User talk:Joy/Archive/2010

Badnjak
Hi, I was trying to add some Croatian traditions to the Badnjak page but it was deleted. I see you live in the motherland, so perhaps you can have easier access to look up some information for the page, if you have time. --Jesuislafete (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Joy! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Zoran Primorac -
 * 2) Božo Ljubić -
 * 3) Ivan Katalinić -
 * 4) Ivana Horvat -

Thank you
Thank you for your comments at Requests for comment/Biographies of living people, which will delete the vast majority of 50,000 articles created by 17,400 editors, mostly new editors. I notice you have some unreferenced BLP articles, so this affects you personally. I hope you are able to source them before those editors who have "utter contempt" for consensus delete them. You may also be interested in the WP:Article Rescue Squadron. We have been working hard to find sources for the 236 articles which were deleted with no notice by 3 administrators. Ikip 01:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A message to Admiral Norton
Dear Joy,

I sent a message to Admiral Norton on December 20th, but he did not answer. Maybe you can help me. Here is a copy of my message:

"Dear Admiral Norton,

When you sent a welcome message to me on February 19th, I thought I might not need to ask you for any suggestion. Now it seems a bit different. I'm not quite sure what am I supposed to do.

At the beginning of this year, I was very happy to have an opportunity to contribute to Wikipedia in English. However, I've been very sad and disappointed lately, because of my article about Nikola VII Zrinski. Some administrators have been violating this article for some time and finally deleted it, although it had a support of competent work groups (military biography and arts and entertainment). Furthermore, a merger with Hungarian-oriented article „Miklos Zrinyi“ was suggested, which means the both articles put together, and not one left, the other completely deleted.

Besides, some users or administrators (for instance „Toroko“) wrote that I „continually vandalised the articles about Hungarian kings“ (when I said that they were Croatian kings as well), although everybody competent knows that Ferdinand I, Maximilian II, Matthias etc. were first of all Austrian rulers, and then, at the same time, Bohemian, Hungarian, Croatian etc. kings or archdukes. It is well known that Croatia (sometimes Slavonia and Dalmatia too) was always a kingdom (at least formally) during the last millennium (until 1918).

Furthermore, I was blamed for „disruption“, for „Balkan nationalist point of view“ (as wrote „Toddst1“), for „entirely unsourced, pirate and unencyclopedic“ writing, as wrote „Korossyl“, although the latter recognized that „the fact of matter is, Zrinskis were all ethnically Croatian“, etc. Let me say, that personally I've got nothing to do with the Balkan nationalist POV.

I am aware that my English is far from being perfect, but I hoped that somebody could help, rather than delete, to improve my article about Zrinski, merging it with the existing „Miklos Zrinyi“, as it was proposed. Unfortunately, this did not happen. All my efforts, my free time, hours and days of work to contribute to Wikipedia were blown away. With a single mouse click! And with the spiteful words of „Korossyl“: Wow!…This was a lot simpler than I thought it would be.

All my life I have lived in Čakovec, well known as „The town of Zrinskis“, where Nikola Zrinski used to live too. As a member of a historian family, I know almost everything about the Zrinski noble family, so I created several new articles about the most distinguished members of that family, as well as contributed to some others (like You created the articles about Zagreb and surroundings). But now, some inexperienced young people, without recognizing the opinion (support) of competent work groups of Wikipedians, or without asking other notable experts for history, ignore, abuse and violate the facts, talking about something they don't know good enough. As if I wrote about the history of Moose Jaw or Saskatchewan in Canada, of which I know very few.

Dear Admiral, my question to you would be, whether there is anybody in WikiProject Croatia, or elsewhere, who is authorised, competent or concerned with such disputable matters, and who is in charge to contact the senior Wiki executives (e.g. bureaucrats, stewards or so), who could discuss my displeasure and complaint, and find a reasonable solution.

A couple of days ago I read in a London newspapers that it was announced that 49.000 volunteer editors left Wikipedia in the first three months of this year. That is so sad.

I wonder, should I quit Wikipedia in English?

