User talk:Joy/Archive/2015

An admin eye is needed
At Talk:Magnum Crimen and Talk:Air transport in Yugoslavia. Cheers!  Timbouctou ( talk ) 19:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: complaints
You left a message on my user page in which you wrote, "First and foremost, I noticed that you failed to assume good faith in several of these interactions with other users. This has compounded all other apparent errors.". I do not understand which way I failed to assume good faith and what are the "interactions" and "all other apparent errors"?

Please, clarify and substantiate these accusations.--Milos zankov (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of the busiest airports in the Balkans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nis. 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) 09:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Magnum Crimen, again
Hi Joy. User:Milos zankov seems to be engaged in edit-warring on Magnum Crimen. The editor insists on keeping verbatim text as published on http://magnumcrimen.org/, a website that seems to have been set up in order to promote the English language edition of the book, which in turn has hyperlinks pointing to English Wikipedia. He claims that the entire text over there is a quote (which is nowhere stated and is not attributed to anyone on the actual website) which, in his opinion, prevents it from being paraphrased. His position amounts to interpreting plagiarism as a valid article editing method. Now, it may be that magnumcrimen.org had copied the text first from Wikipedia, since it seems that the summary and other sections of our article had been added years ago by another editor who has since been blocked (and the content had not been attributed to any credible source back then either). However, the website says at the bottom that its entire content is copyrighted to "Magnum Crimen, 2015". This is of course just one of the numerous issues the article had and continues to have, but attempts to discuss this on article's talk page have produced very little headway. After one editor already gave up from having anything to do with it, Milos_zankov continued to display a fair amount of ignorance as to the way discussions are led on Wikipedia, so he edits and re-edits his own past comments and feels free to move around other editors' comments as he sees fit. The only way to solve the issues with the article is to discuss them point by point, but this seems to be impossible, as Milos_zankov simply keeps reverting to the version lifted verbatim from the website, with the usual lack of assumption of good faith on the part of pretty much everyone else involved. So is this a case of WP:PLAGIARISM, WP:COPYOTHERS, WP:AGF, WP:OWN, WP:DISRUPT, WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:NOTMIRROR all rolled into one, plus possibly WP:CONFLICT since I think we can safely assume that the editor, who btw registered an account as recently as December 2014, is here mainly to censor edits to specific Wikipedia articles because they are hyperlinked from the website used to promote the book. The fact that the book itself is somewhat controversial and has a reputation of being closely connected to groups known for having axes to grind certainly doesn't help the situation.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 14:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Support, oppose or other?
Hi Joy, Thank you for weighing in at Talk:Most religious US states. While the tenor of your comment suggests that you support a change of title, you didn't write "Support" or "Oppose". Note that Religion in the United States is taken. Adding "...by state" might suggest describing the mix of religions in each, rather than the degree of religiosity that the article seems to be about. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 00:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Blieberg
Hi Joy, I have put an explanation of my edit on the talk page. All things considered I have reinstated the changes I made with some slight improvements. Do feel free to revert and discuss if you think it appropriate, or simply discuss, or do nothing...  Note that another editor has suggested that these events are not relevant to the Blieberg page at all.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC).

AfD request to fix consensus reading
Hi there. With regard to Articles for deletion/Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Split, how did you come to the conclusion that merge is the consensus option? It's certain that some number of people suggested that option, but other people said explicitly that a merge is not the most appropriate course of action, which went unopposed. In general, there was very little elaboration of what exactly is the standard of notability that we're talking about here, mostly just statements (not a dialogue). A simple head count wasn't quite conclusive - 1 delete because of copyvio, 3 deletes because of notability, 3 merges because of notability, 2 keeps because of notability, 1 keep because of a bad merge target, 2 general keeps. I don't see that any consensus arose in that discussion. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Deletion discussions, which are not judged on headcount, can end in one of two broad results, which are delete or not-delete. The variations on not-delete, including merge, redirect, etc., are not especially important and it is within the gift of users to discuss them further via normal consensus-building such as on the talk page. Additionally, I gave less weight to new users with no other contributions. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I would generally agree with your premise, but I think it would be important to avoid the impression that anyone is preventing the implementation of a consensus decision. Either we actually have consensus or we do not - that is as much a binary choice as delete or not-delete. The way this is phrased now and the way the subsequent templates are phrased, it would appear rather inappropriate if we were to rely on further talk page discussion. It's not a topic of high interest and I doubt that a talk page discussion would gather more than a dozen participants, meaning it would be easy to say that the spirit of that discussion is contrary to AfD rules. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've posted a further note on the AFD page to state that further discussion or application of WP:BB may result in the article remaining separate and that the AFD outcome should not be deemed to be a bar to either. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a drive by acknowledgment...
Great image on your user page. My 90 yr. old mother, and 92 yr. old father (both of whom drive themselves to work 5 days/wk) will wholeheartedly endorse that sentiment. As we've heard, you are what you eat. It's shameful that big pharma doesn't agree, but more people are beginning to understand why. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  16:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

