User talk:Joy/Archive/2021

ANI thread
Hi. The reality is that probably almost all of the really active discretionary sanctions out there are unlikely to find much traction at AN or ANI (with the possible exception of American politics). Those threads often get very busy very fast, but overwhelmingly with those participants already-involved. The pace with which walls of text follow and general chaos ensues soon renders much of the discussion effectively inaccessible to anybody else. Unproductive discourse that leads to needless escalations. That is why WP:AE is better. There's a word limit; there is an expectation that an evidentiary basis is to be provided in the form of diffs (at least from the complainant); it's sectioned. Just, overall, more orderly and therefore probably best for everyone. Regards, El_C 04:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Listen, Joy, I don't want to give you too hard a time about it, but breaking an existing comment into fragments and inserting your own responses in between is not an appropriate way to communicate on the project. I'm actually a bit surprised that I even need to explain that to someone with advanced permissions. Anyway, very briefly, I encourage you to work toward finding whatever "middle ground" or less "bureaucratic" way that you think makes sense in addressing these problems. By all means, please feel free to do so. I'd still reiterate, however, that while the sort of diff-less ANI post you made might be the easiest route, it is also the most problematic and least likely to bring about a positive outcome. Best, El_C 23:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I am vaguely aware that some people considered that annoying, although I wasn't aware anyone actually thought it was inappropriate per se. I didn't expect you would mind because you already nicely formatted your statement into paragraphs, so I simply replied to each coherent thought with another coherent thought, just like we would do so in email (not top-posted, but inline). Obviously you're the owner of your Talk page and I'll go reformat as it seems to bother you. In general, thanks for the chat. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No, it's not just "annoying," it's pretty much prohibited. WP:TPO is rather clear on the matter: Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points. This confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent. Simply put, it isn't up to the responding editor to edit another editor's comment, including breaking it up into fragments. So, please do not make it a habit. Thanks again. El_C 17:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This is a relatively recent development, I found it started with this edit in 2015, which came out of Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines/Archive 11, and even there people already indicated that this was normal in email and interleaving wasn't all bad-faith. I'm guessing someone abused it and there was a backlash, one of those "this is why we can't have nice things" situations... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, if we view half a decade as being "relatively recent"... Regardless, my own recollection (which, granted, may be off) is that this has pretty much has always been the prevailing practice, irrespective of when it was finally codified into the guidelines. Of course, email communication is different since each email sent constitutes its own distinct message (timestamp and all); but also, email formatting isn't really subject to project-wide policy (though maybe on mailing lists...?). El_C 18:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * My perspective is slanted, I've been here since 2003 :) It's peculiar to me because, despite the fact top-posting in email is prevalent these days, if you actually do interleave in a reply to a long email today, it's unlikely to produce a complaint (at least I've never seen one). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, I've been here since 2004 (becoming an admin in 2005) myself, so who knows. But I wouldn't really trust my own memory in this regard, to be honest. It's more of a general impression. El_C 18:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Ljudevit (Lower Pannonia)
 * added a link pointing to Pannonian Croatia
 * Ratimir, Duke of Lower Pannonia
 * added a link pointing to Pannonian Croatia

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

History of Croatia
Hi! I see that you have edited this page before, and that you are a member WikiProject Croatia. Well, there are a lot of changes from Cemsentin1 who says that there was some "Ottoman Croatia" at that time. As far as I know from history, there is no such name, because the Croats were not vassals of the Ottoman Empire, but fought against that Ottoman Empire.No one Croatian ruler accepted Ottoman rule to call it "Ottoman Croatia". So check it out. These are changes []Thank you93.136.36.165 (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Sheldonium
Hi. I didn't want to clutter up the SPI with a side conversation, so responding here. We seem to have gotten off on a tangent that I didn't expect. I apply a very conservative interpretation of WP:INVOLVED to my own administrative actions: I'll generally not close any discussion I've started. I recognize that there's a range of legitimate interpretations to INVOLVED, and don't expect everybody to adopt my personal strict interpretation of it.