Best Regards, Silverije"

Dear Joy, Could I kindly ask you to answer to it? I'm looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Best Regards,

Silverije--78.0.226.169 (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice I was logged out. --Silverije (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  02:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of National revival
A tag has been placed on National revival requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. JokerXtreme (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of National revival
I have nominated National revival, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/National revival. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JokerXtreme (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added a sourced definition to your article.AMuseo (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

My message from February 1st
Dear Joy,

I sent a message to you on February 1st. Could I kindly ask you to answer to it? I'm looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Best Regards,

Silverije (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

My message from February 1st (2)
Dear Joy,

Actually I don't need to talk to Admiral Nelson personally. I am sorry, but perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough in my message. I intended to ask anybody competent whether there is any possibility to prevent agressive, inexperienced and malicious administrators on English Wikipedia to simply delete the whole articles which have been based on facts, which have been written modestly and properly and which have a style, cohesion and tone, including the beginning, main part or plot and the end (with the aftermath and legacy) of the article. On the other hand, such administrators let some onesided or tendentious and incomplete articles stay.

I'm looking forward to receiving your answer soon.

Best Regards,

Silverije (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Report a user
Hello, i would like to report a user (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Squash_Racket) for vandalism and for erasing my comments on the discussion page. What should i do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.97.229 (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Iadrian yu evades his block he received for edit warring. Squash Racket (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Case (at least temporarily) solved. Squash Racket (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Controversial command decisions, World War II
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Controversial command decisions, World War II. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Controversial command decisions, World War II. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Admiral Norton
Just posting to let you know that Admiral Norton hasnt edited since June and likely won't notice your recent message on his talk page. I've been giving out similar notices to other users attempting to contact him; do you think (as an admin) that it would be appropriate to add an edit notice to his page saying that he's inactive?  — Soap  —  18:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

MarkBA
Just posting to let you know the same as the above regarding MarkBA. Is there any specific reason, why you contacted him? Regards. Hobartimus (talk) 07:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar
Thank you... As for my edit count, it can be described as "past embarrassing" by now. :-) But hey, as long it's put to good purpose. Thanks once again! GregorB (talk) 07:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

recent edits on Template:Linux distributions
You recently deleted significant content from this template, leaving cryptic edit comments. Could you explain, please? ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Croatian, Serbian, and Slovenian
Hi,

Could you chime in on Croatian language? I'm having trouble with an editor who refuses to accept any connection between Croatian and Serbian that is closer than SC is to Slovenian, despite the fact that such a link is supported by his own sources. kwami (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Možda ne bi bilo loše da uključimo i haški u infobox. Pozdrav --Ex13 (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Čovjek tvrdi da je hrvatski jezik standardizirani oblik štokavskog dijalekta, zanemarujući kajkavski i čakavski jezik. To mi je dovoljno da ga ne shvaćam ozbiljno. Pa ti izvoli --Ex13 (talk) 12:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm da. Dakle, ja referenciram s jednim izvorom, on ubaci srpsko-hrvatski bez izvora, i sad se ja moram opravdavati njemu. Odnosno ja sam POV pusher, a on nije. --Ex13 (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ja ti samo kažem što čovjek radi. A sutra će se dogodit ono što se događa na engleskom wiktionaryju da će pisati samo srpsko-hrvatski. Lijep pozdrav. --Ex13 (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ovo pretpostavljam nije birtijaški način?--Ex13 (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Bilateral relations articles
I totally don't mind getting rid of the bilateral relations articles. Most of the important info (recognition dates, embassies, visa lists, etc.) is already located in other articles anyway. But this seems to be a more widespread problem. Most of the randomly selected bilateral relations articles I've seen are probably not worth keeping. As an admin I think you get stuck dealing with stuff like this. :) --Thewanderer (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Operating system
Thanks for helping clean up this monolith of an article, keep up the good work.--Ferrenrock (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Tomobe03
used a helpme on User_talk:Tomobe03, but I think actually they were looking for you. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  20:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Re. archiving
Regarding the archiving issue - and, despite the notice, etc, please hear me out;

I did read through your page, and read the previous discussions. I even dug out the discussion here, on Lord Voldemort's page (from 2005!).

Whilst I appreciate that you may prefer keeping it all in one page, it really does make life difficult for others - like myself, with a slow internet connection and bandwidth restrictions. The page is now about 440Kb long, half a meg - that does make it awfully difficult for me to post on it.

