User talk:Tomobe03/Archive01

Welcome!
Hello, Tomobe03, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Happy editing! Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

D* sign color
I see you've added File:Državna cesta D1.svg and others, but there's a systematic problem - that blue is too bright, it's not accurate. Let's fix that first? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not add those, actually (apart from D40, at least I think that was D40.svg - well, at any rate only one), those were already on wiki commons, and used on hr wiki. Let me see if I can check exact colour of the sign, and then I'll run that by you before I change anything, ok?--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've tried to verify my sentiment, but as it turns out I'm not sure any more. There's one web site that shows both nuances: http://www.prometna-signalizacija.com/index.php?lang=hr&pid=310 Maybe the darker one is only for ceste za promet motornih vozila? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I did some research. A regulation - http://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/dodatni/314287.htm depicts such a sign - and yes, its more blue, less green (RGB 0/102/204 vs currently displayed 0/134/194). What do you think I might do about this? - Should I go with that colour, and if so should I replace the SVGs in the wiki commons, create new ones and alter links in appropriate articles, or something else? As far as ceste za promet motornih vozila nuance theory - I don't think so - there's simply nothing in this document to support the theory, although I'm quite confident that the colours vary inexplicably in actual use, even though there seems to be a catalogue of those (unfortunately only hard copy). --Tomobe03 (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, the official example D60 sign and even the D6 embedded into another official example. I'd definitely go with these colors that are part of the law (that Pravilnik is prescribed by the Zakon from NN105/04), rather than some random ligher one. Since the commons images are named generically, just replace them and fix the... common problem. :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I suppose that shall take some time, but I'll eventually get them one by one, besides, that way articles contents need not change as the media is updated, they'll eventually show proper colours - which, as far as I can deduce is RGB 0/102/204, as shown on the D60 example.


 * D510 has been changed and successfully uploaded. Unfortunately I could not upload new versions of D200 and D21... There is simply no obvious way to me to do that. Am I missing something?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I see the new File:Državna cesta D510.svg - much better, thanks. To replace File:Državna cesta D200.svg, just upload the a new file with the identical file name at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload. After you input the file, the form should recognize that there's a file with a description already there, IIRC. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link, unfortunately the system won't let me upload any new versions since my account is too new--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Upload now works fine, and D1 - D200 are uploaded, but as one of those (D200) was reverted by the original image author, I shall suspend further uploads until I try to resolve this issue with that user. --Tomobe03 (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, the uploads took a while, but now all D* signs are changed as agreed.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Feel free to post a note at Talk:Highways of Croatia about this. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh and another thing - the articles do not upload automatically, but need be edited and saved (no actual changes need be made), so maybe uploading a whole new set of those signs, named, say HR_Dxxx and changing articles to use those wouldn't be a bad idea after all?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No, don't fork pictures that way, just purge the articles - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dsomethingsomething&action=purge That should purge the cache and refresh it from updated sources. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please specify what you need help with.Spitfire 19 (Talk) 20:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that... it went there by mistake!--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem! If you ever do need help with anything at all, try this or this. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  22:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of D522 (Croatia)


The article D522 (Croatia) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This article does not have anything to do with the rest of the world. Nobody actually cares and thus this page does not belong on this page.

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.  Mr. R00t    Contact me   23:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Croatia
It's completely optional, but if you tag the talk pages with WikiProject Croatia, that makes it easier for other Wikipedians interested in Croatian articles to track it down and perhaps help. Also, you don't have to pick the importance or class, it's okay to just leave it undefined. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK thanks, I'll be sure to include such a tag, leaving importance and class blank for more experienced wikipedians to address (at least for now). In my case this shall include roads in Croatia and closely related articles only. I definitely hope to expand coverage of those shortly. On that topic, do you have any suggestions what to do about D522 article? --Tomobe03 (talk) 10:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I've objected to the short method of deletion, for reasons stated in the edit summary. But, someone might still want to dispute its existence through the Articles for deletion process. You can review Verifiability and Notability for guidance on how to make sure that the articles you write are encyclopedic and consequently not deletable :) The argument that a 13km road does not necessarily warrant a standalone article is valid, but the alternative doesn't have to be deletion - there could be an aggregation scheme. But we can discuss this later, should the need arise. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: DYK for A1
I'm not sure offhand, you'd have to verify that in the DYK policy guidelines. I only ever tried to submit something to DYK once, and failed, so I'm a bad resource for that :)

BTW when you add new questions on my talk page, please always do it in a new section so that the chronological order is preserved. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Some good news and some bad news I'm afraid... The article is very good and easily B class, but unfortunately it doesn't meet the DYK criteria: it either has to be new or it has to be expanded fivefold. Expansion is calculated looking at prose size only, but it's 2x or possibly 3x at best. The article was pretty well-developed to begin with, so 5x expansion was actually almost impossible to achieve in this case. GregorB (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And I also must say this: your work on the Croatian motorway articles is rather impressive... GregorB (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's nice to read --Tomobe03 (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for A1 (Croatia)
The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! Glad the article still made it to the front page... GregorB (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And another idea - what do you think would be helpful in terms of improving of the article to, say, GA?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see a major obstacle. These are my early impressions:
 * A bit of copyediting, perhaps.
 * Editing for size. Details on e.g. Sveti Rok Tunnel might be moved to its own article, reducing the volume of prose in the article proper, which is quite big at the moment. Same perhaps for Brinje Tunnel.
 * History section might, on the other hand, be expanded a bit with political circumstances around the stoppage of construction in the 1970s.
 * Perhaps some statistics on the construction cost, volume of traffic (vehicles per year) and the toll collected.
 * More references. At least some will be needed in the "Exit and rest area list" section.
 * Asking for a peer review at some point might be a good idea. GregorB (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Autocesta and brza cesta SVG format signs
Vector format is definitely preferable, go ahead and swap them. There's also a tag (template) for these kinds of changes, Should be SVG, have a look. As an aside, I wonder whether all that spacing between A and the number is accurate. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll check if I can find out how the template works... not sure how it's done - except uploading svgs and replacing file names in articles. As far as the spacing is concerned - to tell the truth I'm not sure. Legislation on the issue, at least on my computer, shows a garbled image of the sign, and to tell the truth, may be useful to determine colour of the sign, and nothing else. Manufacturer of the signs, on the other hand (Pismorad) depicts such a sign with a substantial spacing. Naturally, those signs are displayed with varying spacings - as witnessed personally and in photos taken by other people (example of characters spaced widely apart  and an example of tightly set characters ). However, my experience is that those are generally placed wide apart (although that is only a bit more than an entirely subjective impression of a user of most Croatian motorways). At any rate, I'll look into the workings of the template you mentioned, and use widely set characters if no other info to the contrary turns up. If it turns out later to be the other way around, it should be quite simple to replace A and B signs. There are only 13 A's and 2 or 6 B's (if B10-B13 are prepared as those may be used for routes designated as motorway routes and executed as expressways - although that did not happen in case of D28).--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, having reviewed once again the Pismorad catalogue, the characters used seem to be a bit smaller than in my SVGs, although at exactly the same positions. The question is, should I follow Pismorad catalogue character size and spacing or not?--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On the second thought, Pismorad catalogue is the soundest reference I can find so far - so until a better one is found, I'll go with that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Go with that then. The law is ambiguous, one example has spacing (i.e. the two elements are conversely aligned), another example doesn't. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently there is yet another solution to the riddle: Signalgrad (another manufacturer) catalogue indeed shows identical A10 sign as Pismorad, however, it also depicts an A1 sign embedded in a directional sign that appears to have same spacing between A and 1 as in case of A10. Arguably this appears to be a compromise solution. Should I go with that one perhaps? - I revised the B9 sign, keeping left and right margin as in case of the A13, and it looks quite off.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a mess, now that I look at it, because Pismorad's kilometer example shows A4 with adjoined characters and numbers. I can't open the Signalgrad file right now, I'll have to get back to you on that :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I drove today from Rijeka to Zagreb and saw cantilevered gantry direction signs at Bosiljevo 2 to contain two different A1 signs (wide vs narrow spacing of the characters) side by side - indicating directions to Zagreb and Split.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the SVG template - it's not automatic, but it confirms that an impetus to convert exists. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

