User talk:Иованъ

Formerly most edits as Inatan. Then Renamed user 1n2n3n4n5n. Then Renamed user Inatan. Then Ivan.

Proposed deletion of Skrad (disambiguation)


The article Skrad (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Per WP:2DABS"

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the link! I had not yet read this policy. I support the deletion of the disambiguation page. The hatnotes are in place. There are only two articles that can (or probably could ever) be included, and, rather ironically, the one that is currently shorter is the more notable. Inatan (talk) 09:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: RfA
Hi Inatan! There is no obligation for you to participate in RfA or anything else that you're not comfortable with; it's perfectly fine to ignore the watchlist notices. They were implemented in an attempt to get greater visibility and participation in the process, and show up for all registered editors, so it's not just you. Thanks, ansh 666 23:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi again, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! ansh 666 20:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The pleasure was mine. We may interact with one another again in the future if there is an AfD within my scope of interest! Inatan (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Requests to vote in adminship discussions
Hi Inatan. I saw your vote at Ansh666's Request for Adminship and wanted to explain. The notice you saw on your watchlist is shown to everyone on their watchlist, and comes from the page MediaWiki:Watchlist-details. It doesn't necessarily require you to click through and vote, it's just placed there as an information notice, which you can simply dismiss. As you rightly noted, the atmosphere at RfA sometimes isn't great, and we have a problem with relatively low numbers of editors being nominated. The watchlist notice is designed to bring more attention to the process, and allow more editors to share their opinion on who should be given the administrator toolkit. Please feel free to ask if you have any further questions :) Sam Walton (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
Hi Inatan, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3AInatan added] the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Alex ShihTalk 23:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Inatan (talk) 08:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Articles on Croatian settlements
Nice work on new settlement articles!

One hint: you may find it more convenient to cite Croatian Census results like this: - one has to supply only the two numeric parameters from the corresponding DZS URL, plus optionally the access date, and the template does the rest. (Not that there's anything wrong with the existing citations either.)

Keep the articles coming! :-) GregorB (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Ha ha! Thank you very much! I will use this from now on. Inatan (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. Do you know approximately what percentage Croatian naselja have articles? I am working on these primarily to cover the area of the castle articles I am writing based on Lopašić's Oko Kupe i Korane, and maybe eventually his Bihać i bihaćka krajina. But in the future, I might perhaps complete a few županije. Inatan (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Budački castle has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Budački castle. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 May 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to 433 Eros, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. ''I don't know of any source which calls Eros "sock shaped". Potato-shaped is a description I have seen.'' Tarl N. ( discuss ) 12:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, articles calling it potato-shaped:, , , and many others. A search for articles calling it sock-shaped only produces a reference to the Eros-brand of women's socks and hosiery. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 12:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The second comparison was with shoes. Socks themselves are shoe-shaped. 433 Eros doesn't look like a potato. I replaced "potato" with "sock". Thought the edit might help a little, not really caring either way. I have never engaged in edit warring, so an edit summary would have done just fine. No hard feelings. I will assume you have had a lot of negative experience with other editors. Have a nice day! Inatan (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The point is you should never make an edit to Wikipedia which isn't backed up by a reliable source. Personal opinion should never be the basis of an edit. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 15:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:BLUE. Inatan (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. Nice work on List of stars! Inatan (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

May 2023
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Renamed user Inatan", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because "Renamed user" prefix is for vanished one. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. -Lemonaka‎ 11:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Categories
Please note that pages are not allowed to be filed in redlinked categories that don't exist to have pages filed in them — you may only file pages in categories that exist. I have had to remove the redlinked category "Lists of Glagolitic inscriptions" from List of Glagolitic inscriptions (16th century) three times in the space of just one week, which is becoming disruptive — so note that there may be escalating consequences, up to possibly the total removal of your ability to edit the page at all anymore, if I continue to see that category returning to the list of redlinked categories any further. Use categories that exist, and only categories that exist. Bearcat (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The reversions were not intentional, I assure you. I had not even realised you removed it because I mostly edit offline and I expected most editors to heed the "under construction" warning. Since you are so eager to assist, would you be so kind as to create that exact category page for me? I am almost ready to publish the remaining lists, and the "search all lists" field requires a category uniting all four lists and no more. If this approach runs counter to the categorisation criteria of the project, please provide an alternate solution in detail here or solve it yourself. I take it this is a stock message? If so, may I recommend you compose a version with written out, for use as a first warning message for otherwise unproblematic and potentially new editors? It makes you seem short-tempered, which I'm sure you're not. Thank you! Ivan (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Lists of Glagolitic inscriptions moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Lists of Glagolitic inscriptions. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Boleyn (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. It is a list of lists. More than a disambiguation page, but less than an article. It will likely never have sources, except intermittently. See Lists of Glagolitic manuscripts for its manuscript counterpart. For an older precedent, see Lists of New Testament minuscules. These are simply articles that have grown too long for MediaWiki to render efficiently and have had to be split. Sometimes new additions don't fit any of the subsumed lists, and the list of lists page has to be used instead, giving the list of lists itself sources. Could you move it back to mainspace, please? Ivan (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

John Mearsheimer bibliography moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to John Mearsheimer bibliography. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Boleyn (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of John Mearsheimer bibliography for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Mearsheimer bibliography is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/John Mearsheimer bibliography until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. TALK 23:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