So, whilst I fully respect that it is personal choice, I just wanted to ask, nicely, one time - to make life easier for us bandwidth-challenged folks, could you please reconsider a one-off archive? You could just move this page to another name, and start it again, thus preserving all the history of it, and then start the new page over the redirect.

Thank you for your time, and I apologise for bringing up a subject that has been discussed previously. Best,  Chzz  ►  21:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (I'll answer here so that it stays inline, for future reference :)
 * IMO the benefit of people seeing the amount and level of discussion should still outweigh the technical downsides. Over time I've only grown more convinced that people are less likely to engage in abusive behavior on the talk page when they can't avoid seeing so many examples of more useful behavior. Sorry for the bytes. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I can understand that; I don't agree with it, but I respect your opinion. Thanks for answering.  Chzz  ►  22:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Croatia–Estonia relations
Hello Joy, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Croatia–Estonia relations has been removed. It was removed by Gorrad with the following edit summary ' (Ethnocentricity is not a valid reason doe deletion - rem prod) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with Gorrad before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 09:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Disrupting and messing into things you don't understand
Joy, how can you do something like this ? This is equal to disrupting of Wikipedia! You've tagged the article about prominent Croatian linguist, translator, pioneer of assyriology in Croatia and pioneer of machine translation as the text about "non-notable individual, does not seem to satisfy basic WP:BIO criteria". Man, are you serious? Do you know who created a lot of Croatian computer and informatics terminology? You say that you're software developer. Do you know who created the term "sučelje"? Have you ever read any encyclopedia? László isn't some "closed unimporant scientific circle that noone heard of". Why don't you use Google? Why haven't you checked into Hrvatski leksikon L-Ž? The edition from 1997. contains 15 lines of text about him, on the page 7. Biographies about the persons that are in Hrvatski leksikon must be in Wikipedia. Joy, please, be serious. If you don't understand the matter, please, don't mess. Kubura (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Joy, perhaps you'd be willing to comment on your cordial encounters with Kubura on meta. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Štambuk's message is called Wikihounding. Also as canvassing. Štambuk can put his support to this deletion to his dossier. About Bulcsu Laszlo ??? "notability"? Joy, are you serious or you're making fun of us? Čovječe, jesi li ti ozbiljan? Ili se zafrkavaš? Joy, do you know what's Hrvatski leksikon? Hey, it's one of biggest (if not the biggest) Croatian encyclopedic projects in independent Republic of Croatia. If a person has a place in that lexicon, than we cannot question that. We are not allowed to question that. Otherwise, it's original research and disruption of Wikipedia. If you can't understand that, why do you edit on encyclopedian project? We're not the one that can say "it's not notable person", if a national lexicon gives the attention to that person. Proposing the deletion of such article twice (even after being informed) is equal to disruption. Čovječe, još ti govorimo, a ti opet. Pa što je tebi? Zabijaš si autogol. Dva puta. About references: You should have read the entry in Hrvatski leksikon. Please, read it. We don't need problems in the places where the situation is clear. Kubura (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Croatia-related articles
I need some information regarding editing/creating croatia related articles, namely: Is it required or advised or otherwise to include WikiProject Croatia|class=|importance= tag in discussion page of such articles, based on inclusion of the tag in similar articles? Thanks --Tomobe03 (talk) 09:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for A1
Do you think A1 (Croatia) might be eligible for a DYK nomination as it has been substantially expanded today? I tried to make some sense of DYK guide, but I simply did not understand what to do and in what order. Thanks --Tomobe03 (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Autocesta and brza cesta SVG format signs
Hi! I noticed that Croatian motorway and expressway traffic signs are JPGs and PNGs respectively and not SVGs - I made samples of both, so could you give them a quick look before the remaining ones are made? Those are File:Autocesta_A13.svg and File:Brza_cesta_B9.svg. Thanks --Tomobe03 (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The two files have been updated as discussed. Could you please give them a quick look? Thanks--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your help with stepping through the minefield of the Kutle article! It's a controversial subject, and so difficult to find reliable reference sources. Farscot (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Maslenica Bridges
Hi! I agree that noting precedence in terms of distinguishing any two bridges is helpful, however in this case new Maslenica Bridge (novi maslenički most) is actually older than the old Maslenica Bridge (old maslenica bridge) - that is the A1 bridge has been completed in 1997, and the D8 bridge has been completed in 2005. I know that old distinction stems from the fact that there has been another bridge on the same site where the D8 bridge now stands, and it was similar to the present bridge, but I am not sure that really qualifies as being the same bridge as the bridge that was destroyed and the new D8 bridge are not really identical. Having that in mind, I avoided older/newer distinction since it seemed to me that it requires some further explanation. Do you have any suggestions in that respect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomobe03 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mayumashu
Requests for comment/Mayumashu IZAK (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Bosanska Krajina
The claims made in the section "Naming" you added is not supported by the sources. says nothing of Turkish Croatia, dead link,  not mentioned,  says "Banja Luka, historically known as "Turkish Croatia", is now almost devoid of faithful Catholics." -- ◅PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 16:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Turkish Croatia
How should I deal with this. Do you disagree? (not implying its you) No disagreement was or has been made on the talk page. -- ◅PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 19:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Vukovar-Syrmia Co vs Vukovar-Srijem Co
Hi! I've noticed quite a lot of talk about Syrmia naming issue, and I feel selecting Syrmia for the geographic region is correct as English term being used on English wiki. However, after reading the arguments I could not discern why was Vukovar-Syrmia County selected for the Croatian county instead of official English translation of Vukovar-Srijem County: see page 54. I agree that the official "translations" are inconsistent as there are Požega-Slavonia and Split-Dalmatia vs Osijek-Baranja (not Baranya), but that's another issue. I don't intend to change anything but I coudn't make out any sense from that, so am I missing something?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of USER
I have nominated USER, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/USER. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. –Schmloof 10:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Corn
You were out of line making that change without consensus. The next step will probably be a complaint from Europeans that this change is America-centric. You can be sure that all such questions will end up in your lap. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've talked about it frequently on the talk page, and you ignored it. So that's a waste of time. When or if someone from Europe (where "maize" is what it's called) gripes about the article favoring America's term for "corn" over the way Europe uses the term "corn", I will send them your way and you can explain your actions to them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to edit-war or anything like that. I'm just a bit miffed, being in the agriculture business and knowing something about this and being ignored. But if someone comes along and gripes, I will be sure and send them your way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

