrade and Serbia.They lie also when they say that Croats formed the majority in Zemun before WW2.Zvonko Bogdan is a Bunjevac and Bunjevci people are not Croats.Also Ivan used ethnic slurs and wrote "Serbs lie and make things up".If I get blocked the only reason would be the fact I am a Serb.Isto stoji što sam i rekao za ovog Šokca,čovek zaslužen za širenje hrvatske i to lažne propagande a osoba čak ni ne zna engleski što je očigledno uzmimo samo na primer njegovu gornju rečenicu "Hi, I think that this .... associated with this"

24.135.73.223 (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I've just come up on this guy today since I am following certain articles like Bunjevci and Zvonko Bogdan due to history of vandalism on those pages. I've also checked his edits and came up also on the Zemun article where he deleted a great part of a sub-section of the article claiming it's "unreferenced' although it was fully referenced. And now he just wrote on my page he deleted it because it's supposed "Croatian propaganda" despite the fact the section mentions Croats only peripherally (and only once and in the same line with Serbs). This person is becoming a serious problem. I will deter myself from going into edit war with him since it's beneath me. The pages he edit wars on seem to be all Vojvodina related. His IPs he edited with recently are IP 24.135.66.10, IP 24.135.73.223 and from observing edits on Zemun article it may be possible both are IP's of the user "Nado158". I think all the pages he edit war's should be locked for a short while and he reported for making clones and edit warring. Shokatz (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Skupile se ustaše pa pokušavaju da me blokiraju.ne budi pič*ka uradi to,čekam.

24.135.66.10 (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

G'day, reported as sock of Oldhouse2012 here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oldhouse2012. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

thank you for edits to Turopolje pig btw. Steven Walling • talk 23:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sigh...

Hello. Can you please protect the Franjo Tudjman page again...possibly for a longer period, a month or so....because I am getting tired of reverting crap from a anon user. Shokatz (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Pop Express

Well, I saw the expression "former Yugoslav" on numerous articles (mostly about pop and rock acts), and I've been using it for years in similar articles. As you wish; I don't think it's redundant, but I also don't think it makes a big difference. Ostalocutanje (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Tuđman

Vidim da si iz Hrvatske, po mogu na našem, iz članka Laž je da Tuđman 'izbacio' Srbe iz Ustava:

U tom se intervjuu ponavlja navodna rečenica predsjednika Tuđmana da je „sretan što mu supruga nije ni Srpkinja ni Židovka“. Nisam uživo slušao govor u kojem je navodno to izjavio, niti sam imao priliku pogledati njegovu snimku, no nedavno sam pročitao transkript govora predsjednika (tada samo predsjednika stranke) Tuđmana 16. travnja 1990. na predizbornom središnjem skupu HDZ-a u Zagrebu za Dubravu – Sesvete, u kojem se u govoru spominju „Židovka i Srpkinja“ te objašnjenje značenja rečenice u kojoj se one spominju. Dakako, taj transkript pokazuje da takvu rečenicu („sretan sam“) Franjo Tuđman nije izgovorio, pa budući da među „milijun“ podataka o Domovinskom ratu koje treba preslušati ili pročitati još nisam naišao na neki drugi predsjednikov govor o spomenutome, sve koji citiraju rečenicu - „Sretan sam da mi supruga nije ni Srpkinja ni Židovka“ – molim da mi navedu mjesto i vrijeme kad je ona u tom obliku izgovorena.

Izvrtanje Tuđmanovih riječi

Naime, u spomenutom govoru od 16. travnja 1990. predsjednik Tuđman rekao je: "Danas šire kojekakve druge laži, ne znam što će još izmisliti. Čuo sam da sam židovskog podrijetla, a ja sam pronašao, znao sam za svoje pretke u Zagorju prije tamo 350 godina, i rekao sam, možda bi bilo dobro da imam nešto toga, valjda bi bio bogatiji, možda ne bi bio postao komunist. Onda, kad nije to dosta, onda mi pronalaze u supruzi čas Židovku, čas Srpkinju. Na moju sreću, ni jedno ni drugo nikad nije bila, kao što mnogima takve jesu. I tako dalje i tako dalje šire laži ..."

U raščlambi spomenute rečenice, u svojoj novoj knjizi prof. dr. sc. Miroslav Tuđman navodi da je ta „sporna“ izjava "bila usmjerena protiv službenih definicija zbilje i načina kako je funkcionirao komunistički poredak", odnosno da je ona "kritika službene kadrovske politike kojom se osiguravalo funkcioniranje komunističke Jugoslavije", te da je "očito da u toj izjavi nema nikakva negativnoga stava prema Židovima, niti je smisao i sadržaj izjave usmjerene protiv Židova ili Srba" (o tome vidi: M. Tuđman, Programiranje istine – rasprave o preraspodjelama društvenih zaliha znanja, Zagreb, 2012., str. 90-96).

S obzirom na to da će, usprkos tome što je riječ o znanstvenom pristupu, neki prof. M. Tuđmanu pripisati obiteljsku pristranost u ovom slučaju, donosim i zapažanje književnika S. Mijovića Kočana: "Nisam njegov 'advokat', ali istine radi: kad je rekao da je uspio iako mu 'žena nije ni Srpkinja ni Židovka', to je u ušima dežurnih lovaca na Hrvate kao nacionaliste doista ružnu zazvučalo. I zbog toga su na nj u Haagu moguće bili posebno narogušeni. Stvar je, međutim, u ovome: ako bi neki Hrvat oženio inovjerku, Srpkinju ili Židovku, već to je značilo da nije nacionalist i u svemu je napredovao u socijalističko vrijeme. ... Srpkinje su oženili i Tito i Krleža i Šuvar itd., a Tuđman, koji nije bio oslobođen taštine, uspio je i bez toga! Srbin mu je, inače, rođeni unuk, i silno ga je volio, a Židov je bio njegov prvi ministar gospodarstva ... I tu su, dakle, optužbe neosnovane." (Stijepo Mijović Kočan, „Predgovor“ u: J. Pečarić, Rasizam svjetskih moćnika, Zagreb, 2012., str. 22)

Priznajem da sam do uvida u navedeni transkript govora predsjednika Tuđmana od 16. travnja 1990., na temelju pisanja i izjava raznih osoba u medijima, bio uvjeren da je smisao te rečenice zaista bio u onih par navodno citiranih riječi „sretan sam što mi supruga nije...“, koje zapravo, predsjednik Tuđman u svom govoru nije ni izgovorio. I ovaj primjer pokazuje koliko je potrebno cjelovito prikazati izvor, a onda donositi zaključke. Predsjednika Tuđmana nisam imao priliku osobno upoznati i ne znam kakva je stajališta o tom pitanju iznosio u razgovorima koji nisu bili javni, niti sam ikada bio u njegovoj stranci (niti u bilo kojoj drugoj) pa nemam ni „obvezu“ da ga po „stranačkoj liniji“ bezrezervno branim, no činjenica je da Franjo Tuđman zaista nije izgovorio tu rečenicu. Također, bez obzira na to što će netko misliti o interpretacijama spomenutog govora koje donose M. Tuđman i S. Mijović Kočan, činjenica je da bi tek postojanjem još nekog govora u kojem je predsjednik Tuđman zaista izgovorio rečenicu - „sretan sam da mi supruga nije ni Židovka ni Srpkinja...“ (koja mu se pripisuje) – njihova objašnjenja da je zapravo želio reći kako je uspio usprkos tome što ne živi u mješovitom braku, postala neuvjerljiva, a dvojba što je predsjednik Tuđman zaista rekao (i mislio) o tome bila bi rješena u korist onih koji je interpretiraju kao govor mržnje.