The short version is, I'm neither sure enough of socking to block, nor sure enough of not socking to close the case. Given that, I left it for somebody else to pick up, and I have no objection to you being that person. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zabnik, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Žabnik.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Administrative divisions of the Banovina of Croatia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jovanovac.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello
Hello, see these changes from this user [] who writes without a source on this page and no one deletes that [] it must be a suckpuppet [][].89.172.58.27 (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries
I was able to find someone to translate the book pages. Cheers OyMosby (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry for ping because my answer is copy&paste from WP:AE to remain recorded. Unfortunately I have come here to improve wikipedia with what I know(also spending my free and not free time and money), and not to improve wikipedia with what I don’t know, so I don’t see the logic of editing in some other area of interest, and this is my end. We know what volunteer administrators initially decided when I was reported by editor Sadko. They decided in that way because they didn't even check that report. But I understand that because they are volunteers who have a private life, job etc, and they probably don't have the time or the will to read the whole report although this is theirs "area of interest". But I can contribute to a better wikipedia in what I know and in my "area of interest" in which I am concentrated to articles and in which I can make a quality contribution. If I were an administrator, I would read and check every report from beginning to end just like I edited articles as an editor(that's my way of working). I don’t know if I can answer here, probably not so you can delete my answer. Once again my apologies to you and others. Mikola22 (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Juraj, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Juro.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Joy
Here they want to put Bosnia and Herzegovina and other things that have never been Serbian countries, please pay attention to this page and further possible edits []. Thank you.89.172.66.209 (talk) 05:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Naftalan oil for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Naftalan oil 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/Naftalan oil 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. Guy Macon (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Director of football
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Director of football&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Seany91 (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
--Guy Macon (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Joy. Just wanted to point out that the notices above are not warnings, but just standard notices we get when we choose to edit in sensitive areas of the project. Regards -Roxy . wooF 15:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Joy is an administrator, and thus is likely to be aware of ho DS alerts work . Let me say again that the above alerts do not imply that there are any issues with Joy's contributions to date, nor do I see any reason at this time to involve AE in what is so far a civil and productive discussion of article content. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would however be more civil if you guys would not assume that I am advocating for this topic just because I want it better described. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Telegram clarification
Hi! I'm not sure how to address the clarification needed tag re Telegram in the Croatian Spring article. I thought about it a bit and I'm not sure that adding e.g. "weekly newspaper" ahead of the name would really add anything to comprehension of the article. Conversely, leaving out the name from the caption seems very odd to me. I literally see nothing I could do except maybe write an article about the paper. Do you have any suggestions?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for input. I'd love to improve the article sufficiently for a TFA on 1 December ie the 50th anniversary of the Karađorđevo meeting - there's still some time until then, but there's also way to go.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hyperinflation in Yugoslavia
Hi. Because you made Hyperinflation in Yugoslavia into a disambiguation page, well over 100 articles that link to it now need to have those links disambiguated. Would you mind helping out with fixing those? Lennart97 (talk) 08:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Pozdrav
Bog!

Jesi li zainteresiran ponekad navratiti i na hr.wiki? :-)

Lijepo te pozdravlja, Koreanovsky (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fakultet elektrotehnike i računarstva, Sveučilište u Zagrebu (logo).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Fakultet elektrotehnike i računarstva, Sveučilište u Zagrebu (logo).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Category:9th century in Croatia has been nominated for renaming
Category:9th century in Croatia has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Another example of concern
Hi Joy. Hope you are doing well in these unprecedented times. Been a while since we last spoke. I noticed you mention concerns about a new user and thought I would show another example I came across by chance when visiting the Genocide page here. Odd that sourced crimes are not genocide yet their recent edit with weak sourcing for another edit states genocide. Tall tale signs I think. Thoughts? OyMosby (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I also noticed that they seem very familiar with Wikipedia rules such as “WP:ETHNICITY” and page changes and such. So I don’t think they are really that new save for their current account. I don’t really have direct evidence of them being a puppet account or previously banned user either. OyMosby (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * While I’m here, did I make the right call with my edit here? I’m a bit on the fence about it. OyMosby (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Should I revert my edit? I figured since the article scope is about Serbia it didn’t make entire sense. Also I got the impression it was placed there to further play up Serbian contributions to the Partisans compared to other ethnic groups. As you alluded too, a time old axe grinding topic for ex-Yugos. OyMosby (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems I was reverted despite it being primary. Apparently it was the only mention of Serb Partisans which I was not aware. OyMosby (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Ircu for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ircu 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/Ircu 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. Boleyn (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of settlements in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina/B, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jablanica.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Eugen Kvaternik
Pozdrav Joy! Vidim da si uredio ovu stranicu. Pa imam pitanje. Eugen Kvaternik [] koji je živio do 1871 godine nikad nije imao potomke pa ni ne može biti djed Slavku Kvaterniku i njegovom sinu iz ww2 kao što je stavio korisnik Amanuensis Balkanicus. Korisnik Amanuensis Balkanicus je stavio tri izvora od kojih samo jedan nešto kaže o tome, ostala dva ništa ne kažu i to je lažno stavljeno, jer u njima ništa ne piše o tome. Na stranicama iz Hrvatske isto ne piše nigdje da je Eugen Kvaternik koji je živio do 1871 imao potomke .Prema mom istraživanju od Slavka Kvaternika se je djed zvao Antun ,ne Eugen. Ovo je Eugen Kvaternik iz 19 stoljeća https://www.geni.com/people/Eugen-Kvaternik/6000000069655991081 i nema potomke. A ovo je Slavko Kvaternik https://www.geni.com/people/Slavko-Kvaternik/6000000038200151011 i njegov otac je Ljudevit Kvaternik https://www.geni.com/people/Ljudevit-Kvaternik/6000000039352585170, a od Ljudevita Kvaternika otac je Antun https://www.geni.com/people/Antun-Kvaternik/6000000083018819002. Znači oni nemaju veze, osim samo što imaju isto prezime.89.172.104.100 (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Antė


The article Antė has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Article does note comply with notability criteria (WP:N), as well as it does not cite any relevant sources (WP:V)"

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. Louie (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dubrawa (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Dubrawa (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
 * disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
 * is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted 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. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Ivo Andrić
If you haven't noticed,  is a rather obvious sock of /. Block on sight, please. No such user (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)