A12/D41 & A13/D28
I would like to separate the A12 (Croatia) article from the D41 (Croatia) since the two are not really the same thing neither in terms of their routes nor in terms of their nature - as the A12 and A13 are well documented planned motorways, and the D28 and D41 are existing state roads (albeit with some dual carriageway sections) with existing legal definition, appropriate roadside markings, etc. I saw you made considerable contributions to the articles, so I figured I'd check with you first. Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, I would also like to separate the A13 (Croatia) and the D28 (Croatia) for the same reasons.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Presentation publication dates
Hi! I saw you altered a date in the A1 (Croatia) attributed the Čačić presentation - removed the day info actually. Unlike news carrying a publication date and web info carrying no date this was a bit tricky for me. I checked it again and must admit Nov 19 is incorrect date, however SEE REF site says the meeting was held 15-16 Nov 2006 in Miločer, Montenegro (enlarged poster), and the presentation was delivered on the first day (2006 schedule). Would it be possible to use Nov 15 2006 as publication date for this one then? Similarly, could I use presentation delivery dates as their publication dates in the future?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't realize I typed in 2009! Thanks for checking though. I'm thinking GAN for the article, so if you have any ideas for possible improvements I'd be grateful for your feedback. Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Collapsing tables
Hi! I noticed you restored the traffic volume table in the A1 (Croatia). I replaced the table with a graph because it was pointed out to me in a peer review that MOS:COLLAPSE advises against collapsing tables. The graph did lack exact figures, but I thought an unrolled table appears dull. Collapsing the table does solve the latter issue but not the MOS:COLLAPSE one, so do you think it would be a satisfactory solution to place data labels in the graph (above each column) indicating exact numbers?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, besides a thumbnail chart without data labels and a collapsible table appears best (at least to me).--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * One thing though, the section as it is now, at least on my screen, leaves a vertical blank area between the text and the table - more than 15 cm tall. Mind if I try to fix that? Well, at least I'll try to, not sure how to do it yet :) --Tomobe03 (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The window is 1440px, font 13, but resizing it only makes it worse (taller) - but if nobody else sees the gap, I don't mind that particularly. However the earlier table did not create any such gap. Tried removing the chart image, but there was no improvement either.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, got it in a 40K GIF. How do I send one?--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Croatian War of Independence campaignbox
Have you reviewed the above-referenced campaignbox? Do you think it is all right as is. It looks like it might need a bit of work due to the mostly red-linked entries and apparent overlap. Also some entries are italicized, most not. Some are dates, most are names. What are "Jump-1", "Jump-2" and "Una" (all red-linked) supposed to be?