Možda sam krivo preveo one citate, možda ti možeš poraditi na tome. Uglavnom, sve se svodi na to da Tuđman to nije rekao protiv Srba nego protiv Jugoslavije, tj. protiv mješanih brakova. On je rekao da je uspio bez partijski poželjnog braka, a unuka (znači unuka, ne sina! dakle žena Ankica je Hrvatica) je silno volio. Lijep pozdrav! hr:Suradnik:Mostarac --93.180.122.94 (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement_by_SMcCandlish's talk page., at bottom. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 00:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Joy, do we have a MOS guideline, discussion on this somewhere? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Hi, I'm contacting you because you have recently contributed as a reviewing administrator to WP:AE. I've made a suggestion relating to the management of that page at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Structural improvements to AE threads, and would appreciate your input. Thanks,  Sandstein  22:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hatnote again

Hi! Could you please see what kind of hatnote is needed at the Operation Tiger (1992). Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Usurpation on de-WP

Hi! I renamed Joy-temporary to Joy. I got a strange error message, so please try if the account is usable. Regards, FritzG (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sicels, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mycenean (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Anglicization

Hello
You made some comments in the discussion here that have me a little confused; can I ask you what you meant?
You said to Kaffner (In reply to n his comment that Belgrade was a pre-WWI spelling) that Belgrade was an anglicization, but to SMcCandlish that Medjugorje wasn’t (although it is also based on an older spelling). And you said to me it isn’t an English name (anglicization?) but a widely used transcription; and a wholly foreign word, but not one like Munich or Danube.
I am wondering; do you have a different understanding of the term anglicization than myself? Can you tell me what you mean by it? Otherwise I’m wondering if we have been at cross-purposes in this discussion.
I had understood anglicization to refer to any adaptation of a non-English term to a more “English” form, be it a change in pronunciation (like Paris), or use of accents (Dusseldorf) and modified letters (Azores), or spelling (Moscow), or using a different word altogether (Everest). I can see that an English name (ie the name used in English) may be different from the local name but not necessarily an anglicization, if (for example) the English name is based on an older version of the local name, or (more questionably) on a non-local foreign name (like Ypres, the French name for the Flemish Ieper, but which widely is used in English)
Is that what you meant? Or was it something else? Moonraker12 (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Ahh! I thought I’d read that Medjugorje (though presumably pronounced Medyugoriye (or therabouts!)) was the spelling in the 19th century, which was adopted (with only a change of pronunciation) into English; your comment about ancient Serbo-Croat typrewriters seemed to confirm it. It makes a bit more sense now. Thanks! Moonraker12 (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

A couple prods

Hi Joy, I just wanted to let you know that I contested a couple prods you put up (Longarus of the Delmatae, Bato of Dalmatia) because they seemed to require discussion. BUT what I missed in the IP's post (because it wasn't explicitly stated and I'm a touch slow, apparently) was that the reason for deletion is really that these stubs are redundant to existing articles. But I don't know deletion policy ... should I undo myself and then second your nomination with further explanation of your proposal? Or should these now be nominated fir deletion? Thanks  davidiad { t } 05:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think these require discussion and I don't think your interpretations are wrong ... but I did think discussion was needed when I first saw the discussion and PRODs and wasn't sure if now I could just undo my removal of the PROD tags or if this was frowned upon or something: I can never tell around here, hence my questions. I've just gone ahead and reverted myself. Please let me know if that was wrong. Best  davidiad { t } 16:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

... and Bato's been de-prodded again: not by me this time.  davidiad { t } 22:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

2 questions

1) I think I finally figured out what you try to explain me with reference formatting. I have just one question. Can I do anything with websites which can not be accessed anymore? 2) Where can I report IvanOS behavior? After his last temporarily blockade ended he again began to remove my edits under some kind of silly excuse that they are "unnecessary". First he did it on March 8. I returned previous version, but today he did it again this time claiming that it is "unnecessary, minority names outside infobox". I am not malicious, I will not be happy if he is permanently blocked, but I want to find an effective way to stop this mutual depletion.--MirkoS18 (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Bugle interview

Hi Joy. The Bugle newsletter runs a semi-regular interview series where we ask various editors to discuss a particular topic. Our next interview aims to bring together editors working on subjects related to the Former Yugoslavia. Would you be interested in adding your views to the questions here? Our goal is to despatch this edition by say 20 March, so if you can respond in the next week or so, that'd be great. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for answering some of those questions. I notice you didn't get through all of them -- we do need to despatch the issue today, but if you'd like to add further responses, even shortly after the issue has gone out (say later today or early tomorrow), please feel free! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy note

• AN/I link
• block notice

Hi Joy. If you feel something should be changed here or altered in any way, I'll have no objections what-so-ever. Also, if there's some sort of AE paperwork I need to fill out, could you drop me a link to the places and procedures. I was just trying to sort out some disruption and it just so happened to be an AE thread that you were working on. Cheers — Ched :  ?  03:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of rulers of Illyria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Artas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation of nothing?

Hi! I know this might be nitpicking, but are years necessary in titles of the Croatian independence referendum, 1991 and Croatian European Union membership referendum, 2012 to disambiguate the articles?--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

AC/DS comments requested

Hi, as an administrator who has recently been active at WP:AE, you may be interested in AGK's request for comments at User talk:Sandstein#Draft of discretionary sanctions update.  Sandstein  15:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Možeš li kod članka Šokci They are not considered a separate ethnicity in Croatia[1] and elsewhere, while in Serbia they are. navesti da ih država Srbija smatra posebnom skupinom, ali da oni sebe u Srbiji smatraju etničkom grupom Hrvata što je zapravo i istina.--Sokac121 (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Serbs infobox

Still not sure why there has to be a discussion with IPs regarding the use of sites like "Serbian Unity" and "Krajina Force" which miraculously add 1.5 mil to the total number but some comment from an admin (or just in the capacity of the neutral user) is in order[7].--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

It is there for Serbo-nationalist editors to manipulate it while other users have a job to find it. Best flush it fast and ban the users who contributed to it. Neutral Fair Guy (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Serbian war crimes in World War II

Category:Serbian war crimes in World War II, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Karen Friedman

Hi Joy, in case you aren't watching the page, please see my reply on Talk:Karen Friedman#re-creation as redirect. Regards, Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 19:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Filipović, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Filip (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Vance plan

Hi! Could you please have a look at what type of hatnote is needed at the Vance plan page, and if something should be added at Geneva Accord and/or pages linked in a hatnote there. Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi! Would you be interested in working with me to see the Operation Storm pass a FAC and possibly reach the main page by August? I have had no successful FA noms so far, but I hope that successful MILHIST A-class review, some tweaks advised by reviewers and your experience gained during the Battle of Vukovar FAC might make the difference. The tweaks I mentioned entail use of a different acronym for RSK military (suggested at an unrelated GAR) and daily battlefield maps (suggested at the ACR). The former is a fairly simple affair and the latter should not take too much effort as those are nearly ready for upload. Any thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Joy. You have new messages at Iadrian yu's talk page.
Message added 11:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Adrian (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Balkan Butcher

Someone returned Ante Pavelić to the new, but disputed, Butcher of the Balkans disambig page. I linked your comments for his grounds of removal that you posted at the Ante Pavelić talkpage, but this appears to have been ignored. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 01:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

HVO

What do you recommend about doing with the Croatian Defence Council article? The entire article exists of original research derived from primary sources and makes numerous bold claims. I'm keen on removing it. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent log entry in WP:ARBMAC

Hello Joy. Regarding 217.169.210.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If you are convinced that this user can't edit neutrally regarding the former Yugoslavia, you might consider leaving them an ARBMAC warning. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If you already warned him, then it ought to show up in WP:ARBMAC's log of warnings. This record of bad behavior should be enough for a topic ban from the area of former Yugoslavia. A rangeblock is also something to consider. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Joy

I haven't spoken to you in a while, thought I'd to drop by and say hello! I hope you're doing well. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly my point, why not break away from the seriousness every once in a while. Wikipedia is ment to be fun after all and what better way is there than surprising fellow editors with courteous visits. When you speak of nationalistic edits, I cannot help but to assume they relate to the Balkans. One comes to wonder if the renaissance completely missed out on this small corner of the world - so close to Rome and Paris and yet so far (and I get away with saying that due to partial Balkan descent). Anyways, I'm happy your doing fine and I do sincerely appreciate your contributions for several reasons. Keep up the good work. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 00:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Personalization