A* SVG
I just noticed we're still using the old JPEGs for A* logos in articles. The issue is likely that File:Croatia A1.svg is imprecise compared to File:HR A1.jpg. I thought I'd mention it since you probably have the tools and the desire to polish it up and complete the conversion. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well yes, File:Croatia A1.svg is entirely inaccurate. I was waiting for more comments on File:Autocesta_A13.svg, so if you think the latter is acceptable for now, I can go ahead and replace A and B signs with those (1-12 have not been uploaded yet, but they of same size, shape and font, and spacing between the A or B respectively and the leftmost number is kept constant in all cases).--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, go ahead. Just replace the old images (or nominate old broken copies for deletion). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll post new files, and nominate old SVGs for deletion then, since nothing appears to link to those, but someone was busy reverting those... Anyway this will be safer choice at least.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for D23 (Croatia)
Materialscientist (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hrvatske ceste
I think you will probably want to create an article on Hrvatske ceste :) That way we could stop repeating the generic external links in road articles, and just link the article. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea! I'll try to do that this weekend or maybe next week at the latest.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Good work! I've replaced the external links with internal ones in the main state road articles, but it's a lot of work :) so I'm leaving some of it alone - here's a list of remaining bland /Index.aspx links that should be converted. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for help. I'll get those soon enough.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It took a while, but that's finished today!--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Brinje Tunnel
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mala Kapela Tunnel
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Maslenica Bridge
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Maslenica Bridge
Go ahead. I have little time. I created it because there was confusion about these two bridges: in en:wikipedia, commons and in interwiki. Lothar Klaic (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK then. Thanks for the feedback!--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Vukovar-Srijem county
You should bring this up at a generic place like Talk:Counties of Croatia. I don't believe we ever had a discussion on this level about that, though we did have a discussion on Syrmia somewhere... probably Talk:Syrmia or its archives. But as far as HR subnational entities, it's been pretty much ad hoc. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for feedback. Just did that!--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

State roads in Croatia
Hi, some of your articles about roads in Croatia have a template missing the closing brackets, see. Don't know where you wanted to end the nowrap. Maybe it's only a c+p error, because it's allways the begin of the file {{nowrap| ? Can I delete the '{{nowrap|' part? --Ben Ben (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Uh, huh... missed that... Sure you can delete that. I fixed the D100 (Croatia) and I'll be sure to check the others gradually as there are some things that I plan to change or add to some of those, but any help is welcome and appreciated! Thanks for the heads-up!--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

D43 (Croatia)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of D43 (Croatia), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.cost-d43-school.org. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites 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.)

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: A12/A13
Yes, I agree. I think the original author was overly enthusiastic in thinking that they would soon be wholly transformed into motorways, like the initial section was transformed into an expressway. However, as usual, that turned out to be based on electoral coalition logic/promises rather than actual tangible data. And it disregards the simple fact that motorway plans actually have different routes than the old D* roads.

Go ahead and separate them. I had already spent some time trying to separate them inline, what with the separate infoboxes.

Note that after that, one problem will remain - the A12 and A13 articles will be almost entirely futurology. But if such an article on A10 has survived, so could these two. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are completely right about the A12/13 being something belonging to futurology, but as you noted A10 has survived with zero km of that built even as a single carriage road. I suspect that had to do with the fact that A10 plans (at least north of the A1) are exceptionally well defined. Since initial stages of the A12/13 are not only planned and documented but also partially constructed (as the expressway - and let's not forget that A8 currently exists as an expressway generally marked as B8) I am inclined to believe that at some point at least those sections shall be designated as B12 and B13 if not A12 and A13 outright and ultimately that the two articles shall have future of their own.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Maslenica Bridge (D8)
Hello, your nomination of Maslenica Bridge (D8) at DYK was reviewed and comments provided. --NortyNort (Holla) 11:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar
Deserved long ago, finally awarded now! GregorB (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Gacka Bridge
Hello! Your submission of Gacka Bridge at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ~ Itzjustdrama ? C 15:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Maslenica Bridge (D8)
The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Franjo Tuđman Bridge (Dubrovnik)
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Gacka Bridge
The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Drežnik Viaduct
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Krka Bridge
 — Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Presentation publication dates
Well, it just seemed strange to me to open a document that explicitly says "November 2006", yet it's tagged 2009. I think it's best to use the date of last modification, rather than presentation, because the latter may change randomly and be harder to track, whereas the former is verifiable from the document itself. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: PR for A1 (Croatia)
I've noticed your recent work on the article and I had it on my watch list for a while, because I wanted to expand the history section a bit. Might just do that. Did not actually scan the entire article, but I'm going to do it shortly. I'll leave my comments in the article's talk page. GregorB (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Collapsing tables
I think it needs to be pointed out that the manual of style is a guideline, not the Holy Bible. In any case, I suggest you ask this person about this new arrangement in particular, and see if they find it acceptable. IMHO it's much better than cramming numbers into PNGs. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Another argument also just occurred to me - the detailed table not only makes the numbers visible and sortable, but it also lists the exact data that makes the picture verifiable. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Really? I don't see how... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Is perhaps your browser window wider than 1280px, and default font at ~10px? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe send over a screenshot? I can't reproduce that exact behavior right now... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Dabar Bridge
Hello! Your submission of Dabar Bridge at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Dabar Bridge
The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide yo do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!-- HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   13:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Bankovci
dva naselja--Sokac121 (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Both of the settlements (plus the third one found on wiki before Sep/2010) are already provided for by DAB page Bankovci.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Open Street map
Hi. I've noticed your name a lot on bridge and road articles for Croatia. Excellent work. I think you would find open street map very useful for making localised maps of islands and other areas of Croatia showing the roads for the subject of the article. I've created Category:Croatia location map templates. If you see the Krk map you'll see the D102 road on it. What would be useful is if you could visit http://www.openstreetmap.org/ and zoom in on whatever area you want and upload maps. It would be particular useful if you could jot down the top bottom left right coordinates as you crop/create map too so can display them on the image page like File:Central Dalmatia location map.png so they can be used for pushpins like Krk (town). If you are not familiar with how to create and upload maps from OSM I'll show you. You click on "Export", <em style="font-family:Calisto MT;color:black"> Dr.  <em style="font-family:Calisto MT;color:black">Blofeld  16:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The resource is really interesting and I might create a map for each state road akin to the one you made for the D102. Unfortunately, most of the roads are not marked - I tried to change designation for one (D523 - to see how it's done), however I could not get it to match shading of the D8, nor to display "D523" tag on it. I'll give it another go later. Thanks for the pointer.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As it turns out, exporting is rather straightforward. I placed a map to try that out in D517 (Croatia). Unfortunately, solution to the above described problem with unmarked roads still eludes me.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a paint package on your computer? Because you can easily label roads with the motorway names. Just save a file from OSM go into paint art or Picasso or whatever you have click the letter icon and write names on the map and save.<em style="font-family:Calisto MT;color:black"> Dr.  <em style="font-family:Calisto MT;color:black">Blofeld  09:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Never occurred to me... Sure I got one... That way I might even highlight the route in some way! Thanks for the tip.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, admittedly the OSM is graphically not the best. I despair because I proposed a better quality WikiAtlas project a while back in which editors oculd make quality maps from but the wiki staff said OSM will do. If I can get together enough support for a WikiAtlas project we might be successful. I know of many people who would support it. Every good encyclopedia as an atlas... What wikipedia is missing is the sort of good quality maps you see in atlases. Anyway for now we'll have to make to with OSM. Yes you can smarten it up using paint, highlight the road you want in by droawing over it and you can label it. As long as you credit OSM as your original source and that you modified it.<em style="font-family:Calisto MT;color:black"> Dr.  <em style="font-family:Calisto MT;color:black">Blofeld  10:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Got it! It's only a matter of rendering which is not performed right away rather in a few minutes to hours or possibly weeks. So, that means marking the roads first, waiting a while and then exporting the maps for use in wiki.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

TB
 Imzadi  1979   →  19:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Dobra Bridge
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Mirna Bridge
Hi Tomobe, Just to let you know that the claim you make in your DYK hook about this being the longest bridge on the A9 does not appear in the article itself. Regards, Ericoides  13:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, thanks for the tip. It slipped my mind, even had the claim referenced but... Will be fixed in a moment!--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

A1 (Croatia) GA
Congratulations! Great job! GregorB (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Your input has been very helpful too!--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations to both of you! May there be many more Croatian motorways as GA! Kebeta (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Hope there will be more GAs soon.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * For this occasion, I've got a little present for you - it's a book... :-) GregorB (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that's cool. And you gave me an idea. Thanks--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Roads in Zagreb category
Check this! Maybe 'Category:Roads in Zagreb' is a better solution than just Zagreb. Kebeta (talk) 09:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that other countyes don't have that subcategorie. To replace 'Zagreb' with 'Roads in Zagreb' is better, I agree. For other countyes leave them as they are (or you can make another subcategorie for them like Category:Roads in Karlovac County)? Or even better, to make new subcategories for all of them: 'Motorways in Zagreb', 'Motorways in Karlovac County'...I am not sure...Kebeta (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome...BTW, questions that affect a lots of Croatia related articles can be asked on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia for better soultions. Kebeta (talk) 10:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely agree :-) Kebeta (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mirna Bridge
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 06:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

A1 map corrections
I just wanted to let you know that I've asked here for it to be fixed: Graphic Lab/Map workshop --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info!--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

PR for the A6
Sure, I'd be happy to look at it. ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 20:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Podvugleš Tunnel
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Podvugleš Tunnel, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.surfingincognito.com/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL2VuLndpa2lwZWRpYS5vcmcvd2lraS9Vc2VyOlRvbW9iZTAzL1NhbmRib3gjTm90YWJsZV9zdHJ1Y3R1cmVz.