P.S.: Borovo selo is indeed an ethnic Serb village, unchanged in the war. If you say so. I simply asked whether or not the present tense was accurate. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ana Ivanovic
I have noticed you moved this page to Ana Ivanović. In Turkish, we have this letter: İ, i. There is a Turkish charity called İnsan Hak ve Hürriyetleri who organized a flotilla. Its abbreviation is İHH. The name is translated to English as Humanitarian Relief Foundation. The problem is that the article's name is IHH now. I think it should be moved to İHH, correct Turkish spelling. User:Vegaswikian argues as the charity's official uses IHH when it is viewed in English and when it is viewed in Turkish it uses İHH, the name should be IHH. (But http://www.anaivanovic.com/press-and-interviews and http://www.anaivanovic.com/sr/intervjui do the same thing.) User:Lambiam has the same idea, also he posted links of Turkish newspaper published in English. Contrary to this user's claim, the link 17 he posted and the links of Turkish newspapers published in English uses İHH. User:Cs32en wrote "Not common usage in English-language reliable sources. Also, using non-English letters may make the organization appear unduly exotic to English readers." In his talk page, he argues that "There may be different rules for names of people and names of institutions, especially with regard to abbreviations or acronyms." But his idea is based on a rule which he does not know to be existing. I think there's not a policy on WP which disables using names in non-English if English spelling is more common as in the case of Ivanovic, if there were such rule then Ivanović would have the name Ivanovic. The debate's link is as follows: Talk:IHH (Turkish NGO). What do you think? Kavas (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Admin help in IHH_(Turkish_NGO)#Survey
Admin help in Talk:IHH_(Turkish_NGO) is requested by Cs32en by writing "I have stated my viewpoint, but if we want to choose the option that conforms to the existing practices, we should consult an uninvolved administrator who has the relevant knowledge." in his talk page. There are 3 users who argue that the name should be IHH. Their claims in the survey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IHH_%28Turkish_NGO%29#Survey) are

1. Not common usage in English-language reliable sources

2. The charity uses IHH on the usage at the organizations' English web site and İHH at Turkish website

3. WP:COMMONNAME: "Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources."

4. Also, using non-English letters may make the organization appear unduly exotic to English readers.

5. There may be different rules for names of people and names of institutions, especially with regard to abbreviations or acronyms.