In a recent post at ANI, you used the words "How do you know that most of those edits" when I think what you meant was "How do we know that most of those edits". Well we can check them. But I do a lot of WP:RCP and find it hard to believe that a vandal only or attack only person is going to make thousands of edits without getting blocked for a month at a time if not longer. Just for giggles, I will take a look at a few of their edits. They are not an editor I am familiar with or have worked on any articles with that I recall, but I do recall them from my own run in with WP:AN, when an attempt was made to block everyone who thought that I was not at fault, in a typical witch hunt. Apteva (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I actually meant you in particular, because it was you who argued this in that particular discussion. I agree it also applies generally, obviously. I'm not sure why you'd think that's "personalization" - you said something, so it's natural for me to have to ask you to explain it. I haven't seen the other discussion you mention, but I have to say that if there was such a witchhunt, it should have been dealt with then and there, and you shouldn't feel obliged to defend any of those people now if you haven't had any other contact with them. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Anything that applies to one of us applies to all of us. I would not have brought this up if I did not think that you were (inappropriately) trying to single out a single editor. While there is a great deal more latitude there than most places, the point is that personalization of a discussion does not really help matters. The issue is not whether I think their edits are any good but if their edits are any good. Most of us come and go at random intervals. I see some editors who pop back in after an absence of years. By directing our comments at the issue instead of at each other we can carry on a better discussion of the issue. For example A says something. Then disappears never to be seen again. B says but A, have you considered this. A never sees this, and everyone else is waiting for A to respond. Instead of this, if A says something, and B directs their reply not to A, but to the issue, then C, who happens by instead of A, can respond, and the issue can be addressed. It is just a rule of participation that works better than to direct comments as if this was a chat room we were all in. Even if a clarification is needed, a better way to express it is, I wonder if any of their edits over the last year have been any good or I doubt any of their edits have been any good, instead of asking me. As to defend anyone. I do not take sides. My only objective is to find a better way of dealing with problem editors than to just indef everyone. Apteva (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming from your copying back my comment here that you expect an answer here. The issue with that editor is personal, it's not general. Numerous editors have noticed the issue, as did I recently at WP:AE when they made numerous inappropriate interjections. Because they've contributed so much bile, there's nothing to be gained from being excessively courteous. When someone's been temporarily blocked four times in a period of a few months, and then gets blocked again by two admins as soon as a discussion on whether their overall contribution is a net positive, it is not inappropriate to have that discussion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello

I need your help with something. I want to create a page titled 'Hajde da se volimo (film series) about the 3 films made between 1987 and 1990 starring Lepa Brena... but I don't know how to add redirects (if that's the correct terminology.) so if somebody searches for Hajde da se volimo 2 or Hajde da se volimo 3 it would redirect them to the Hajde da se volio (film series) wiki --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks... I've created the page (Hajde da se volimo (film series)) - it's a work in progress but I still couldn't figure out how to create the redirects - helppp--DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

What?

Regarding your "What?" at WP:AE, when Evlekis posted a similar complaint at WP:ANI the first response was WP:BOOMERANG, and since your response also mentioned it he came to the only reasonable conclusion: there must be a conspiracy to protect Bob. Sædon^talk 01:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Potkonje

Hi Joy. Would you be interested in helping the translation department? This article has been written in Croatian and is now waiting for attention. Regards, De728631 (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Vukovar

Sorry I just wanted to add something not included on my reply in talk page. Qualifiers and similar adjectives don't generally belong on an encyclopedia nor do labels. That's why I removed terms like "hardline" and "extreme" before nationalist. 'Nationalist' is good enough. I'm well aware that sources could use these terms just as they can speak of dictators and tyrants but we're not allowed to go using them on main articles. On top of that, no source worth a cent can be taken as "academic" in whether Joe Bloggs is an "extreme" nationalist or an "ultra" nationalist because it is mere commentary by the editor. Actual accounts that look into his "nationalism" as opposed to someone else's is fair enough, but even then, it clearly never needed to be mentioned on that over-subscribed article. If we keep the points plain, we present a true encyclopedia entry, if we add qualifiers "as per source" we clutter the page with verbiage aimed at promoting the viewpoint of the writer. Me on the other hand, I don't deny the nationalism aspect from both parties. Thanks Joy. Staro Gusle (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I can't disupte it if that is what it says, my point is whether it is necessary and whether its addition improves the article or even gives new information thats its removal loses. If you want those terms, go ahead and puit them back as I am not going to remove them a third time. My option would be to dispute the word "extreme" itself and that would bemuse any reader who will think "what on earth is the point in this?". Never mind :) ! Staro Gusle (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Could you take a look and comment on the diffs of Staro Gusle and Evlekis that I provided at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Deleting_sourced_material_the_Weight_of_chains? It's wedged between UV's silly tirade and a bit difficult to see. I find the account's creation, editing pattern, origination from the UK, and Evlekis' sudden absence highly suspicious. It's a case of WP:DUCK IMO. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 10:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

possible new Groubani

Can you please have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Plumoyr? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been around. This seems to be moot now. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

UNCRO move

Hi! I just tried to move the United Nations Confidence Restoration Operation article to United Nations Confidence Restoration Operation in Croatia per article talk, but then I saw notification that I should ask an administrator to do that for me. Therefore, could you please make that move? Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Orthogonal

Huh? I have been told that where editors have been edit warring the talk page should include the template for the DS. How exactly are Balkans DS at "right angles" to the WikiProject? And which WP are you talking about? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Choice of an appropriate article title

Hi! Could you please provide feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Suitable name for a campaign? I posted at WP:MILHIST talk page since the issue largely falls within the project scope, but I trust you might provide a good advice too.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Since we're on the topic of appropriate titles, Operation Coast-91 seems to be quite off the mark too.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Cookies!

	Here's a plate full of cookies to share!
	Hi Joy/Archive/2013, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! WhiteWriterspeaks 14:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

age

Do you know what the word "age" means? There is an old Bosnian folk song called "Vino piju age Sarajljije"... I know that most of what it means "The ____ Sarajevans Drink Wine" but i don't know what "age" means and couldn't find a translation anywhere online. I was going to add it to the songs list the sevdalinka wiki -- I've kinda picked that up as a project right now... first i made a couple wikis for songs like Sejdefu majka buđaše and Moj dilbere, then drastically edited and stretched out wikis for singers like Ibrica Jusić, Himzo Polovina, Hanka Paldum and Asim Brkan (I'm hoping to get to work on Zehra Deović and Safet Isović soon too) --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.

Hi Joy. Thanks for your help here. Now i hope the querying user finds it and is able to add an article on the mountain. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 08:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a stub. Confident in that?

Greetings Joy.

I noticed that you removed the 'stub' notification from the Stari Mikanovci article, now personally I'm not sure if I agree because the article only contains one source but what I came here for is because if I wonder if you were confident in that decision, say, confident enough to back it up if someone were to ask Wikiproject Croatia to reassess the article? If not then would you have a problem with me readding the stub template?

Regards. MIVP (I Can Help? ◕‿◕) - ^{(Chocolate Cakes)} 08:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Joy. You have new messages at Matticusmadness's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I didn't see anything saying that you don't want TBs on your page and I wasn't sure if you're watching mine so yeah, there's a reply waiting for you oh wise administrator ◕‿◕ Heh heh (no sarcasm, I promise!) MIVP (I Can Help? ◕‿◕) - ^{(Chocolate Cakes)} 12:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library

Hi Joy! I ran across your interview in The Bugle about library resources. You mentioned an obstacle to you participating, and I was curious if you had any specific suggestions or issues. I'm always trying to streamline the process. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope, no application from you. The account criteria are automatic with a 1 year old account and 1000 edits. People just added details to show they were active and had use for them. You can add as little or as much detail as you like. You should apply! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You can try any of the links in the WP:TWL navbox. Questia you can definitely get, and HighBeam within a few weeks. JSTOR and Credo are all used up right now, but may open later. You can still sign up for them and be placed on a waiting list. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Restructuring an article

Hi! Since the talk page a the operation Coast-91 drew no responses from editors other than you, I thought to give you a heads up: I thought some more about the article and concluded that:

• The "Operation Coast-91" is clearly an erroneous title for the article
• The JNA strategic plan included relief/securing of Zadar and Šibenik barracks/bases/whatnot
• There already is the Battle of Šibenik (1991) article (not sure why the disambiguation is there though)

Since the plan entailed efforts aimed at Zadar and Šibenik, and since the two actions took place in distinct periods of time, I trust it would be the best to move Šibenik-related material to the existing Šibenik article and rename what's left as the Battle of Zadar.