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) 21:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The link apparently points to a mirror which in turn points to my wiki sandbox. Naturally, I don't know why.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Lujzijana
Talk:Lujzijana is a good place for that question :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Cite template
The story goes like this: the templates I normally use are cite web, cite book and cite journal. Book is suitable for printed books, and the difference between web and journal is that the latter has an issue/volume number (that's why it's applicable to HUKA journals and such). For agency news one might use cite news. What params reviewers usually insist on are: author, work, publisher, location, language (if other than English), publication date/year, ISBN or other id for books. I usually add "format=PDF" for PDF files. Trans_title is obviously also nice to have. Your citation style in A3 looks fine for GA standards; FA standards might be slightly more strict. Anyway: for details on which parameters exist see the above links to respective templates, and ask me if you have any questions. I'll check out A3 myself soon, it's on my watchlist. Haven't noticed A6, it looks very good, just like A3. GregorB (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Veliki Gložac Tunnel
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Veliki Gložac Tunnel, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.surfingincognito.com/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL2VuLndpa2lwZWRpYS5vcmcvd2lraS9Vc2VyOlRvbW9iZTAzL1NhbmRib3gjTm90YWJsZV9zdHJ1Y3R1cmVz.

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) 21:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As in case of Podvugleš, this points to a mirror.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sava River Bridge (A3)
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

PR for the A4
No problem... ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 23:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tuhobić Tunnel
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 06:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Javorova Kosa Tunnel
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Severinske Drage Viaduct
Hello, your nomination of Severinske Drage Viaduct at DYK was reviewed and comments provided. --NortyNort (Holla) 04:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Podvugleš Tunnel
The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bajer Bridge
Hello! Your submission of Bajer Bridge at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a suggested double hook for Bajer Bridge and Kamačnik Bridge. Yoninah (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Vrata Tunnel
Hello! Your submission of Vrata Tunnel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Panoramio image review
 Chzz  ► 11:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Veliki Gložac Tunnel
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Choice of title for HUKA
I noticed this issue too... As far as the article name is concerned, I'd absolutely go with WP:EN ("The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works)."), and that would be "Croatian Association of Toll Motorways Concessionaires" then. Regarding links, I'm not sure - redirect is fine, but generally changing HUKA to "Croatian Association of Toll Motorways Concessionaires" might be considered too, as it is more transparent to English readers (in fact, even Croatian readers might find it clearer). GregorB (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * True. I think at the very least the first mention should be expanded to the full name with the acronym in brackets.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Zečeve Drage Viaduct
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hreljin Viaduct
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 18:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Severinske Drage Viaduct
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Bajer Bridge
The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Kamačnik Bridge
The DYK project (nominate) 00:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Vrata Tunnel
The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for A4 (Croatia)
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations...
...on your "hat trick"! A superb job. GregorB (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

A3 PR
Just so you know you still have an open PR for A3 at WP:HWY/PR. I don't know if you want to keep it open now that the article is at GA status or not. --Admrboltz (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, the HWY PR page kind of gets neglected sometimes. --Admrboltz (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

An Invite to join the Highways WikiProject
JCbot (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

PR for the A7
Done! Congrats, by way on getting several of the other motorways to GA. ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 23:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for A7 (Croatia)
Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Barnstar of National Merit
You deserved it long ago. BTW, what about a book (Highways in Croatia) that GregorB created, are you going to put it in the articles, or..? Kebeta (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I am not an expert on that subject. But I think the book contents update, since it's made of links to wiki. As long as you don't print it, of course...:-) Kebeta (talk) 09:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Ranting sources
I tried to read your discussion but got lost along the way :) please move the summary to the article talk page so everyone can see, anyway.

As for Darko Žubrinić's web site, it's not really impartial, but the site has a fair bit of relevant content since decades ago and it seems to have been written in good faith, so I'm not a priori opposed to it. Conversion to cite web notwithstanding. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Motorway A1 in Croatia
Hello Tomobe03!

Thanks for congrats on FA in Slovak Wiki about motorway A1 ZG-ST-DU ;)

I want to add some info about this wonderful road so I'd like to ask you if there are some info about accidents on A1 - some statistic. I sometimes check Croatian paper so I have noticed an horrible accident in the Tunel Ledenik and also tragic accident of Slovak bus between Odmorište Jadova and Zir near by Gospić. But I can't find statistics.

I've also seen that you used the signs with numbers of županijske ceste which I made on en.wiki. If you will miss some sign, you are welcome on my talk-page to contact me ;)

--Rl91 (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A7 (Croatia)
The article A7 (Croatia) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:A7 (Croatia) for things which need to be addressed. Admrboltz (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Might I also suggest archiving your talk page. You can have a bot do it automatically as well if you visit User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo/ --Admrboltz (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Handling a disruptive editor
Oh, I had a quick look, and my first thought was "where's the disruption?" :) I'll have a more detailed look later, but please don't get discouraged by a minor disagreement, just keep a cool head and keep discussing things in terms of Wikipedia policy. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations & Thanks for the barnstar
Hi Tomobe and thank you for the barnstar! I appreciate it, but like I said before, you are the main figure here (if you didn't started improving the article....) BTW, congratulations! Croatian War of Independence is a GA. Thanks again, Kebeta (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! But likewise, had I had no support editing... well, you should be equally credited for this GA. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: image from another wiki
The problem with logos is that they're copyrighted, so you can't upload them to commons, only to individual wikis. You have to provide a fair use rationale (there's templates) and list specifically which article it applies to. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, same deal. They're not public domain just because they're not corporate logos :) even if they were, usually the rendition as a computer image carries some form of copyright, so IIRC it's safe to treat them the same way. Check out existing logos of other European cities and see if there's a pattern? :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, if you're talking about http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predlo%C5%BEak:FAME and http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedija:Dopu%C5%A1tenja_za_kori%C5%A1tenje_sadr%C5%BEaja/Gradovi_i_%C5%BEupanije#.C5.BDeljko_Heimer then I'm not actually sure what that is legally - it looks like a grant of license to "use", which seems to mean nothing else other than "display", so it's non-free, which can be used under the fair use guidelines. Please read Non-free content and tell me if anything's unclear. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: youtube reference
That's actually #262 right now :) Anyway, it looks like it's not outright fodder, because it's only the third reference in the group; if it was standalone, it would have had to go. The intro text says it was shown at the ICTY as defense exhibit. Court records are usually public domain. What's the ICTY policy? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

A-Class review
Well, there it is, a support vote from me. Unfortunately, it seems that quorum is missing, and that the review period will simply expire. If that happens to be the case, of course I'm willing to participate in possible future A-Class reviews of this article. I suppose there will be no reason to repeat the entire review on my part nor to change my support vote based on my 1st round review. In that case, the best strategy would perhaps be to find beforehand at least two more editors interested in A-Class review, to secure at least three opinions. Regardless of what happens next, the article has been significantly improved (and there are no doubts whatsoever now regarding its GA status), and I suppose that's what counts. GregorB (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the images are satisfactory, if only just. I'd say they are par for the course, since, as we know, one cannot really count on Commons here. But if the article is going for FA (and why not?), then definitely more is needed in this department. IIRC, HR Wikipedia has obtained some permissions from Hrvatski vojnik, but unfortunately they didn't go for a Commons-compatible license, just a HR Wikipedia-specific permission (not sure if they neglected the difference, or it's just the best they could get). Anyway, images are needed.
 * I really liked this reviewing experience, although it was not an easy task. Months before, I had consciously decided not to get seriously involved with the article because I felt it would have been too much for me... Not a bad decision after all, the article is in very good hands, to put it mildly.
 * Interesting: just half an hour ago I ran into this, and asked myself whether the role of international community is adequately described in the article... When I find out the answer to that question I might say a few words in the article's talk page. Generally I'll keep an eye and leave a remark or two, as soon as I catch some time. GregorB (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * An excellent work has been done on this article, I am sure that the next A-Class review will be a success. Since there hasen't been any oppose votes, I think that some people having troubles loading the article was the main problem here to achive A class. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with you. When I nominated Klis Fortress for A-class long time ago, I had a same problem - no quorum. BTW, I think that open 'RfC: Should Serbia be listed as a belligerent in the infobox' led some people to belive that there are some problems within the article, which clearly is not a case here. Anyway, I would have participated more these last several days if there was any need, but everything seems covered by others, and I was very busy in real life. Now, take some time to relax from this subject, and renominate it in several weeks. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

D517 not concurent
Hi. Today I talked with Hrvatske Ceste in Osijek. They told me that D517 is not concurrent with D34 in Valopovo. D517 is cutted by D34 and D517 is in two peaces, which makes it shorter for about 4.5 km, in fact exactly as Narodne Novine says. By the way, OpenStreetMap has all state roads marked. Take a look at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Croatia/DrzavneCeste Then you can open e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/361565 which shows you D517 on the map.