File name
Hi Joy, I have noticed something about a file name  which doesn't reflect the description on source page. I don't know what was written at the source page back in 2007 when it was added but now it is different than the file name as the name Srbosjek is not used there to name the knife. Should it be changed to reflect the description on source's webpage?-- Rovoobo   Talk  10:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, redirected article has been restored by user Wangleetodd, -- Rovoobo   Talk  12:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Joy, have you had time to look into the up noticed file name and those changes made by the above user?-- Rovoobo   Talk  07:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I have redirected it back to Jasenovac concentration camp and called for anybody interested into discussion of Srbosjek name to join discussion on Jasenovac concentration camp talk page.-- Rovoobo   Talk  08:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Joy, do you have a comment on the above mentioned file name, or maybe you know someone who can comment on it or do something about it if needed? I have posted about it here and here but it seems nobody reacts on there at all (as was the case with my previous posts about some other pics . Also, user Yonidebest who put the first pic up last contributed in 2011, and user Duja who put the current one up with no description is on wiki break since 2008.-- Rovoobo   Talk  22:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Joy, is there a problem? Is there no need to answer me?-- Rovoobo   Talk  02:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
I would like to raise my concerns regarding conditions of my work on this project. Concretely I want to raise the issue of long term sabotage (at least I see it like that) of my work from users IvanOS and in less extent before Sokac. Many of my edits are regularly deleted from one or the other editor without any effort to take part in discussion and I was even faced with attacks on personal level, both of user even blame me for Greater Serbia propaganda (even my free decision to give up my privacy as a editor didn’t help to prove my good intentions). My last conflict I reported HERE but community decided to ignore it.

I think my contribution regarding minority populations in Croatia (core of my work on this Wikipedia) is constructive. They are even not exclusively focused on Serbian minority but include articles such as: Constitutional Act on the Rights of National Minorities in the Republic of Croatia, LGBT history in Yugoslavia, B.a.B.e., Sarajevo days in Belgrade, Flag of Italians of Croatia, Islamic Secondary School "Dr. Ahmed Smajlović", Romani people in Croatia ... I understand criticism that I am not neutral and I do not claim to be. That is why I highly appreciate dialog and relevant arguments (like one that Wikipedia is here to describe, not to prescribe). Still, other two users are not neutral, and the difference is that I have some understanding of topic while they base their arguments in nationalist POV. I understand that everyone on this project is tired of this issue but the last conflict over Trpinja article and ignorance from community even make me consider if I have conditions to continuo work constructively on this project.--MirkoS18 (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

who is Anton Plivelic?
who is Anton Plivelic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nachoman2234 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Re alleged removal of dates
According to the diff you provided, I don't see any removal of dates, unless I missed something -- just a switch from mm/dd/yyyy to dd/mm/yyyy formatting. It's fairly innocuous in my opinion and I don't see what damage it causes or burden it creates for other editors. If that is what you are referring to, no I don't have a bot that does that. I am not a programmer or particularly computer savvy. Everything I do is manual. I'm not proud of that but I'm 50 and am not going to become a programmer now. Please let me know if I have gotten something wrong in my interpretation of your complaint. Yours, Quis separabit?  19:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Meaning of "Vukale"?
Hi Joy, could you please advise whether "Vukale" is a title or a personal name? (as in Vukale Perov Stojanović - see Fort Kosmač). Prioryman (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Budding in here - AFAIK "Vukale" is just a personal name, closely related to Vukojlo, Vukailo, and other similar variants. In this case I believe Perov and Stojanović are both family names.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 18:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