Naturally, both articles should encompass related activities (i.e. capture of Drniš is relevant to Šibenik and capture of Maslenica Bridge area is relevant to Zadar and so forth). What do you think about such course of action. I'd like to expand and reference those articles shortly, but the current structure, especially the "Coast-91" makes it impossible to add anything except to say what the codename really referred to (planned relief of Šibenik barracks in Nov-Dec 1991).--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright. I already moved the Šibenik article to the same title without disambiguating year marking as there's nothing remotely requiring disambiguation, and I plan to move there all Šibenik-related matters from the "Coast-91", renaming the rest to the "Battle of Zadar" per MILMOS. I plan to get to that shortly, right now I'm just getting ready (research done) on the Operation Vihor which is largely incomplete and poorly referenced. On a related note to "Vihor" - I plan to move Operation Otkos 10 to Operation Swathe 10 and to move Operation Orkan 91 to Operation Hurricane 91 since English language literature uses that term and per WP:USEENGLISH. As far as "Vihor" is concerned, the only English language source I found on the offensive - and that one only mentioning it briefly - refers to the offensive as Operation Vihor (Whirlwind). Now, I'm at odds whether that's sufficient to justify "Operation Whirlwind" title (also per UE) or not. Then again, there's matter of consistency - if all others offensives are named in English, shouldn't Vihor become Whirlwind too since the English source (Balkan Battlegrounds) offers that option?--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No, Mistral and HR "Maestral" are not the same type of wind, it's just that the words are similar and I trust the current "translation" was made by an editor not quite in command of English. Mistral is actually similar to "Bura" in both strength and direction. Then again, if sufficient number of sources referred to the operation as "Op Mistral" that's not open for a discussion really (although an explanatory note might be considered). For instance CIA's quite extensive Balkan Battlegrounds refers to the operation, IMO quite correctly, as Operation "Maestral" (Breeze). If you like, I'll have a look at the sources normally employed by FAs for that.

On a further note, the Operation Maestral is categorized as a battle of the Croatian War of Independence - IMO quite incorrectly - even though it was fought far from Croatian borders. Would you support removal of the article from the category? Perhaps it would be wise to have a category on HV battles in the BiH.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The Coast-91 is rearranged now as proposed. I plan to tackle the Zadar bit first, then move on to Šibenik - but this will have to wait until tomorrow as I'll be quite busy IRL today afternoon and overnight. A whole lot of articles point to the Op Coast-91 though and those will take time to disentangle, although I'm hoping that the links largely stem from navboxes. I added a referenced note of the actual Operation Coast-91 in the Battle of Šibenik for clarification though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

RFD notice

Several years ago, you created Craftmanship, which is currently a redirect to Handicraft. I've nominated it at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 May 27 for retargeting, since the identical concept of Craftsmanship has a different target. Your input to help decide the proper target for both titles would be appreciated. Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Samir Barać

Hi Joy, can you correct Samir Barać's surname? It ends with ć and not with č as it is now [8]. Ime i prezime: Samir BARAĆ, [9], [10].--Rovoobo Talk 06:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. I've done it. Didn't know anybody can just do the moves.--Rovoobo Talk 07:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hanlon's razor may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Diana Budisavljević may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Opinion sought

Hi. Could you please venture an opinon here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trial of Gotovina et al. I already posted there, but I have next to no experience on the AFDs. Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hm, never stumbled upon that before. Thanks for the heads up - won't do (again).--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

ankete

Šta se hdz koalicija ne zove kukulele koalicija? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuvixer (talk • contribs) 22:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Tesla reverting

Per your message[11] about this edit, the reasons were given in the edit summary re: all the material added was redundant (already covered in the article), un-referenced, incorrect (Tesla did not work at Edison's laboratory, George Westinghouse did not "buy" Tesla’s patents), nonsensical (labeling a section about many topics "War of the Currents"), WP:PEACOCK, and a WP:COPYVIO (parts copied in whole from http://www.b92.net/eng/special/tesla/life.php?nav_id=36437). Your edits were included in that cleanup because they were, again, redundant (this exchanged is already noted in the second footnote in the article), WP:PEACOCK (famous?), and seems to be needlessly nationalistic with no reliable sources to establish if this was famous or even notable in Tesla's life. I have RM'ed the para to talk for discussion. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Bulcsú László

Molim Te liepo Joy daj mi objasni, pa zakaj ste vsi tako žustro odlučili izbrisati i zaniekati pravo Bulcsi na članek. Pa človjek je jeden od najpoznatijih (do duše i najvantočnijih (controvesus)) hrvatskih jezikoslovcih. Človjek ima pravo na članek, to da li se vi (Ti i Štambuk, ali bilo tko drugi) slažete s njegovimi pogledimi na Hrvatski jezik ali ne. Krivo je to kaj ovo zavzima smjernicu politique. Moja namjera nije širiti nekše moje poglede na jezik (s kojimi se ti moreš slagati ali ne), nego samo dati starom človjeku (koji je svojim djelom to većkrat zaslužil) za pravo da ima članek koji le nekako opisuje njegovo življenje.

Vi pišete da on nije (kot naučenjak) dovoljno poznat ali priznat da bi imel pravo na članek. V redu, malo njegovih zamisli je zaživjelo (ponajveć cjeć njegove vantočnosti i žustrosti), nu kot rječotvorec njegovi su doprinosi pače v široj porabi i to v "standardnom" jeziku (ozvuka, uzmak, računalo, upravljalo/upravljač, odašiljanje, suosnik, sučelje, zaporka, prienos/prienosnik...), on dapače samo na osnovi toga kaj je većjezičen (polyglot) on ima pravo na članek, ar stvarno riedko tko govori 40 jezikah, ter je jen od riedki ljudi kaj uobće govori lišānum akkadītum. Pa človjek je prazamahnik strojnog prievojenja, i to se ne more zaniekati ali umanjiti.

Znaš i sam kako je težko vire najti, nu viri koji su postavljeni su već ali manje dobri, i dokazuju njegovo djelo i postojanstvo. Zato prosim Te liepo i Tebe i Štambuka da se odmaknete od svojih ideologies politiques i zastvarno dogledate stvarno stanje. Da ne bi izpali ono protiv česa se najveć borite.

S poštovanjem, nu žalostno kaj uobće to moram pisati Slavić (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Δεν γράφω στα αγγλικά, λόγω της αμετρίαστος χοληδόχου

Stjepan Damjanović, Stjepan Babić, Ivo Pranjković, Dorjana Širola, Milena Žic-Fuchs i ostali polupismenjaci... čime su oni zaslužili članek? po čemu su njihovi doprinosi većji od Bulcsovih? pa ti ljudi komaj hrvatski znaju (ma kaj, ni jeden ga ne zna, ali se le pravi). Hotjel ti to ali ne ovo je čista discriminatia par excellence. Ovaj človjek prievodi klinopise a ovi navedeni se ne znaju ni prav podpisati. - Sramota! Nigdar nebu v megli Spomenika imal kaj nigdar je ne s klimavcima klimal. - ni tak'?