Best regards, Tihomir --9a4gl (talk) 08:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Great job on the OSM! Congratulations!


 * As far as Hrvatske Ceste interpretation of the D34/D517 concurrency or lack thereof is concerned, I suspect that's a matter of practicality (signposting, maintenance scheduling etc) to remove concurrencies. However, the only authoritative text on routes of roads in Croatia is the Regulation on classification of roads, and there is no break in the D517 route (or any other road for that matter) hence the D34/D517 must be concurrent or at least each of them has to be contiguous while occupying entirely different routes. Since there's no evidence for the latter, there's no other possible conclusion other than the concurrency actually exists. I cannot conclusively explain the route length difference though, but I suppose that may stem from information provided by Hrvatske Ceste on length of maintained roads - especially if they consider the concurrency to be a part of the D34 alone. I'd say they are correct not to bill maintenance of the 4.5km twice, but this situation is a likely culprit for the discrepancy. The Regulation is updated from time to time and each of the updates contains a number of corrections regarding road lengths (apart from betterment or reclassification) and it would seem erroneous length data is known to occur there. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK
Thanks for the review, and good to see you back in the saddle with A2! GregorB (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, unfortunately I know no better way of requesting photos than putting in the article's talk page, but that's not really likely to produce any results... Searching Flickr sometimes helps, but few photos are Commons-compatible - and what to enter in the search box? There's Ex13, and failing that one could only inquire at the HR wikipedia... GregorB (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

A2 (Croatia)

 * Just a note, the bot that maintains WP:HWY/RC would have added A2 to the list next weekend. It runs on Sundays normally.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't know that there was a bot at all. Thanks for the tip.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for A2 (Croatia)
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of European route E59
Hello! Your submission of European route E59 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for European route E59
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Szent Istvan and Viribus Unitis
Regarding the former, I'd still say yes, even if its relation to Croatia is a bit tenuous. If you remember our discussion at the WP Croatia talk page earlier this year: I was planning to expand the article using Croatian sources - information about the expeditions to the wreck, but also accounts of the local people who witnessed the sinking. (Unfortunately, these were Vjesnik articles, so after they killed their online archive, that was it. Never actually got around to inquire by email about what happened there; to simply pull it offline without offering a subscription service seems idiotic...)

Regarding the latter, I'd also be inclined to say yes: the ship was sunk in Pula, and there's Janko Vuković, of course.

A question for the project, perhaps? GregorB (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed it is. I posted the issue there, and as there already are two comments made on the subject, I'll quote this there too.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What about SMS Zrínyi?--Kebeta (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia. --Kebeta (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Lisa Stublić
Thanks for the review - just the right moment... :-) GregorB (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Jadranska vrata
If you just look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Adriatic_Gate, the answer will become self-evident :) Since absolutely nothing links to it, you're free to make a disambiguation page out of it. Also, a search for the term produces no results, so there's no apparent reason whatsoever Postojna Gate would have to be considered the primary topic for the term Adriatic Gate. They just came first, which does not preclude disambiguation. Besides, even that redirect was made by the same user who created the Postojna Gate article. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Port of Rijeka
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

E71 PR
You are very welcome - glad to know my comments were helpful. Keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Kotezi Viaduct
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   07:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Article assessment
Generally speaking, yes - these six points are guidelines for assessing the article quality. (For example WikiProject Slovenia banner uses formally defined "flags" which are essentially all these points minus the last one - not a bad idea, because it is both more rigorous and more transparent than "lump" assessments.) And I agree, intro on Sandra Perković is weak. GregorB (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the effort... Actually, I had a plan to expand the intro, but her doping affair made things a bit complicated for me: it seemed too important to be left out of the intro (because her career is rather short - she's still 21), but it still seemed a bit unfair (for precisely the same reason). Anyway, I'm definitely leaning towards inclusion of this fact in the intro, it is still a reasonable thing to do. GregorB (talk) 11:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Lučko interchange
If we have articles about the Bosiljevo 2 interchange and the Orehovica interchange, surely we should have one about the Lučko interchange :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

A couple of template updates for Croatian highways...
and I did a few little things for you related to Croatian highway articles. now handles Croatian highway junctions.

(The Z type is set to only add a link if the article exists. Ž1040 road (Croatia) redirects to Jadranska Avenue now.)
 * produces
 * produces
 * produces
 * produces
 * produces
 * produces
 * produces

The second is that the headers in the infoboxes will now have the same color scheme as the marker graphics. E-roads and autoceste (E, A) have green headers, state roads (D) have blue headers and the county roads (Z) have yellow headers. This will work in, and  as long as the types are set up in.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to mention, good luck at FAC! –Fredddie™ 01:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:HWY/ACR is open for business now. To start the review, follow the instructions on that page. Bascially, add  to the end of the talk page banner template and save the edit. A redlink for the review page will appear in the banner. Start that page with   and save that page. Add it to the list on HWY/ACR and await the comments.  Imzadi 1979   →   02:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Ž1035
I'm wary because Ž1035 is simply not a recognizable name and it's not signposted anywhere in the real-world. Even though the older generations locally do recognize the combined route as "stari autoput", the distinction between Ljubljanska and Savska is nevertheless well known by now, both among older and younger drivers. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a pity really, but the issue of recognizability is a showstopper per Article titles policy. If e.g. there were mapping (GPS) devices that listed Ž1035, we would have a case, but I've never seen that in practice. Probably because the route is long part of the city, the normal street names win.
 * BTW the same argument works for Jadranska Avenue which is Ž1040 - although that case is actually more borderline because neither name is really recognizable IMO. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You could make it a simple disambiguation page. It wouldn't necessarily be pretty, but it would work :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Categorization help
Added "Istria"; "Istria County" would otherwise also be fine, but this is a transnational route. Not sure about "Highways in Croatia" - if I understand correctly, its constituents are Croatian highways, so I'd say it makes sense too. (Did not make that change yet...) GregorB (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Categorization help
Added "Istria"; "Istria County" would otherwise also be fine, but this is a transnational route. Not sure about "Highways in Croatia" - if I understand correctly, its constituents are Croatian highways, so I'd say it makes sense too. (Did not make that change yet...) GregorB (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Refined category to "Highways in Croatia". I guess that's it... GregorB (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

A5
FYI.. Scartol  •  Tok  17:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for European route E751
Orlady (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Southern" A5
Ah, crap. June 2010 - it's actually newer than any of our sources at A10 (Croatia). Nevertheless, the A10 needs to be consistently renamed to A5 in acts passed by legislature for this to apply - HAC is subordinated to the executive branch so it's lower in the order of precedence...

This is why I hate these kinds of futurology articles - it's all tentative and it's all prone to any number of changes. Even if this June 2010 plan holds today, it may not hold next month. Trying to reconcile that circumstance with the encyclopedia is basically impossible, per WP:FUTURE.

At this point, I'd be inclined to redirect the A10 article to a section of the general motorways article about further construction. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, but A10 is still a borderline WP:FUTURE violation. It is perfectly verifiable that preparation has been done and that the event of construction and operation is certainly planned. Documenting that has some encyclopedic value. But, at this point it's entirely unproven that further actions will take place, because of the previous reroutings and budget constraints. It's very probable that some further actions will take place, but the details on them are all pretty much prone to change. That doesn't make for good encyclopedic articles. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Project page article assessment table
All projects seem to be affected... I've reported it hours ago at User talk:CBM. GregorB (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Armed Boats Squadron Dubrovnik
Orlady (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Zrinski Bridge
I don't see why you should defer to the Hungarian name, the article content doesn't seem to support that stance. We had a similar discussion regarding Žumberak/Gorjanci and English-speaking editors in the poll thought picking any one name was fine. You wrote the article and used one name, and now the onus is on someone else who actually wants to rename it to explain why - your contribution allows you to not worry about the matter, really :) It's also similar to the usage of British or American English - if the original writer used one style, then we stick with it. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Port of Ploče
Hello! Your submission of Port of Ploče at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Allen3 talk 19:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: cities template
Here you go, I only moved the non-copy-paste sandbox revisions so that the resulting diff makes some sense to other readers. The rest I left deleted, if you want they can be restored, too, but probably then moved to another title so they don't get in the way of some other similar move. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Port of Ploče
The DYK project (nominate) 00:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Luka, Croatia
OK, google sucks, once you told me what to look for I confirmed the existence of both.. I'll go fix it. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Port of Split
Materialscientist (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Getting an image
Should be easy, that's Roberta F., so she might upload it there herself. Not sure why it is tagged fair use - if she is not releasing it under a Commons-compatible license, then she could upload it to en Wikipedia instead. Best to arrange it with her directly.