FYI
User:MirkoS18 and User:IvanOS seem to be at it again, adding and removing Cyrillic place names in articles on settlements in Slavonia. Good luck.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 21:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Timbouctou, if this was discreet incentive for Joy to introduce editing sanctions against me I would like to make clear few steps that I make in order to avoid any conflict. First of all, on 9 March I invited user IvanOS to take part in conversation on Talk page of article Trpinja (talk that I initiated at March 6) after he insisted that there should not be serbian cyrilic in lead "since we have that kind of agreement on WP Croatia" (You participated in that talk). Meanwhile I myself left massage for Joy in respect of this "conflict" (although I do not see how to deletion of integral part Infobox Native name: covered by source can be anything other than vandalism). After that, on April 4 I initiated conversation on Talk page of article Minority language where my perspective gained strong support from community (see: Talk:Minority language). On May 2 I again invited user IvanOS to take part in conversation on Talk page of article Minority language because it refused to participate in any discussion until than. He argued that there is consensus on WP Croatia that minority languages ​​will not going to infoboxes (taken into question by User:GregorB in this edit but it stay without answer). Also, in the last few days there was no conflict since I have accepted that it is impossible to work constructively on this project and edits like this should not be considered as edit waring or confilct.--MirkoS18 (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , my take on the issue is here. I believe IvanOS should desist from editing contrary to established consensus. GregorB (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed article name change
Hi. I don't know how to Ping (true!) so I am asking if you have any opinions regarding the proposed name change (see here). Quis separabit? 00:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

FYI pt. II
FYI. I'd appreciate your involvement in this, one way or the other. GregorB (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Mass nuking of co-official settlement names by IvanOS continues (, etc.). Could you please advise? GregorB (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, never mind - he has just received a 3-month block, so problem solved. GregorB (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Croat Sentiment Page
Why is the Anti-Croat Sentiment page continuously deleted? There are multiple legitimate accounts of Croatophobia. Yet the Anti-Serbian page is not called into question, despite using single source sentences some, from blog posts. Jackiechan321 (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Frankopan family (United Kingdom) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Frankopan family (United Kingdom) 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/Frankopan family (United Kingdom) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Govindaharihari (talk) 08:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

Ban appeal
Hello,

I appealed the ban imposed on me based on your report and consensus reached also by many other editors involved in disputes with me, including. (diff) --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't repeat your speculations about my ethnicity like you did here diff.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I just saw that in your reply to "if you cannot differentiate between "Editor X is obviously German" and "Editor X obviously edits with a bias that makes him promote German", you have no business discussing bias." you stated: "I can differentiate between the two, but the distinction is meaningless in this particular case. I was not making any sweeping statements about ethnicity or bias, I was referring to specific facts of the matter at hand." diff. - The distinction is not at all meaningless because you think you (and everybody else who interacted with me) know for a fact what is my ethnicity. Whether your statement about my ethnicity was sweeping or not, you don't know what is my ethnicity nor it is any of your business. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, it's meaningless to me, I guess it isn't to you. I don't actually care about your ethnicity, or nationality, or any other such property, I only care about whether you make biased or disruptive edits to Wikipedia. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You wrote another comment which contains speculation about my ethnicity (diff) after receiving warning from administrator (diff) to stop with it. As it was not enough, after they said to you: "if you cannot differentiate between "Editor X is obviously German" and "Editor X obviously edits with a bias that makes him promote German", you have no business discussing bias." you continued to insist that this differentiation is meaningless in my case and kept discussing supposed bias of my edits. To make matters worse, you have admin privileges so you are expected "to observe a high standard of conduct... to have the trust and confidence of the community... to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others...." per WP:ADMIN policy. I think it is obvious that you don't have intention to stop and that you will continue with your actions until somebody stops you. I will not report you nor I will complain to anybody if/when you continue with your actions. Therefore this is my last comment in this discussion about your speculations of my ethnicity. I wish you all the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Overall, I have been more than civil in my interactions with you over the years, though you have forced me to be blunt more often than not. These kinds of tirades are meaningless for everyone. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * After you continued with your personal stuff at AN (diff) although you were advised to zip with it you decited to blame other people (in this case me) for your misbehaving. You obviously have intention to continue with your actions until somebody stops you. That is your choice. If nobody stops you I will zip with any communication with you until my ban appeal is over. I wish you all the best and advise you to consider taking responsibility for your own actions. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You do realize that in that diff you referred to, I was replying to Director, right? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Black rain