Znaš kaj, stvarno ne mrem već, nimam već snage, djelajte kaj hoćete, obrišite članek, uživajte i nima već potežkoć, pak' naj vse ide v vražju mater. Mislim stvarno אמן. Slavić (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Ivan Štambuk

I am sorry, really I am. However Štambuk's politically oriented wrongdoings hit my nerve. I really can't understand this "devily" eagerness and pompousness to deny Croatian language and history, and to deny recognition of anywho because it is not in your midstream. Štambuk needs to lay off, and learn to let go, he presents him self as an anti-nationalist, humanist... or whatever; while in reality he is a hardcore Wolfian nationalist and thinks that anyone who dares to write traditionally (morphologically) or thinks that Croatian language exists, is insane. This is the case with Bulcsú László. So I am sorry, but please. Slavić (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Advice needed on a merge and a possible new article

Hi! I'm thinking of doing something with the 1991 Dalmatian anti-Serb riots article - I'm just not sure what should that be. Right now, there's a proposed merge tag on top of the article dated to May, and there appear to be no takers (I certainly see no connection with the Battle of Zadar except geographic one). Nonetheless there is a brief description in the battle article now, backed up by references. Neither the reference used in the Battle of Zadar article nor any of the references in the riot article speak of plural "riots" - protests in Šibenik hardly qualify as riots, and the protest in Split was clearly directly aimed at the JNA rather than Serbs.

It is possible to either repeat in the riot article the material found in the battle article or remove the riot article altogether as a WP:CONTENTFORK. Furthermore, IMO the Split protest is noteworthy enough of a standalone article. I'm quite prepared to write a short-ish article on the matter if you agree that would be a beneficial course of action. As far as Šibenik protest is concerned, there are virtually zero sources saying anything beyond that there was one (I imagine not unlike in many other Croatian cities at the time) and I feel those do not qualify for any special coverage. Thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The 1991 protest in Split article is up now. Could you please review and add any further categories which might be appropriate for the article please?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Biležka, Tuđinština...Pizda Materina

- Ma delajte kaj 'očete, boli me kurac! Se zbrišite i hojte v Pizdu Materinu! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slavić (talk • contribs) 21:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Vukopis

It is obviously gone now so I can't double check it, but I'm actually not convinced the page in question met the db-attack criteria as they are laid out.

By coincidence, just above the Vukopis section in my talk page there is a section on the Savo Štrbac article. I actually did use {{db-attack}} there, but it was declined. I believe it was a bad call: I still think that it is abundantly clear that the article as it stood should have been deleted on the spot, no questions asked, as "an article about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced".

Anyway, one might reasonably argue that Vukopis was POV garbage, but still I didn't see it as a speedy, so I simply reminded myself once again that life is too short, and walked away. :-) GregorB (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Suum cuique

Suum cuique! le dernier adieu. Slavić (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Healthcare in Croatia

Joy, 18 months later this stub is still what it was: a copy/paste of the corresponding article in Croatia. Is that normal. What if everyone was doing as the contributors to the project Croatia? 10 times servers would not suffice. --Silvio1973 (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Continuous ad hominem violation

As you were expedient enough to warn user Ivan Štambuk of BLP violation at Talk:Bulcsú László‎‎, please take the courtesy to take the same steps of protecting Wikipedia community and act upon these comments: [12]. If you tolerated foul language such as this [13] and did nothing AFAICT, you shouldn't sit and watch now. --biblbroks (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Sorry for not AGF. --biblbroks (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Hrvatski

Ok, I will no longer changed. It is a shame what JorisvS works on Wikipedia. Must be all how he says :/ --Sokac121 (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Siege of Kijevo

Hi! Just noticed the article on 1991 siege of Kijevo through the campainbox change and thought to ask why include "1991" in the title. I'm not aware of another siege disambiguated by the year. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Right. Forgot about Kosovo one. I was thinking of creating the article and did some research on the 2nd siege, but it never occurred to me to check for further sieges of this or another Kijevo - simply confirming that assuming too much will get one into trouble. Do you plan to develop the article significantly?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

A greater cynic would retort that one need not brag when victorious. Joking aside, in that case I'll add some more details down the road. Btw, Silber/Little confirm presence of "a Belgrade television crew" taping the event, with no specific reporter name given (p.172).--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I saw you placed the additional map there. There's also a map template at the Battle of Šibenik depicting the Knin-Šibenik area which could be used instead - it depicts a tighter area. This one's fine too though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Short of maybe a proper couple more sentences still needed in the lead, the article might have a shot at GAN. Would you care for a co-nomination?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that's easily replaced. I'll get that right away.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

In fact, the source is fine provided that the claims it backs up are non-controversial. In essence, it is fine to use such a source to say that the police arrived in the village on a particular date, but it would not be alright to use the source to explain reasoning or overall motivation for such a move. In essence, I trust the source is fine in the April-May blockade section as it merely establishes non-controversial timeline.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Those wouldn't hold at a FAR, but will do for GAR (provided that the claims referenced are not controversial). Which doesn't mean they shouldn't be changed for more reputable ones if those are available.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you feel the remaining three refs to the municipality need be replaced with new ones?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC part II

Hi. You participated in RfC on Talk:Frédéric Fontang. Per the advice of closing admin "This result sets no precedent for similar articles. To address the other articles, I would suggest a broadly-worded RfC" I have confirmed the title of the second RfC addressing the other 105 affected articles with the closing admin and that follow on broadly-worded RfC is at Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Duplicate name in basic ASCII character set. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ban (title), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Banovina and Avars (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Dražen Petrović

I understand your concerns regarding Dražen Petrović article, but i believe that assumptions of a specific person(in this case Vlade Divac)or Serbian daily tabloids should not be taken in account regarding the ethnicity of Dražen's father. I do agree that name Jovan is a typicall Serbian name, but there are many Serbs who have typicall Croatian names like Franjo, Ante, Ivica, Tomislav, etc... Dražen's father never spoke about his ethnicity, nor Dražen. Encyclopedia articles should be reliable and it shouldn't be affected by nationalism of any kind(in this case Serbian. Do you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokonja (talk • contribs) 15:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

That is the point, Petrović's father never declared, he never spoke for the media, everything else is just a product of Serbian nationalist's twisted mind. Again i am asking, can we classify Dražen's father only on basis of his name? You should check my latest respond on Dražen Petrović's article talk page to see what i'm talking about.

Battle of Osijek

Hi! Recently I proposed a merger of Osijek in Croatian War of Independence into the Battle of Osijek as the two seem to cover the same period, events, etc. I took another look at the proposed target article and there are a couple of problems there. The article itself deals more with political events than anything else, but that's the lesser problem. The "Battle of Osijek" or "bitka za Osijek" seem to be non-existent in secondary sources - or any sources save for wiki itself and its mirrors. The situation is hardly surprising since no specific battle took place aiming to capture Osijek AFAICT. Sure, the JNA may have planned to capture it, made gradual land grabs east or south of the city, the HV/ZNG felt (as reported by Marijan) Osijek might be cut off after Ernestinovo was lost, etc. but there was nothing remotely planned as drives against Zadar, Šibenik or Vukovar.