BTW the images in the article need a general overhaul. I was about to make that remark in the talk page, but I suppose you guys are already aware of it. GregorB (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I happen to understand her problem (and I have to say a few words about it), but I'm not sure I understand the solution - fair use uploads are even more easily challenged. Upload to en Wikipedia is pretty much the same, I could do it, but let me contact Roberta first. GregorB (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Greda i zabat s natpisom kneza Branimira 879.jpg Tombe, evo je na Commonsu, pa dok traje... :-). Inače, ne znam znaš li, a zanimaju te stari hrvatski natpisi, Bašćanska ploča HAZU 17 lipanj 2008.jpg ovaj je primjerak izvornik. Lijep pozdrav :-) --Roberta F. (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Imam također uslikanu i Valunsku ploču u crkvi sv. Marije, kao i još neke znamenitosti (glagoljski lapidarij Branka Fučića), koje još nisam stigla postaviti na Commons, slobodno prati commons:User:Roberta F./gallery/2011 pa možda bude još nešto zanimljivoga što možeš dodati kao ilustraciju članaka. Ako misliš da bi nešto trebalo uslikati na širem riječkom ili zagrebačkom području, a još nije uslikano, slobodno me kontaktiraj. Lijep pozdrav :-)) --Roberta F. (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Referencing Croatia
Yeah, I crossed it out because this item was grossly obsolete ("Only 3 refs???") and the references looked fine in general. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean "GAN-level fine" - I've taken a quick look and it seems like quite a bit of work left in this department.

The prospect of Croatia making GA sounds exciting, but I have to say this will probably be as difficult as GAs go. (In essence, each section is a separate summary-style article.) On the positive side, there are plenty of articles to model it after... GregorB (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have a particular time frame in mind? GregorB (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoa, that's pretty soon... I might help in the tinkering department and leave a comment or two in the talk page, time permitting. GregorB (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding bibliography, I'm not sure myself. In articles that rely almost exclusively on book sources, that would have been a natural layout. In contrast, when books are used sparsely, I don't really see the benefit. One exception is that - at least the way I see it - "Bibliography" also doubles as "Further reading", so in this case if there is a book that deals with Croatia and could reasonably fall under "Further reading", maybe it shouldn't be buried in the References section. Other than that, I'd leave it as it is unless it turns out to be a GAN issue (and I'd say that's unlikely). GregorB (talk) 08:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion please
You recently edited List of deep-water ports, so I thought you might be interested in weighing in on a proposed renaming of that article.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Zrinski Bridge
Thanks from me for this article and hook Victuallers (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Croatia - Script, Question
I just ran a script on Croatia that fixes dashes and hyphens to conform to Wikipedia standards. This script makes quite a few tiny changes, and the results should be checked. The main risk is a change in a hyphen in a file name, which can result in a missing file image in the article. I have run this script on hundreds of articles, and almost all the time the changes are good ones. I would suspect that these changes can help you meet the goal of GA class.

I do have a question. Is this article supposed to be in British English, or American English? I am guessing British English, but it would be best that any copy editor knows what is intended. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Croatia
Your article on Croatia is very good, so I had trouble making any suggestions at all. I do think that tourism could be covered better than it is now. I suspect that Europeans know the reasons to tour Croatia quite well, but Americans might not, in general. At least that is my perspective, having traveled in Italy and northern Europe, and Malaysia and Australia, but not in the Balkans. So, answer the question, Why would an American want to visit Croatia? Perhaps there is a separate article, I didn't look for that possibility. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Branimir Inscription
Hello! Your submission of Branimir Inscription at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! OCNative (talk) 08:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

A9 Croatia
Hi

I am just having a first look at the article, reading it through and familiarising myself with the road layout using Google Earth. I had a few queries and have put those on the article talk page. Chaosdruid (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Apologies for not getting back to you. I did a complete reinstal of Vista a week or so ago and it became corrupted due to some Windows update problems. I have jsut finished another complete reinstal, including some 300 updates, so will take a look tomorrow if everything is finished then - it is just installing Service Pack 2 as I am typing here, only another 15 or so after tha lol. Chaosdruid (talk) 05:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Notes for Croatia
No objections as such, but please give me a second to fix an error I just spotted so we don't have another edit conflict :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm done. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Can we move this to Talk:Croatia instead? :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Copy and paste I'm afraid :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Vukovar
Hi! I made a short article on it in Hungarian Wikipedia and left it in the care of our military wikiworkshop, hopefully they will expand it. Good luck in getting your article on the main page. – Alensha   talk  22:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And I've translated the lead of the article in Bulgarian. Hope it's enough for now. Kostja (talk) 08:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

re: your message
Hi Tomobe03, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek. 69  talk  21:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Tomobe03, today I have created the Polish Wikipedia article Bitwa o Vukovar. It still needs a fair bit of work to be done on it, but at least it is started.
 * Best Regards -- Marek  .  69   talk  00:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Port of Rijeka
Hello Tomobe03, I have undertaken the review of Port of Rijeka, which you have nominated for Good article review. I am almost finished with my review and there are just a few minor changes that need to be made before I can pass the article. I would appreciate if you could address these. Thanks! -- Tea with toast  (話)  18:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Your article passed! -- Tea with toast  (話)  02:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Branimir Inscription
Materialscientist (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Croatia
Congratulations on passing GA! It was all really lightning quick... GregorB (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, just saw it. Great news indeed... So hopefully Battle of Vukovar will hit the Main Page on 18 November, and by that time there might be more GAs coming from among that trio of yours (unfortunately that queue turned out to be a bit slower)... GregorB (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Tomobe03, thanks very much for your help in getting Battle of Vukovar to featured status and thanks for the kind words on my user talk page! There's one more thing to be done - ensuring that it appears on the Main Page on 18 November. Could you please take a look at my post at Talk:Battle of Vukovar and advise whether you might be able to help? Prioryman (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I would able to help with a translation, but what kind of summary is needed exactly?


 * Please see the article talk page, I've answered the question there. Prioryman (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * My personal congratulations on passing GA! Only those who have participated in a GA effort know just how much work and attention to detail it can entail. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Demographics of Croatia
Hah, "some work" might qualify for the understatement of the year... Anyway, Timbouctou beat me to the punch, the tag was apparently obsolete. GregorB (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looks GA-worthy. You're creating them quicker than they can be reviewed! :-) GregorB (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Government of Croatia
Well, after the Port of Ploče, yet another step toward saturating the GAN all by yourself... :-)

Okay, joking aside: it is absolutely a good idea to wait until the election is over. I'd say that the image selection might be slightly dependent on the results, so that can wait too. Looks good, generally speaking - I'll take a more closer look over the weekend, and maybe leave a comment. GregorB (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do that, probably by the weekend. It makes sense to consider all these as a whole since e.g. I noted that local government was missing from Government of Croatia, but now I see it's a part of Politics of Croatia after all. GregorB (talk) 13:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if you take a look at "Governments of Europe" template, many of these links simply redirect to "Politics of ...". But "Politics of" is actually a very broad subject - obviously, "Politics of Singapore", encompassing "Government of Singapore", could make a 100K article, and is thus not a good idea. I'm not sure what actually is a good idea, I hope it will become clearer once I take a better look at all three articles. GregorB (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * An introductory paragraph on terminology is a very good solution. For the time being, I'd say it makes sense that, for the purposes of the article, "government" means the executive branch i.e. the cabinet. That also makes Croatia's entry in the List of national governments clear and consistent. GregorB (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Congratulations
Thanks, but User:Prioryman really needs to take the bulk of the credit. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

President
Take a look. Could you please use Preview button instead of save, its hard to follow the changes. Thnx--Ex13 (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Presidential ratings
Yep, that importance was assigned by yours truly... While these ratings are subjective, and while people sometimes do confuse the real-life importance with the encyclopedic importance of a certain subject, it seems that "High" at least would be warranted (now tagged as such). It could still be "Top" - I've sampled a few projects and some say "Top" while some say "High" (WP Slovenia, for instance).

On second thought: Parliament of Croatia and Government of Croatia are already there, so reassessing as "Top". GregorB (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Politics of Croatia, President of Croatia
BTW sorry I didn't explicitly respond earlier - I had a brief look at all these recent changes and they're generally fine. I then noticed GregorB had already mentioned some noteworthy omissions so I had no further immediate need to talk :) I skimmed the logo dispute already and your stance looks legitimate - if it's not in Narodne novine, it's not truly official. Otherwise, we might as well have a picture of the "Prime Minister's Brooch" in the respective article. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Thanks for the feedback!
I guess that if you have the energy to write them, I should have the energy to read them... :-)

All five are on my watchlist now - will take a look by the end of this week, hopefully. GregorB (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, one more thing that pertains to all five of these articles: there's a consolidated text of the Constitution in English, so I guess that's preferable as a source. GregorB (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

CoA of the President
You know that there is no such thing in Croatia. It's very stupid to include in template.--Ex13 (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well he sent an e-mail to everybody in the Office of the President. Maybe they will explain better. --Ex13 (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

A5 (Croatia)
Hello Tomobe03, I have just reviewed A5 (Croatia) for GA. The article was only some minor issues, and therefore, you may address my issues throughout this week. You can read my comments on the GAN about A5 (Croatia) here. Regards, --12george1 (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk back
--Sp33dyphil © • © 23:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

IRC invitation
Hi Tomobe03! I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but I'd just like to inform you that there is an online webchat room where you can socialise and find help with experienced editors and myself. The room is at #wikipedia-en; a few people hang around there, so if you're interested, please come along. For more information, please see WP:IRC.