A tag has been placed on Black rain requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

this disambiguation already exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Rain

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.

The writing above was created by adding a template based on subst:db-reason-notice. Thanks Whalestate (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI discussion about your conduct dispute
Hello,

I mentioned you in my question (diff) posted at WP:ANI. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Ongal
Hi Joy. Don't suppose you know how I should proceed now that the Principality of Ongal article is being contested? I can do what the other side is doing and breach 3RR whilst shouting vandalism, but that's probably not going to settle things long-term. Bromley86 (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Mr Joy
Why sur did you removed my Edit on the page of Kingdom of Enclava ???? Tell me the reasons??? Youssef Stevanovisky (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for Joy, but the current consensus is that neither Enclava nor Ongal are sufficiently covered in the media to qualify for their own articles. Everything a person needs to know about them, in terms of an encyclopaedia, is contained in the Terra Nullius article.  Evidence for this would be the fact that, when I culled the puff from the Ongal aricle, it basically contained one sentence that related to Ongal, with the rest relating to the border dispute covered in the terra nullius article.
 * As you seem to have a specific interest in micronations, you might want to have a look at the WikiProject Micronations/Micronation convention. It's not official, but it seems to me to be sensible.  Bromley86 (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hy
Can you help please by creating and editing this page Football records in Croatia, I am interested in records in Croatian Football and I am asking you because you are from there. You can also read Association football records, records in other European countries here on wikipedia and have an idea how you should write. Thank you.Alexiulian25 (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Oops!... I Did It Again
Just in case that you forget.... --George Ho (talk) 05:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

ANI notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit warring User:Joy Blackmane (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)]]. Thank you.

Serbs of Croatia
I'm sorry to bother you, but you recently participated in the Serbs of Croatia RfC. The admin evaluated the consensus and it says that your suggestion should enter the article, but unfortunately, there's no one to implement it. I can't because the article is protected. I asked the admin who closed the RfC to do it, but he wants so to uninvolved. The admin said that the consensus is "for the wording used in the Croatian War of Independence article." as you suggested so the sentence in the article. So the change would be to replace the part of sentence that reads: "......which changed the status of Serbs from a constitutional nation to a national minority, listed with other minorities." to the sentence established by the consensus: "......which was seen by Serbs as taking away rights that had been granted by the Socialist constitution". I posted a request to do this change but the editor who's been POV pushing is opposing that and he is trying to prevent the implementation of the consensus established by the RfC. I'm sorry I have to bother you, but it was your suggestion so I thought to contact you before I renew the request or open another RfC to implement the consensus. 5.144.98.84 (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

RFC review
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Disambiguation link notification for November 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of German exonyms for places in Croatia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spačva. 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) 13:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Humac (Hvar), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jelsa. 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) 09:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

SDP, HNS, HDZ articles...
Hy, what I am trying to tell about the numbers you included into the table is that those are the numbers of preferential votes won by SDP, HNS, HDZ, etc. candidates but those are not total votes won by particular parties in the coalition because there were voters that voted for the list, and not for any candidate on that list. So I propose that we include those numbers as a note. Greetings. United Union (talk) 08:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Grammar query
G'day Joy, just a grammar query (it has never been my strong suit in any language...). We currently have categories at Ustaša Militia, Ustaša Militia personnel and Ustaše. The articles are at Ustaše Militia and Ustaše. Sources vary between the two. Is one more grammatically correct than the other in these contexts? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)