What would be the proper course of action in this matter? Should the article be proposed for deletion or merger into Osijek article or even the Osijek in Croatian War of Independence article (virtually unreferenced)?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Right WP:RM will be the next move. From what you say, I concluded that the Osijek in the Croatian war of Independence would be better target of the merger as a more generic title.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the lede as-is, the major point appears to be bombardment of the city. Since there are articles such as Bombing of Zagreb in World War II etc. there might an use for Bombing of Osijek in the Croatian War of Independence. The remainder of the material, not associated with the artillery bombing may serve as a background, if at all needed - there's a lot of unsupported editorializing in the article right now. What do you think about the proposed title, does it make any sense at all?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

TfD-notices

Hi there, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Templates for discussion notices from templates, as you did with Template:Croatia U21 Squad Euro 2000. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of a template, please comment in the discussion page instead. Thank you. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, you can remove the TfD-notice as much as you'd like, but if this discussion (which Banthrung started) turns into a consensus to "delete", the templates will be deleted. You should rather use your energy on participating in the discussion. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you are correct. I've had a lot of troubles with this user (and there is also a post at WP:AN to ban him from making TfD nominations), but it is a little funny to look at the time-line of this:

• 11 July at 15:00 (UTC): the user nominates a whole lot of templates, and start a discussion here
• 12 July at 08:00 - he removes the nomination from one page to another, without adjusting the links on the templates
• 13 July at 13:30 - you send the user a message on his talkpage, which makes him adjusts the links on the templates around 02:30 14 July. And when I revert all of his mess, I notice that you've removed the TfD links without explaining why :) I'm sorry about this mess, but the discussion is still open if you want to participate. ;) Mentoz86 (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Possibly needed disambiguation and redirect

Hi! Could you please advise if it would be necessary to create a "Brijuni Declaration" redirect to "Brioni Agreement" (akin to existing "Brijuni Agreement" redirect) and if some sort of disambiguation is needed from Brioni/Brijuni Declaration of 1956 itself noted in "Policies and ideology" section of the Non-Aligned Movement article? Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Huh... Had no idea there was one in 1942. I'll try to find out what was that one about. I assume it is reasonable to leave the 1991 one as the primary topic of the disambiguation.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Croatia–Slovenia border disputes

I see you reverted my edit. No problem. Croatia–Slovenia border disputes#Land dispute along the Mura river I have made a much more limited change, correcting "for many centuries" to "since 1945". After all, Slovenia did not exist in any shape or form before 1945. Edwardx (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted in its entirety the sentence: "The border between the two regions was officially determined in the 17th century and recorded in the land register." This is simply not true, so no citation is possible! I've just checked this with a historian friend, who confirms this. Edwardx (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Swath, Papuk, Hurricane

Frankly, I was thinking of combining the lot into a single article, developing a separate one for Papuk or maintaining two existing ones for about two weeks before committing my notes into the writing. While it is possible to combine the whole thing, I see no benefit from such a course of action. (1) A possible pitfall from that would be having to describe two parallel actions which have very little to do with each other (other than in the area securing the Požega-Nova Gradiška road and in Kusonje). I fear that the result would be very confusing to casual readers. (2) The Swath/Papuk were fought primarily between ZNG/HV and the TO, while Hurricane hinged on JNA-HV combat rather than TO. (3) The units involved were different, only the 127th Bde having been deployed in the final few days of Hurricane (but to virtually no effect). (4) The offensives were not even commanded by the same command structures - Swath/Papuk by Bjelovar operational zone (Col Jezerčić through Col Kovačević and Jezerčić directly), and Hurricane by Posavina operational group (Stipčić). Posavina OG itself was subordinated to Zagreb Operational Zone and therefore had nothing to do with Jezerčić (formally Nova Gradiška sector was subordinated to Osijek OZ (except for the purposes of Op Hurricane). Sources do not provide the slightest indication of coordination between the Swath/Papuk and Hurricane - I assume there must have been some, but there area no sources on them. The existing General Staff directions certainly do not mention any. In short, because of those four reasons, I decided against a single article.

The Swath and Papuk are IMO best left in a single article because some sources conflate the two anyway and one was a follow-up of the other. If you think a separate article is needed on the 1991 Croatian Army campaign in western Slavonia is warranted describing broadly the entire theatre of war - to be honest I thought about adding that too, but was not sure if that is really necessary. Thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Move undo request (Karađorđević)

• User:Sundostund moved Karađorđević dynasty to House of Karađorđević, despite the fact that it was decided that the article name is Karađorđević dynasty (I messaged him). While at it, could you move the Category:House of Karađorđević to Category:Karađorđević dynasty? Thanks in advance! --Zoupan 17:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Article merger

Hello. I've come up into this article: Dubrovnik Republic (1991). The article has a tag which says it will be merged, redirected or deleted since June 2012. It has now passed a year since then. I was wondering what is the procedure to resolve that issue. Personally my opinion is that article should be deleted as no such "republic" existed....neither de facto nor de jure. Thanks. Shokatz (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Assistance request

Hi! Unfortunately, my internet access may become patchy (not there right now), so could I ask you to keep an eye on the GANs. I don't expect major issues to arise there, and all this might prove to be a false alarm, but I thought to ask this as a precaution. Thank you very much.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

László

What is your problem? Slavić (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

English and Croatian sockpuppetry (incidentally related to Slavić's post above)

Hi Joy. I believe you are an administrator on the Croatian Wikipedia, but I apologize if I'm wrong. In the course of an SPI case (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Slavić). Checkuser showed that Vukopisac (talk · contribs) is a sock of Slavić (talk · contribs). I noticed in my investigation that Slavić is indefinitely blocked on the Croatian Wikipedia, and that Vukopisac has been editing there as well. Slavić was also found to have four additional accounts on the English Wikipedia. I would not even know where to begin reporting suspected sockpuppetry on the Croatian Wikipedia (not my best language), so I thought I would just let you know. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

SAP Kosovo

Could I trouble you to merge Kosovo in SFR Yugoslavia into Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo? -- Director (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Same for Vojvodina in SFR Yugoslavia? -- Director (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Imo the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija should be moved over redirect to simply Kosovo and Metohija, which is undoubtedly the commonname. No need for full official name. -- Director (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Abuse

Can you stop this abuse, User:Правичност Croats (puši) (We know what it means) and here he called me [14] "ustashi lover" and some other insults.--Sokac121 (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm an ustashi lover too :) [15]. -- Director (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hieronymus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jeronim (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Whitehead

My only real interest in this disambig page is that it is the name of a bird species. But I also recognise that people wanting to find out about acne type "whiteheads" would also land up on this page. "Disambiguation pages ("dab pages") are designed to help a reader find Wikipedia articles on different topics that could be referenced by the same search term, as described in the Disambiguation guideline. Disambiguation pages are not articles; they are aids in searching." It is entirely reasonable to help them find an appropriate article, so please desist from removing the entry rather than trying to make a useful encyclodia. Thanks --Tony Wills (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Anti-Serb sentiment". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 12:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:DRN regarding dispute at Anti-Serb sentiment. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Anti-Serb sentiment".The discussion is about the topic Anti-Serb sentiment. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Banović

... is a set index article. Strictly speaking, it is not a disambig page, although it may look like one. (See WP:SETINDEX.) Note MOS:DAB does not apply either. Unlike dabs, it has a potential for expansion. Therefore, in this particular case it is really a stub. GregorB (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, this edit was apparently motivated by the uncited statement and was quite legitimate as such. What I was actually hinting to is that there is no need to fix the assessment of set index articles from stub to disambig, even if they are effectively not much more than disambig pages. GregorB (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

RE: Milosević (disambiguation page)

Hi. I just wanted you to know that I put Slobodan at the top, not out of pride of place but because I thought he comes at the top per DABPRIMARY as he is certainly the most (in)famous person with that surname, although obviously there are a lot of other Milosevićs, more than I imagined. I don't know what copyedit problem there is but whatever. Yours, Quis separabit? 20:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Siege of Kijevo date formats

Hi. Noticed the date format in the article is evenly split between dmy and mdy - even after the two dmy instances changed to mdy (after the change the use is in existence in the infobox and the refs). If that's ok with you, I'd prefer dmy format since the article currently employs British English - where mdy format is not that common. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Query regarding "royal houses"...

Howdy. Last year you deleted both House of Surić and House of Karlović as blatant hoaxes (G3). The latter is back (was recreated in the last couple of days) and someone just added both to {{Royal houses of Europe‎}} (which I've undone, given the history). You creation-protected the other. What led to them being deleted the first time? Are they obvious hoaxes? Do you need me to tag the new one for speedy deletion? Stalwart111 10:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC) It all seems linked to Statute of Lastovo which mentions both "houses". One of the editors responsible for the new article uses the Croatian-language title of that statute as his username. Stalwart111 10:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent work! No, I don't think you missed anything. I did try to search for sources (per WP:BEFORE because I was considering sending House of Karlović to AFD) and found nothing but a handful of blogs making some pretty outlandish claims. Did you salt that title too? Stalwart111 12:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw that you did. Nicely done. Thanks again! Stalwart111 12:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Some issues

• As you might have heard, there has been a host of media reports about the Croatian Wikipedia. An anon added a section about the media coverage this has gotten to Croatian Wikipedia, but a sockpuppet of JackSparrow keeps reverting it. It might be in need of semi-protection.
• Also, have a look at Template talk:Federal subjects of Yugoslavia.