If you don't want to reveal your IP address on, you have to create a cloak. --Sp33dyphil © • © 04:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: eNotes
Huh, I don't know. What for? Have look at WP:RSN. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A9 (Croatia)
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article A9 (Croatia) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. I started the review here:Talk:A9 (Croatia)/GA1. InThe AM 13:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the article and placed the review on hold. See the review page.  Thanks.  InThe AM  19:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Port of Ploče
Almost did the GA review, but Tea with toast beat me to it... Never mind: I've fixed File:MetkovicLuka.jpg (and uploaded a new version), something I would have been unhappy with as a GA reviewer, since the author and the date fields have to have at least some meaningful content for establishing copyright status. GregorB (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was very slow for months, and I got really tired of waiting to see your transportation articles finally reviewed, so I did a GA review of Skaugum Tunnel, which was the oldest one in the queue at that point. Then I thought "why not actually doing Port of Ploče too", and that's when things got much quicker. Port of Split is well-developed and looks interesting too. I wouldn't feel quite comfortable reviewing highway articles, as they are a bit technical, and I'm not too familiar with the matter. Also, it just so happens that Skaugum Tunnel was actually my first GA review. Turned out fine, might be doing more in the future... GregorB (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Port of Ploče GA update
Hello! I'm nearly finished with my review of the article. The only problem is that there appears to be a problem with one of the websites that is frequently cited in the article. I have left a note on the review page and you can find the "Checklinks" link in the tool box. -- Tea with toast  (話)  02:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
If I agree to copy-edit two articles of your choosing in the future, do you agree to join WP:WIKIFY and participate in this month's drive? --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 08:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Internet Relay Chat invitation
Hi Tomobe03! I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but I'd just like to inform you that there is an online webchat room where you can socialise and find help with experienced editors and myself. The room is at #wikipedia-en; a few people hang around there, so if you're interested, please come along. For more information, please see WP:IRC.

If you don't want to reveal your IP address on, you have to create a cloak. --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 07:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A8 (Croatia)
The article A8 (Croatia) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:A8 (Croatia) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Lisa Stublić
Yeah, I saw it - it is a bit too much for the intro... It is a substantial article, turned out pretty good, and might indeed go for GA. What still irks me about it is a sourcing problem with personal bests (maybe you've seen it in the talk page) - other than that, no problem. I've sort of put it on the back burner - right now my next target is Iztok Puc - Ratipok and I are going to take it to GAN in a couple of weeks or so. GregorB (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited DORF (film festival), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Something to improve your writing
Yo, you might be interested to know that Strunk and White's The Element of Style (1918) is in the public domain, so you're free to download the linked copy. Hopefully it'll help improve your writing. Cheers, and Merry Christmas :) --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 11:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: New ministries
This is OK. Some common sense renames should be done, and other articles will have to be forked to match the new reality. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Have a merry Christmas and a happy New Year! <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 12:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas to you and best wishes! GregorB (talk) 12:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Merry Xmas
Merry Christmas to you too. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:green; background-color:white; font color:red; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

--Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

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

Re: Fair use image of a referendum poster
If this poster was an official government work intended for official public dissemination, which certainly sounds like its purpose, it's probably not copyrightable at all under Croatian law. Please see e.g. recent discussion at . --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not an authoritative source, you know :) For starters, there's no author listed there. Without any actual meta data, it's hard to say whether this was official or whether it was e.g. the work of a political party. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll upload pic to en wiki, as I took photo of it. Speedy  Gonsales  22:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC) Here: 1991 Croatian independence referenum government issued poster.jpg  Speedy  Gonsales  22:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well that's exactly what I was saying before. But, to qualify under druga službena djela, [...] koja su objavljena radi službenog informiranja javnosti - you need to prove that it's an official work, and not the work of someone else. Without any author or publisher data, that's impossible. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a too liberal interpretation IMHO. The memorial-documentation centre may well be funded by the government, but you can't say that anything it publishes is necessarily official work as required by the law. It would be a slippery slope that would put anything any publicly-funded institution ever does into the public domain, and we know that's simply not the case from practice. But, they sound like the right people to ask - who published the poster? There's really few options, I'm guessing either the HDZ government or HDZ as a party. The former is public domain, the latter requires a license (or a fair use exemption). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Proposed DYK
Not a bad idea, should not be too difficult. But what about the hook? GregorB (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a decent hook, I can't think of a better one off the top of my head. Unfortunately I got ill this weekend so I'll be out of commission for at least a couple of days. GregorB (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks and no problem... Again, that's great work on Television in Croatia... GregorB (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Both are on my watchlist now. GregorB (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was also very glad to see that all those new professionally produced government ministers' portraits were released under CC-BY-2.0 - finally someone who understands... GregorB (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Inina zgrada
Tomobe, naš Ex13 bio je najbrži. Sada uz spomen ploču ispred Inine zgrade u Šubićevoj u Zagrebu imamo i slike zgrade: File:Zgrada INA Naftaplin 2.JPG i File:Zgrada INA Naftaplin 1.JPG. Lijep pozdrav :-)) --Roberta F. (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Television in Croatia
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Croatian independence referendum, 1991
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Business KnowledgeCorporation
http://business-knowledge.com/solutions It is a Canadian company which specializes in market research and similar activities. Also, the poll was widely released by independent and private media (as the national media would never release a poll with such results). The founder of the company, Željko Zidarić worked in poll compiling for Ted Opitz during the last elections, before the two had some conflict (http://www.croatian-voice.com/2011/04/hj.html). SOme other portal showing the poll: http://dalje.com/hr-hrvatska/vijece-za-hrvatsku-provelo--anketu-s-referendumskim-pitanjem--57-protiv/409308, http://www.monitor.hr/clanci/57-hrvata-protiv-ulaska-u-eu-prema-anketi-euroskeptika/161170/, http://balkans.courriers.info/article19021.html HeadlessMaster (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Croatian European Union membership referendum, 2012
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  08:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Proposed DYK
Yeah, I saw the stats - the article is hot. ITN brought several times the impact of DYK (and DYK impact itself was really strong, with 5000+ views). Planning ahead is definitely a good idea, and Category:2012 in Croatia might be a good start: an obvious candidate is the 2012 UEFA Futsal Championship next month (if it actually gets to ITN).

(On a side note: we usually think of articles in terms of their importance and quality, but there's impact too. So, e.g. Croatian pre-Romanesque art and architecture got 165 views last month, while Severina Vučković got 30602, i.e. almost 200x as many. Therefore, an improvement to the latter will be seen by 200x more people than an improvement to the former. And Croatia, which is now a GA thanks to you, got 156162 views - that's almost 1000x as many. While both Croatian pre-Romanesque art and architecture and Croatia are fine articles that required an investment of significant effort, in the latter case that effort gets magnified by a factor of 1000. My thinking here was influenced by File:Wikipedia’s poor treatment of its most important articles.pdf - if you haven't read it, I'd definitely recommend taking a look.)

BTW, the referendum article looks GA-bound, would you agree? In terms of coverage and structure it is close (if not already there), it just needs a copy edit. GregorB (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Elections in Croatia
Just wanted to let you know that the article is copyedited. It's very good! Good luck with the GAN and all the best, Miniapolis (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Adriatic Sea
Ha ha... When you said "a bit of a workover", I smelled an understatement, but still did not quite expect an 8x expansion! An outstanding article from what I can tell after a quick pass. Could be your best work to date (it's on the order of CWoI), and is definitely close to FA.

Back to your question: I thought about it before clicking on the article, and could not think of anything better than the Mediterranean, which is exactly what I've found. It is clear, however, that this link is virtually useless. I'd say portal boxes are of marginal use too (click-throughs not likely here), so there is a solid case for removing the See also section altogether. GregorB (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Adriatic Sea, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mullet, Bora and Ottoman–Venetian Wars (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Adriatic Sea
Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Award
Noticed your hard work on articles related to politics of Croatia.