These questions should be answered. For question 1, I have found these English-language sources: ,, , , . In my opinion, I don't think IHH is "some other usual English version" (from the definition in Naming_conventions_(standard_letters_with_diacritics)). It's just the Turkish name written without diacritics. Kavas (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Advice needed
Hello Joy, I know you have good knowledge on Croatian lands and history of the region/people. I have just recently expanded this entry on the old Bulgarian state which focuses on a fusion between two groups of people, Bulgars and Slavs. I added certain comparisons between them and Croats/Serbs, and I also cited a difference between their adventure and a specific Croatian one. In old Bulgaria, the people mixed to form a new Bulgarian race that identifies as Slavic but embraces its original non-Slavic state and name within its own history. In Ragusa/Dubrovnik, it wasn't quite the same. Here, Croats/Slavic persons overwhelmed the local Romance-speaking people/authorities in number and I am given to believe that the republic did have a Slavic as opposed to Romance character about it by the end of its independence. I added this to the section (which you are free to edit if you feel I have misrepresented old Croats in any way - remember, sensitive subjects can be found remote from the regular topics and we all have to search far and wide to correct misconceptions at times) but now I am not so sure. Was the Republic of Ragusa always called that internally? If not, did it remain Ragusa in English? I never thought that Dubrovnik only emerged internationally and officially when Croatia moved from Austria-Hungary to the first Yugoslav kingdom. Or was it simply the case that Dubrovnik only came to be used by the Slavic/Croat local population but never achieving widespread currency? My assumption was that a Croat (plus other Slavic presence) population came to outnumber the Dalmatian/Venetian population linked to the authorities and then took over the republic. This is how it is interpreted in travel guides (which I know are not reliable) but nothing of this nature is mentioned in either the Republic of Ragusa nor Dubrovnik article. I'd like to make more edits there myself but without prior knowledge of what I am doing, it would be inaccurate of me. Evlekis (Евлекис) 05:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much Joy, I think you've explained it well. I had heard these things about all locals having to be Catholic and it makes sense now. With this, I gather we simply refer to the sovereign territory as Ragusa from first to last day of existence. Like you, I am a speaker of the south Slavic languages I have know Dubrovnik well from having been there many times. When I chat to locals, naturally, we will refer to Dubrovnik but that is because we are speaking in Croatian. I haven't had the privilege of finding an English-speaking person that has ever heard of an independent Dubrovnik yet, just the irritating "explorers" that swear by their apologetic Lonely Planet travel guides, all of whom forget everything they have learnt by the time they collect their baggage from the Easyjet belt back in Gatwick!! Seriously, I knew that there was no hostility: there hadn't been in Bulgaria either, that was how a once dual-existence of eastern south Slavs and Bulgars lived together, only for a Slavic race identifying as Bulgarian to emerge some time later. Not that Avars, Illyrians or Thracians were an enemy nation to anyone, it is sad that no true population identifies as being descended from either of these (Albanians perhaps), but the culture they left had simply been drunk up and redeveloped over time by the predatory nations (today's ethnicities). So there is nothing I can add to either article I mentioned, we have to accept then in English, Ragusa was the state that lasted all those centuries, but it is fine to refer to it as Dubrovnik, and it was very much a Croatian/Slavic-run state in later years. I was aware of Neum too, given to the Ottomans to keep Venice at a distance. Clever move! A legacy is that today, BiH has this former marking and it cannot even make it onto international waters because of the pathway caused by the obstructing peninsula in Croatia! It just causes irritation when travelling by bus between Makarska and Dubrovnik when having to stop and show passports twice! Thanks for all the information Joy. Keep up all your good work elsewhere. Evlekis (Евлекис) 17:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Skradinski buk
Yes Joy, I was already cleaning up after paste merge. I thank for your timely intervension...:) ! I decided to merge the contents of both articles because there's very little chance for the article Skradinski buk to be well developed. I did the same with Rozanski Kukovi and the other hill in the Velebit article (I guess that's the proper name). I will re-order the page for your appreciaton, and if after that you decide to revert my move please feel free to do your best. Thank you once again for all help provided.

Regards, Krenakarore (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Lujzijana
Hi! I noticed that there is an article on Lujzijana in English wiki. I am wondering if use of Croatian term is ok for English wiki title, since it seems to me that no speaker of English shall ever get the orthography right for this one and since, say, German wiki has Luisenstraße as the title for this one, should this be Louisiana perhaps? --Tomobe03 (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Question asked. Thanks for the tip.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Map lab
I responded to your map lab request, please check over there and see if the new maps are correct. Thanks. Kmusser (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Croats infobox picture
There is a parallel discussion about 'Croats infobox picture' at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia and Talk:Croats. Your comments and suggestions will be appreciated. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

My opinion
remains same. No need for another (three) article that consolidate crimes when we have separate and more detailed articles on them. This is not related to factual accuracy or neutral point of view. And I am not happy with titles. Again guilty is attached to entire nation, not to individuals -- Bojan   Talk  04:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

My 2c: No such user (talk) 07:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Serbian war crimes in World War II is unacceptable, both from title and content aspects. There was no united Serbian side in World War II, and lumping together Chetniks, Nedićs', Ljotićs' and Partisans is the same POV-pushing WP:SYNC. The article is now a direct fork from Chetniks and should be deleted. If the section in Chetniks grows, a new article, Chetnik war crimes could be made, but only through normal expansion process.
 * Serbian war crimes in the Balkan Wars and Serbian war crimes in the Yugoslav Wars could probably survive on its own, but they're by conception POV-magnets.