 * Please discuss on talk page before making substantial deletions of reliably sourced content, or provide more specific reasoning in your edit summaries. Ivan (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The article in question was not marked with the relevant edit notices, nor was your Political views section deletion of content falling within those categories. But you could add b to the current edit notice if you like. Ivan (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The article in question? You're missing the point. You appear most interested in WP:CT/EE topics, though you should be aware that you've encountered at least two others: WP:CT/AP and WP:CT/BLP. Please be extremely careful. --Hipal (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Please stop
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Note that adding promotional content, as you are doing, is similarly problematic. BLP requires consensus. --Hipal (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Sir, you have not once initiated a talk page discussion explaining how any of my edits were poorly referenced or how they violated any of the other broad policies you quoted. I have faithfully followed, and yet your last summary reads rv - this is getting ridiculous - BLP, NOT, POV problems - COI or fan appears likely. How could you assume I am a "fan"? Did you bother to read my annotations for Mearsheimer 1979, 1982a and 1982b? Do they look like the work of a devotee or like an objective summary of scholarly opinion to you, rhetorically speaking? I have already stated multiple times I have no Conflict of Interest. I do not know him. In fact, before I rescued the bibliography section I hardly even knew him. I was in the middle of making substantial changes to the article. Admittedly, I probably should have put a sign up. But you spent a matter of mere  before reverting my section on Iranian nuclear deterrence, well-sourced enough to deserve a talk page discussion at least. One of the sources was the New York Times! He has written about nuclear vs conventional deterrence his entire career, and the article had  to do with him beyond opinions he gave in an academic setting. Minutes later, you slap me with a Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory.
 * I know you've been editing for almost two decades. You're probably in good standing with the community. I have followed AGF up to this point. But the evidence is flying in the face of my faith. All I want is to improve the article. Actually all I wanted was to rescue a bibliography, but when you spend two weeks gathering a comprehensive bibliography, you learn more about the subject, and now it feels irresponsible not to improve the article. Incidentally, "not improving the article" is exactly what you have accomplished there. No addition. Only reversion, reversion, reversion. Very little effort on the talk page. Then out of nowhere, "you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia". Ivan (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You've been notified that the article is under multiple sanctions. You're not editing with care at all.
 * BLP requires consensus for inclusion. Independent sources are almost always required to avoid NOT and POV problems. --Hipal (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you please elaborate. What part of WP:NOT or WP:POV do you believe were violated? Ivan (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Please strike
I'm interested in improving this article. Are you? --Hipal (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Removed, per request.
 * I know at this point I've pushed WP:CIVIL. You've pushed WP:CIVIL (COI or fan appears likely). Can you please engage in the discussion on the article's talk page? It's not a good practice to go silent after double reversion. Nothing I added merited speedy removal by any standards, WP:BLP or otherwise. Everything is covered by policy enough for inclusion, even if revision is needed. And even that is thanks to a very strict interpretation of WP:OR and MOS:EDITORIAL. On the talk page I explained why neither your WP:SOAP nor your WP:PROMO were justified. I can't revise if my every edit is reverted. Surely you can't have read all 4 paragraphs before reverting it within seconds? Ivan (talk) 05:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for striking the material.
 * You're unlikely to create any consensus if you continue to struggle with focusing on content and policy. --Hipal (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nowhere does WP:FOC add "and policy". Focus on article content during discussions. I have asked you several times now to provide reasoning from clauses or sentences within the policies you have cited, mainly in your edit summaries. This has gone on for two weeks now. I'm a human being. You're a human being. I'm trying to improve the article. WP:AGF, you're just trying to keep the article free of policy violations. I don't believe any of my edits violated policy. I have argued as much on the talk page. You've made 7 reversions, but only 5 comments on the talk page, without referencing any cited policies. So if we focus on policy, you can see how it appears WP:TENDENTIOUS? Ivan (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't believe any of my edits violated policy. If so, then I suggest you walk away from the article. Continuing with the approach you've taken will likely result in sanctions against you. --Hipal (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have left an important proposal for you at Talk:John Mearsheimer. Please reply there. Ivan (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, at best, I don't think your approach will be fruitful. --Hipal (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:AGF please? Please strike. I don't believe I've ever commented on your motives, and we started this discussion because you directly questioned mine. --Hipal (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It was in response to In my experience, you'll be wasting everyone's time. Wikipedia is collaborative and consensus-based, and you appear to be trying to avoid both. Ivan (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What's your point? You may want to look at WP:AGF before you comment further. --Hipal (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Cirsium × juratzkae moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Cirsium × juratzkae. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because too much has gone wrong in the references. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. UtherSRG (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Cirsium × przybylzkii moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Cirsium × przybylzkii. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because too much has gone wrong with the references. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. UtherSRG (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Cirsium × reichardtii moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Cirsium × reichardtii. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because too much has gone wrong with the references. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. UtherSRG (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Cirsium × scopolii moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Cirsium × scopolii. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because too much has gone wrong with the references. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. UtherSRG (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Cirsium × stiriacum moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Cirsium × stiriacum. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because too much has gone wrong with the references. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. UtherSRG (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Cirsium × stroblii moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Cirsium × stroblii. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because too much has gone wrong with the references. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. UtherSRG (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

thank you for creating John Mearsheimer bibliography
I see on your edits page, that you used Citation bot to format my plain text bibliography of Mearsheimer into a wiki-format, and then you transferred this bibliography to separate article John Mearsheimer bibliography. Thank you for doing this. I also created a similar list of publications for John B. Goodenough, who received in 2019 a Nobel Prize for his contributions to the development of lithium-ion batteries, and who recently passed away. Could you please help me to format Goodenough's references into the same format, that you used for Mearsheimer? Walter Tau (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It would be my pleasure! I can start it, but I will need your help to finish it (especially organising into sections by topic). Ivan (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I did it manually instead of using Citation bot, so this process may last an hour even with my replacement method. Ivan (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)