-- Wusten  fuchs  05:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Seats in Parliament
Hello Temobe,

I remember we had discussion abt seats in Croatian Parliament, it was about the image. If you can tell me wich program you used to make the structure of seats. I need this for parliaments in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Thx, -- Wusten  fuchs  16:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: River valleys
Pokuplje and Posavina would be easy to convert to English titles. However, Podravina and Podunavlje articles talk of regions that don't necessarily exist in the non-Slavic speaking countries. Start an RFC somewhere? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: A footnote in a template
Could not quite figure out what exactly is supposed to be done, as Largest cities of Croatia already has a working inline reference. If an extra note has to be added, does it have to be displayed inside the template or not? GregorB (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Croatia-Hungary relations
Hi again—just wanted to let you know that the article is copyedited. It's very good! Best of luck with the GAN. Cheers,  Miniapolis  ( talk ) 00:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Couple comments on the Adriatic Sea article on my talk page
Hi. There are a couple of questions/comments on the Adriatic Sea article at the bottom of my talk page that you might find of interest... Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 18:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5
Hi. When you recently edited Slavonia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Požega and Bosut (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: several things
I haven't had enough time to proofread those new articles, sorry, I'll try to do it, but maybe after the Easter weekend. I deleted the redirect - it qualifies under WP:CSD so in the future you could ask any admin to do it, by placing the analogous template db-g7 on it. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Counties of Croatia
Great work once again, from what I can tell after a quick look. (Also, by chance, I've visited the article just days ago.) I'll take a closer look in a day or two. The article is on my watchlist now. GregorB (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me... GregorB (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Counties of Croatia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Vrbas


 * Geography of Croatia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Cave salamander

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Mountainous Croatia
The DYK project (nominate) 00:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK Titanic
Hi, Isn't there a place to put special DYKs for the Titanic's anniversary? I put one on April 13 but I'm afraid it'll take days until reviewed... can I open a special DYKs like it's for Easter or whatever? Nienk (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Central Croatia
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Copyright notices
So there you have it, the crap copyright notices our government agencies post on their web sites finally muddled the water enough. I think this will need to be resolved by quoting an opinion of someone who actually practices Croatian copyright law. You could probably pester VladaHR on Twitter? :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30
Hi. When you recently edited Croatian Littoral, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lopar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Adriatic Sea
They shouldn't be rolled back because that function is for vandalism only, but you can simply move the offending content to Talk. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adriatic_Sea&diff=490285051&oldid=490208224 indicates it's one big block, and one sectioning, shouldn't be a problem to just swoop out to talk? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Counties of Croatia
Hi! I'll be working on the text portions of Counties of Croatia shortly (in the next couple of days). Given the length of the text, I don't think it will take too long. I'm also scheduled to work on Croatia-Slovenia border disputes as part of the May GOCE copyediting drive. Hope you've been doing well... Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 21:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Renaming an article
Well, the current title is due to Joy, he seemed to have a different opinion regarding the correct form, since he actually moved it from upper to lower case. So: 1) it may not necessarily be straightforward, and 2) you can't move it back since you're not an admin. Joy is, however, so apart from WP:RM you might want to talk to him directly.

BTW, I saw Požega Valley just the other day, a very good job - as always, if I might add... GregorB (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Croatian Littoral
Carabinieri (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Pandurs
Well... History is not my forte since my elementary school days, but I'll take a look regardless. :-) Regarding categories, it is quite legitimate to remove categories which are not reasonably backed up by the text. GregorB (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed on "History of Romania" and "Oltenia". "History of Vojvodina" seems reasonable, as the Slavonian Military Frontier stretched as far east as Mitrovica, Zemun and Novi Sad. GregorB (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi there,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Seven Pillars 2008 e5.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 30, 2012. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2012-05-30. — howcheng  {chat} 18:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Požega Valley
Carabinieri (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

wikEd
Just out of curiosity: are you familiar with and/or do you use wikEd? GregorB (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think everybody should use it... :-) Toolbar, syntax highlighting, and control-clicking links in the edit window... Anyway, it might all seem a bit overwhelming at first, but I've using it for quite a while, and editing without it now seems rather painful and crude... GregorB (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Copy-pasting can be messy... [T] button fixes the formatting, but it is a drawback. GregorB (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Sava
Hi Tomobe03, thanks for your feedback. I've listed some thoughts at my talk page to keep the discussion thread grouped there. Doremo (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for copying the discussion to the relevant page. I was just puzzling over how to create shading (I didn't know about the talkquote tag). Doremo (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, I had to think first where I used it the last time to remind myself how that's done too.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Degree
Thanks. Been a while since my last DYK - I'd love to do more, but I've been busy lately and I guess there's no energy left for substantial work...

It is supposed to be a law degree. I had trouble translating that one - it's apparently "B.A. in law" in the UK, but there are other names too... GregorB (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review

 * Congratulations on passing this one and the others before (happens almost too quickly!)... GregorB (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My thinking too - link rot is a serious long-term problem for Wikipedia in general. They are not easy to fix, and the volume of work that goes into this is large, yet still insufficient. Haven't really thought about preemptive archiving (as opposed to using the Web Archive), might be an interesting idea. GregorB (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea... I've been trying to tackle the articles with dead external links in recent months, along with other cleanup issues, but, as I said, it takes time. Still, as long as there is at least some progress - and I'd say there is - I'm happy with it... (BTW, congratulations once again!) GregorB (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

hrcak URLs
Regarding this, I see you used the bottom "[English]" link to get the English abstract, but you can also go a step further and change links into the fully English summaries - click on the little British flag on the top right, which usually tacks on "&lang=en" to the URL and translates it further. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Matija Škerbec
Hi Tomobe03, thanks for your message. I'll be happy to look for and add an additional reference to the Matija Škerbec article (there's plenty of material available). Could you let me know what kind of reference is missing? Doremo (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, I've taken care of it. Doremo (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Ombla
I'd say no for the time being, especially if the power plant doesn't get built in the end. If it does, it might be split into a separate article. GregorB (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hah... It's a GA (but I guess you already know that). Didn't know much about the river, so when I saw it's 30 m long, i thought it was an error. Then I thought it was a DYK-worthy fact, and apparently so did you... :-) GregorB (talk) 09:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Hydrography of Croatia template
Just be bold :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: map of Ombla
I really think a map should be made with an indication where the underwater flow is and at the same time show how Trebišnjica is connected to the sea, where that power plant is, etc. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, plus an indication of power plant positions. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ombla
Hello! Your submission of Ombla at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Bushranger One ping only 23:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for List of Croatian counties by GDP
Yngvadottir (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Croatian independence referendum, 1991
After thoroughly reviewing this article, it meets the good article criteria and has passed. Keep up the good work you are doing for Wikipedia! Rp0211 ( talk2me ) 21:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Trimming down
Good day, Tomobe03. No, I have not moved any sources to other articles while shortening the article. But since I just deleted those sources where there are plenty of them (from five sources to three; from three to two...) or replaced them with the ones already in the references list (instead of having a source in Croatian for Ivica Racan leaving the congress in 1990, I just took the one from book by Brown and Karim), I figured it will not make any significant difference. If I made a mistake, anyone can go to the history of revision page and look up for those sources. Cheers.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 11:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Elections of Croatia
Hi Tomobe3. I have started reviewing this article. I have left some intial comments at Talk:Elections in Croatia/GA1‎ that you may be interested in. AIR corn (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologise for the slow review. I am busier than expected at the moment and am doing it when I have time. Thank you for your quick responses. AIR corn (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay last comments left. Thank you for your patience. AIR corn (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. You are fast! AIR corn (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We can get a second opinion on the image or you may be able to replace/remove it. Apart from that (and a check of my changes) I am happy to pass. AIR corn (talk) 07:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Passed. Congratulations. You may want to check the GA category. AIR corn (talk) 05:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Elections in Croatia image
I was going to ask you precisely that: since the image license is the only outstanding issue, and since it is clearly a non-essential one, is it necessary to prolong the GAR for it to be resolved? I'd also say no, if you ask me, so let's go ahead with it. I'll probably post a question at WP:CQ, because certain provisions to not make sense to me as applied to this particular image and its license. Once this is settled, the backup image can still be replaced with the original one. GregorB (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ombla
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

GA On Hold
See Talk:A8 (Croatia)/GA2. Thanks! ⇒ T A  P  11:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Television in Croatia
The article Television in Croatia you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Television in Croatia for things which need to be addressed. Tea with toast  (話)  18:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

GA nomination of Croatia-Hungary relations
Hi Tomobe03, I want to let you know that I've reviewed Croatia-Hungary relations, and there are few minor details that need to be fixed. I'll put the article on hold until those are taken care of. Good luck! -- Tea with toast  (話)  02:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Elizabeth of Bosnia
I suppose, on the same analogy we include e.g. Prince Álmos of Hungary. Other nobility of the Kingdom of Hungary with notable involvement in/with Croatia should be included, too. On related note, I've recently tagged most Ottoman-Venetian Wars as WP:CRO material because most of them had significant battles in Dalmatia (a lot of which isn't documented, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be). --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess the logical thing to do is to first include all of those where there's a more direct link, and when that's done, ponder the rest. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You should move the list to WT:CRO :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