Cheers, Timbouctou (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Croatian help needed!

Hello Joy, I'm contacting you because we need some Croatian translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on hr.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need help with a personal message for the Croatian Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Need help from Croatian users

Jimbo Wales is asking for aditional input from Croatian users regarding the situation on Croatian Wikipedia. Please feel free to voice your opinion. Regards!--В и к и T 19:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Siege of Kijevo revisited

Hi! I tried my best to replace the Municipality of Kijevo refs in the siege article, but I'm afraid this is quite unlikely to be completed. I looked hard, but there's not a peep elsewhere on any of those. Right now there are three claims supported by that source only:

1. ... the villagers smuggled weapons through mountain paths while keeping a distance from a nearby newly created outpost of the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA).[5]
2. In the night of 27/28 April, a group of Croatian Ministry of the Interior officers broke through the barricades and arrived in Kijevo.[5]
3. As the JNA subsequently entered the village to enforce the blockade, the civilians in Kijevo formed a human shield to protect the police station building, starting a standoff.[5]

I think claim 1 may safely be removed altogether because it adds little information. The preceding sentence in the article establishes that the population established an ad hoc militia which implies they had some sort of weapons. Whether those were home made or smuggled or bought makes little difference to comprehension of the article. The final part of the claim says that they kept clear of the JNA checkpoint(s) which seems to be quite obvious.

Claim 2 is quite problematic since it purports the police broke through barricades, which are supposedly put in place on all access routes only two days later, according to the remainder of the section of the article - which makes little sense. The date itself is not problematic, but the following sentence indicates a police station was established on 28 April, implying the police arrived that day (possibly that night). Therefore I feel the claim could be removed with no harm to the article too.

Claim 3 is a bit different, adding info, but I simply cannot find any other ref to back it up. I seem to remember that taking place, but there's just no word on the human shield. I'm at odds regarding removal of this claim (Does WP:EXCEPTIONAL apply here?), so could you venture an opinion, both on this one and the ones above? Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You're right, this belongs to the article talk. I'll move the discussion there (incl. copies of the two exchanges so far)--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A random thought

Hi,
If a new editor is immediately familiar with templates, and uses the "minor" flag, starting a few minutes after creating their account... that implies that they used to edit with a different account. I'm not sure who, but maybe you have an idea...? bobrayner (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

NO

Don't spread misinformation. Those articles are incorrect and you know it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obozedalteima (talk • contribs) 18:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI see User talk:Obozedalteima and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Obozedalteima -- PBS (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Religion in Croatia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gallup (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Move to verifiable hr title

Hi Joy, I noticed that you changed my title "Labinscina Peninsula of Istria" to Labinština. You also moved the page: "move to verifiable hr title", and I do not know what verifiable title means. I did not give it any thought because I did not know the exact spelling of the Peninsula. I learned to spell it as you wrote it and I thought it was correct. May I ask you where did you get that spelling? I was also asked, if that was the right way to spell the word. Actually I am now reading a book by Lucijan Diminić titled Saint Laurance of Labin and Surrounding (Sveti Lovreč Labinski). In the introduction of this book, the author describes the surrounding area of Labin and mention the peninsula many times spelled as "Labinšćina". So what is the exact meaning of Labinština and Labinšćina. It is the same meaning or different meaning? If you agree with me you may change it to the previous title adding the special characters which I just learned to do. If not I will eventually change it when I find how to change it back. I am still learning the new techniques of writing on Wikipedia. Thank you for the help. Jvdobrich (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Move to verifiable hr title

Hi Joy, I noticed that you changed my title "Labinscina Peninsula of Istria" to Labinština. You also moved the page: "move to verifiable hr title", and I do not know what verifiable title means. I did not give it any thought because I did not know the exact spelling of the Peninsula. I learned to spell it as you wrote it and I thought it was correct. May I ask you where did you get that spelling? I was also asked, if that was the right way to spell the word. Actually I am now reading a book by Lucijan Diminić titled Saint Laurance of Labin and Surrounding (Sveti Lovreč Labinski). In the introduction of this book, the author describes the surrounding area of Labin and mention the peninsula many times spelled as "Labinšćina". So what is the exact meaning of Labinština and Labinšćina. It is the same meaning or different meaning? If you agree with me you may change it to the previous title adding the special characters which I just learned to do. If not I will eventually change it when I find how to change it back. I am still learning the new techniques of writing on Wikipedia. Thank you for the help. Jvdobrich (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Labinstina

Thank you very much for the good explanation. I understand now. I will keep it as is.Jvdobrich (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2013

Railway lines

Hi! I noticed a batch of new articles on railway lines in Croatia, such as Zagreb–Botovo railway. While I applaud the effort to cover the topic, I'm afraid the whole range suffers from WP:OR (correct me if I'm wrong) because scope of each of the articles appears to be wholly arbitrary. The Zagreb–Botovo railway is actually classified as two railway lines (linked in Dugo Selo) or two out of three constituent parts of Rijeka-Zagreb-Botovo line. I have posted my concerns at the Zagreb–Botovo railway talk page and an appropriate tag, but I'd rather check with you if I should post similar remarks at each of the railway line articles or wait out discussion at this particular one. Cheers --Tomobe03 (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

A consensus appears to be in making at Talk:Zagreb–Belgrade railway since Kleeblatt187 indicated they would be fine with articles pursuant to official designations of the railways and I agreed there. Since your revert at Šid-Belgrade IIRC was brought up, I thought to invite your comments to see if you agree as well.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Ideabeach

I have altered your block on Ideabeach and extended it indefinite. I've blocked his IP as well given the rather abusive socking. Kuru (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Dot

Just a heads-up if you haven't seen it already: you have been quoted here. GregorB (talk) 09:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I also thought that your position was misrepresented, and that was in fact the main reason why I alerted you. This is all very unfortunate. All I can say is the media seem to be rather ill-equipped for covering the issue. GregorB (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Geography of Croatia

Hi! I just noticed additions of Adriatic Croatia and Continental Croatia and numerous other unsourced details to the Geography of Croatia, but I cannot undo the change except manually - lacking rollback rights. Could you please take a look at those. Cheers --Tomobe03 (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, I managed it in two undos. Thanks anyway.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Strike that. The IP seems to be very persistent, but at least they're using sources. Nonetheless, the source seems quite dubious since it is contradicted by the Croatian Bureau of Statistics, including the census 2011. Since there's no point in writing on user talk (it's an IP), what course of action would you recommend?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hr wiki

Bok, Joy

Hvala što si se uključio u raspravu. Nema te dugo na hrvatskoj wikipediji. Ako želiš možeš se i tamo uključiti u raspravu, mislim da će se tvoje mišljenje cijeniti. Iako, postoji realna opasnost da će te popljuvati ako budeš samo pričao, a ne radio po člancima, što je uobičajeni postupak za svakog tko se usudi kritizirati. Pozdrav! --Argo Navis (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Kubura comments and my own comments

Hi, Joy. I just looked at the edit history for the Siroka Kula massacre talk page and I know it indicates that I deleted a huge chunk of text. All I wanted to say was that I did not intend to do so. Obviously that would not have gone unnoticed for more than a few minutes at most. I have no idea how it happened. I cannot even imagine and can only suppose that I was either copying and pasting something and had a snafu or was rushing to finish the editing before I ran out of time on the console where I rent Internet time since I don't have computer access at the moment at home. I did not intentionally delete those 14000 or so character chunk of text on purpose as that would be more than sufficient grounds for a block. I know that I lost control of my rhetoric back in 2005 or 2006, or whenever it was, a long, long time ago, but since then I rarely edit Croatia-related pages and have never vandalized any.