Serbian War crimes
I just want to thanks you for your help it these articles! They were in such a mess, that it was unthinkable. That one sided way of articles we dont need here. Please, if you have any question or proposition, i am here. Thanks one more! -- WhiteWriter speaks 10:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Serbia in the Balkan Wars
I created Serbia in the Balkan Wars. As you told, that is only material of one article, and it is by much the best. Please, it needed to be fixed a bit, some general copy-editing, and removal of repeated info's, so i think that you would do that quite good. For any more, i am here! Thanks! -- WhiteWriter speaks 14:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

whats your email adress? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.199.248 (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Party of Rights (1861-1929)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Party of Rights (1861-1929), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.historymania.com/american_history/Croatian_Party_of_Rights.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Parties
Hello Joy, I've noticed you moved around a few articles about Croatian political parties. I think the moves were justified but it made me wonder if we should adopt some more consistent way of labeling them. Considering that all parties were banned for almost 45 years between 1945 and 1990 perhaps splitting articles on modern parties which claim lineage to early 20th century parties should be in order (just like the People's Party (1841-1918) is currently split from the modern Croatian People's Party – Liberal Democrats). Likewise, the 1904 Croatian Peasant Party and the 1861 Croatian Party of Rights should probably have articles of their own. As for the naming, I believe only the foundation year should follow in parenthesis (which means that modern-day parties with identical names should get that too). Do you agree?  Timbouctou  17:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, maybe even adding a new subcategory for parties which were made defunct in 1945 would be helpful. Something along the lines of Category:Pre-1945 political parties in Croatia or maybe Category:Pre-1929 political parties in Croatia?  Timbouctou  17:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Frankly I did this because user Kennechten forced my hand, but still, it makes a modicum of sense. I also moved out the Party of Rights part already, with an even better rationale - there's actual vivid competition for its legacy. I think there is little reason to touch the Peasant Party because I don't recall any competition for its legacy - but if there's a non-non-notable party :) saying they descend from HSS, too, then we should have Croatian Peasant Party (1904-1929), and link that from all "children" parties. I don't think we should touch the generic party names - i.e. keep them pointing to the mainstream modern party because that is still the primary topic in modern-day use. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Josipović's crimes...
Joy, do you have any advice on dealing with the current situation on the Ivo Josipović article? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 15:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

my piece of advice :Do not delete what you dislike!--Kennechten (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * And here's one from me: do not edit war to push new edits, even if they're not political propaganda. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 18:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo, Croatia
Hi Joy, I have reverted this. See here. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the last time I was there, the board with the name of the village was standing. Maybe not any more. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Zumberak
Thanks for catching my error. Don't know where that came from. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Moving Croatian motorways around
Hi! You should probably take a look at Talk:A2 (Croatia). Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Scouting in Yugoslavia
Thank you for your help on this. As the original editor of SISGC, I was stymied as to what I should do once it split, I was too close to it, you provided the perfect solution!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That was my fault for making it generic. I lost my Wife in a hit-and-run right about the time Serbia and Montenegro split. I could create a roughly duplicate article, but I couldn't think out of the box for that one, still couldn't, looking at it now. You helped get through my mental block.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what was needed, was a fresh pair of eyes. Maybe I am the resident expert, but I had tunnel-vision.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ranting sources
Hi! I noticed your remark about an inline citation in the article on Croatian War of Independence. I agree that the text is, as you nicely put it, a rant, but it serves to illustrate use of a term only. I'll try to find a better source, but even with that new one, I'd still like to keep this one in as it also illustrates style of texts where the term is used. On another point, there is an idea for annotations outlined on User talk:Kebeta page (at the very end of the section), and I'd appreciate it if you could provide your feedback. Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Btw, is inline citation "The period of Croatia within ex-Yugoslavia" in compliance with WP:RS?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Franciscan Province of the Most Holy Redeemer


A tag has been placed on Franciscan Province of the Most Holy Redeemer, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of Franciscan Province of the Most Holy Redeemer and leave a note on |the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. H66666666 (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Vasa Stajić elementary school, Novi Sad


The article Vasa Stajić elementary school, Novi Sad has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern: Vasa Stajić elementary school, Novi Sad – news, books, scholar Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability.'''
 * '''A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Linux kernel
Thanks for fleshing out that new security section with more text and refs, it looks pretty good now! - Ahunt (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)