I would also like to point out that my own commentary (see here), was deleted by 23 editor, for whatever reasons. Can it be restored? It is of course an opinion piece but that is why it was on the talk page, and I think it contains valid points regarding inherent biases by those who have some ancestral or ethnic or political interest in that area of the world. I mentioned you (positively) in my commentary on the talk page, so perhaps that is how you were alerted on your talk page or maybe you just have the page on your watchlist, whatever, it doesn't matter. Yours, Quis separabit? 19:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess I can move it to the other editor's talk page, although he seems to be MIA, and I don't know when he'll be reading it. However, that is infinitely less important than the fact that I did not intentionally delete the huge chunk of text from the talk page. I don't know how it happened and I regret it enormously. I hope you (and any other editors you may wish to notify, who may have a pre-conceived notion) will believe this because it is the truth. Quis separabit? 19:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

OK done. I restored it (see Široka Kula massacre (last message)) at Kubura's talk page. Joy, I wonder if you could give me your own personal opinion of the commentary and any merits it may have. You can just email me at the email address which is my username (not my usersignature) if you don't want to comment onwiki. Yours, Quis separabit? 19:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I understand and respect your decision. I know that he has been gone for awhile and that there was a serious warning on his talk page regarding his behaviour but I didn't realize it was all that serious. Sorry to bother you. Yours, Quis separabit? 19:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I saw on my watchlist. What happened? What did I do wrong? Is that what happened originally when those chunks of text got deleted? Please advise. Quis separabit? 20:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Neither, I manually moved and pasted my own text that I was removing. Quis separabit? 20:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

"Maybe you used a long-opened browser window/tab for editing? That would have meant that you saw the old revision from your browser cache, and would explain why you didn't see any warnings."

I guess that must be it. I tend to do things in a more old-fashioned (Luddite) way since I am not as computer savvy and am a lot older than most other editors. I assume that's what happened the first time. Thanks for explaining. Quis separabit? 20:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vinko Coce, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Menart (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Missing talk archive

Hi! Not that it contains something of particular use, but archived threads originally posted at Talk:Battle of Borovo Selo seem to be missing. At least, I can't locate a link to that anywhere on the talk page. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I had a nagging feeling my move had something to do with it. Could you please let me know what to do to fix it? Should I just move the archives now?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I must have missed the checkbox - actually I never knew it existed - and now I'm this much wiser! :) --Tomobe03 (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Doubravka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Dubravka, Dúbravka and Dąbrówka

Rosie (given name) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Rosalyn, Rosemarie and Rosalie

Rose (surname) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ruskin

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Re:Template:Serbs of Croatia

I hope it's ok now Template:Serbs of Croatia? Do I need to change it in all articles? Part with nested navboxes I will do when I learn how to do it. Have a nice day.--MirkoS18 (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

En dashes

I've replied to you at my talk page. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 23:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Yugoslav Railways

Thank you for fixing this. You seem to have fixed the problem. As I added Macedonia in the first place it was not my intention to have it removed except when it looked out of place sitting in the box. Whatever you did, you brought it into line with the other five projects. Was thinking of adding Kosovo but am not too sure, it might meet with hostility. The Big Hoof! (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Slivno, Dubrovnik-Neretva County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Zavala, Raba, Lučina and Vlaka

Runovići (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Podosoje

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nocra prison camp, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prison camp (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

reply

Hello, Joy. You have new messages at Cbbkr's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cbbkr (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rade Končar may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• asked whether he would ask for clemency, Končar said ''Milosti ne tražim, niti bih vam je dao'' ("I will not ask for mercy nor would I have it on you"; when they aimed their guns at his back, he

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

reply

Hello, Joy. You have new messages at Cbbkr's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Cbbkr (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Backstop

Hi! Do you think the Operation Backstop warrants inclusion in Croatian War of Independence navbox/campaignbox?--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

How about Daruvar Agreement? I see the navbox contains Sarajevo Agreement, but that's a ceasefire (i.e. primarily military) agreement. Daruvar is a bit different, but not sure if different enough.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Please notice ip 111.243.0.198 , 114.39.7.129

Hi , Joy , ip user 111.243.0.198 and ip 114.39.7.129 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/111.243.0.198 , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/114.39.7.129, Vandalism a lot of articles , please stop these ip user , thank you MBINISIDLERS (talk) 09:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diocese of Bosnia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uskoplje (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

ARBMAC

We all know WP:ARBMAC is a farce, but just keep an eye on this. See what apologetic excuses the admins concoct for not having included these details or for removing the sins of their golden boy. You find the truth painful (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Another day, another Evlekis-sock. Is it worth bothering with an SPI? (I doubt it). bobrayner (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Joy,

Thanks for helping with the cleanup. Sorry about the mess! bobrayner (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

re: minor edits

I started editing it cause of a typo, but then decided to add some more content and forgot to uncheck the minor edit, but I'll use it less often. (Tzowu (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC))

Principality of Dalmatian Croatia

I think this article should be renamed to Principality of Littoral Croatia (Primorska Hrvatska), it is a more common name for it. Google also has a lot more results for Principality of Littoral Croatia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzowu (talk • contribs) 11:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, apparently Dalmatian Croatia is more frequent on Google Books than Littoral Croatia, so it doesn't actually need a change :). (Tzowu (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC))

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For continuous contributions and maintenance of a myriad of articles - I award you this well deserved barnstar! Cheers! Tomobe03 (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Serbian Cyrillic

Hi Joy, I would love to have your opinion in this discussion. In my opinion, the "Serbian" character of the Cyrillic variant is only being emphasized in order to add a "Serbianized" touch to the location/town. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! Greetings, --Norden1990 (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

◅ Praxis Icosahedron (TALK) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Tomobe03 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Best wishes for the holidays and a very successful new year!--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

Hello Joy, have a merry Christmas and a happy new year! Cheers! Timbouctou (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Picture upload Enslish Wikipedia

Poštovani Josipe,

ispričavam se na smetnji, ako je ikako moguće dobiti pomoć i asistenciju pri uploadu fotografija na englesku verziju Wikipedija biografske stranice.

Najljepša hvala. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.50.105 (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Upload foto i upload na eng Wiki

Poštovanje Josipe, hvala Vam na odgovoru. Ispričavam se na nesnalaženju. Nadam se da ću uspjeti popratiti upute, tehnički sam užasan i slab po tom pitanju. Račun sam pokušavao otvoriti prije cca godinu dana ali isto iskmplicirao i zaboravio lozinu a novi mi nije dalo otvoriti pod imenom i prezimenom jer je bilo preslično postojećem, a pak na postojeće otvoreno mi nije slalo back up password na mail adresu koju sam bio ostavio. Da Vas ne gnjavim sad osobnim podacima ovim putem lakše bih Vam uspio mailati, no ako ta mogućnost ne postoji, pokušat ću prema datim smjernicama. Zahvaljujem na pomoći... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.50.105 (talk) 09:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Pokušat ću

Hvala Vam. Sorry ako ovo nije ispravni način odgovaranja. Pitat ću Vas bit ću slobodan obratiti se ako zeznem štogod oko fotki. Srdačno. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.50.105 (talk) 12:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Franjo Tudjman (Yugoslav Wars)

Hi Joy, I didn't personally include the image and caption on Franjo Tudjman but I find your response a bit odd, since namely, the late president wasn't just malevolently "implicated" in war crimes, but indeed found to have participated in a joint criminal enterprise with Bosnian Croats by the ICTY: Apart from the six accused, a number of persons joined, participated in and contributed to the JCE, including among others: Franjo Tuđman, the President of the Republic of Croatia; Gojko Šušak, the Minister of Defence of the Republic of Croatia; Janko Bobetko, a general in the Army of the Republic of Croatia; and Mate Boban, President of the Croatian Community (later Republic) of Herceg-Bosna. Don't perceive this as a motion for restoring the caption and image as initially added, but only a comment. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 01:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Joy. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 18:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)