SR Croatia
Thank you for your offer to help me with this article. I will adress you if I need anything. -- Wusten  fuchs  13:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, as you offered help, I'm going to tell you that I have this problem. It's about Agrarian Reform in SR Croatia and process of nationalization. If you aren't familiar, Agrarian Reform was about taking property from rich landowners and its transformation, colonization and confiscation. Now, should this be in History or in Economy section. Also, in Matković's book there is a larger section about nationalization of major companies... I'm confused about this one. -- Wusten  fuchs  22:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Fahrenheit 451...
...is a very good metaphor for what is going on. It's like an external force that simply destroys the citation work done here. Although, "destroys" is perhaps an oversimplification - WP:LR says that if it's an article that was published offline, simply remove the URL, problem solved. That's formally all right, but it's far from satisfactory for a number of reasons. I don't think I've ever done that, and I've been trying to reduce our dead external links department for more than six months (with fairly modest results). It's hard work and it's very important, so everyone who's doing it deserves recognition. GregorB (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

SR Croatia 2
Ok... now, I tried to reform the article, and here is the problem. What would Politics and Legislation sections include? Is the article good so far? -- Wusten  fuchs  14:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Re:Nacional.hr references
I have archived this Nacional page, but how do I add it to the references? Is there a rule what to to with the links that point to archived pages? I'll use this every time I use a online-news as a source. -- Wustenfuchs  22:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Um... wait. Where is this link I need to archive? :) I archived the Globus news by mistake. Never mind. -- Wustenfuchs  22:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note re nacional.hr, i saw they stopped publishing today and actually wondered about that. What do you mean by archiving, can you link me to what you mean? Thanks.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken 00:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Archiving
Which number did you get in archiving of the Nacional's links? -- Wustenfuchs  14:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify: July Newsletter and August Drive

 * EdwardsBot (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Certainly I will use the cite book template
Thanks for your complement and advice. I like that template format, I've used it in the past but have become unused to it. I am adding important material to the intro on that war about the initial stages of the conflict that were much different in nature from what the conflict became when Serb irredentist figures took control of the Yugoslav army. Initially Yugoslav Prime Minister Markovic (a Croat from Bosnia) and Yugoslav Defense Minister and Yugoslav army leader Kadjevic (a mixed Croat-Serb from Croatia) led the strategy, they planned to topple the governments of Slovenia and Croatia and establish military martial law in those two republics and they hoped (probably in vain) that they could restabilize Yugoslavia. However the belligerent nationalist commanders supported by Serbian President Milosevic caused the catastrophes during the Battle of Vukovar and the Siege of Dubrovnik, that turned public opinion of the United States and other countries to Croatia, and Markovic and Kadjevic later resigned as the Serbian nationalists took control of the army, and then it became exclusively the Croat-Serb ethnic conflict that most people remember it for.--R-41 (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Kadjevic was a former Yugoslav Partisan who had fought the Ustase and he is known to have regarded Tudjman's Croatian government as a neo-Ustase government in his perspective, especially because it was advocating an ethnic Croatian nationalism. The SFRY government even in Tito's days denounced any Croatian nationalist movement as threatening to revive a neo-Ustase government - it was a common political attack on Croatian nationalists that Kadjevic appeared to fervently believe. In fact I remember from the BBC documentary Death of Yugoslavia, that a Serb general who had served in the Yugoslav army in Slovenia, outside of his place of birth, was astounded and dumbfounded when he saw Slovene soldiers firing at him and his forces; Slovenia had been peaceful for years and he considered Slovenes as his Yugoslav brothers and appeared deeply upset with the war.--R-41 (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I need help for one thing: for the "sfn" book cite, how do you add multiple authors' last names to it?--R-41 (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that help and the friendly chat!--R-41 (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Politics of Croatia
Hi, Tomobe03, I've begun the copy-edit you requested for the above article at the GOCE Request page. Please feel free to contact me, or to correct or revert my edits if I'm doing something I shouldn't. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for volunteering time and effort to copyedit the article. I took a look at copyedits you made so far and I think those are all just fine.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries :-). A quick question: does 'misdemenour court' mean 'criminal court' - or does it mean something else? Thanks, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done - apart from the above question. I changed numbers between 9 and 100 from numerals to words; I'd changed some earlier to comply with WP:MOSNUM, to match comparable terms; I thought it would be more consistent to change them throughout he article. Feel free to change this if you wish. Also, feel free to contact me about any other issues concerning the copy-edit. Good luck with your GA nomination. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Answer to the above question is - no. The misdemeanor court tries minor offenses only - parking tickets and similar.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I see, thanks for explaining that - I'll clarify that on the article. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I tweaked that a bit, hope I did not mess anything language-wise. Thanks for the copyedit!--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, happy to help. Your changes are fine, except the wikilink on the term 'misdemenour' should go in the lead section per WP:MOSLINK, but 'misdemenour' and 'traffic violation' are commonly understood terms, so don't really need linking in my opinion. I'll leave it up to you anyway :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 06:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify and the future of wikification
Hi! There is an ongoing proposal at the project talkpage concerning the future of wikification, including possible deprecation of the wikify template which is being discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 10. Your input would be greatly appreciated!

You are receiving this message because you are listed as an active member of the wikify project. To update your status, go here.

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC) on behalf of Project Wikify

Pandurs on hold...
Hi, just to say that I've made the last few points in the review - mostly pretty minor - and placed it on hold. Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Adriatic Sea
Just a friendly ling to say I think there's a few comments at the FAC you might want to check in on. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Enver Čolaković
I would appriciate your comment here. -- Wüstenfuchs  13:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 10:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Central Croatia, Slavonia
First of all, take a moment to breathe :) It's just one person, and none of this is a problem that can't be solved amicably. Use WP:DRN for starters. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If DRN requirements require you to be too verbose - just call an RFC or get a third opinion? If you've spent all this time already, a modicum of an effort to call others to the matter would demonstrate your good faith and wouldn't cost too much time. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You will probably want to know that In the meantime I filed Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement on a related issue. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ombla
The article Ombla you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. There are some minor changes or clarifications which need to be addressed before the article can be passed. See Talk:Ombla for issues. Good luck and happy editing! -- Tea with toast  (話)  19:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem... Regarding that last bit of data on present-day water consumption, I've actually found a source: http://www.slap-cro.org/dokumenti/task,doc_view/gid,98/ (page 13). Both peak and average figures are supplied. Just haven't gotten around to it - could you add it to the article? GregorB (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Kudos for writing it, I got the easy part... :-) GregorB (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:TFL reboot
Hello Tomobe03. I just wanted to thank you for selecting a submission for TFL. As you are aware, recently, at WT:TFL, there's been a lot of concern that the system has become stuck, that new nominations are being discouraged by the lengthy queues in place, and that my selections for TFL haven't been diverse enough. To that end, I've rebooted the system. In short, we will no longer have a submissions and prep page, just a submissions page. We'll limit the number of submissions to ten. The community can comment on, support, oppose etc the inclusion of any of the submissions. Directors will have final say on what goes on main page when. I've deleted all selections made from mid-October to Christmas to give others the opportunity to get involved. I'm sorry that your efforts now have been, well, delayed I guess, and hope that you'll continue to support our process, as we try to improve and ultimately get more main page exposure. Feel free to ping me about any of this. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Josef Philipp Vukassovich
Very good, that one looked tough, I searched for it but came out short... GregorB (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for chipping in - just at the the right moment, I was a bit exhausted this weekend and could not bring myself to addressing the remaining issues. Will make another pass today or perhaps tomorrow. GregorB (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Very good. Even without looking, I can tell that the chances of improving upon your work are slim, but I'm going to try nevertheless. :-) GregorB (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for White Coke
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I learned something tonight! Thanks for writing this. Very interesting. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Moba
Thanks for your message. I need some time to read it and think about it when I have more time (now I have some obligations in real life). Then I will return to write reply to it.

In the meantime I came up with one idea. I apologize if it is stupid but it sounds intriguing to me. There is one custom which in Serbian language is called Moba, but I believe there is a similar thing in other languages and cultures too. It is described as action when friend and neighbours gather together to help somebody to complete some big job. Translated to wikipedia: maybe members of wikiproject Serbia could gather and try to help with some big job (like reassessing all b-class articles on wikiproject cro). Or members of wikiproject Croatia (which is more likely because they are far more active, for now) could gather to help assessing all non-assessed articles at wikiproject Serbia. That action could increase the quality of articles in some wikiproject and help completing some big job more efficiently. Maybe this kind of activities could be organized on larger scale, like Wikiproject Moba where interested editors could apply for membership and all together help with resolving some big technical jobs, like assessments and reassessments in case of large backlogs.

Thanks for your message.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

B and C class
I agree with you regarding the status of B class articles - indeed, some of them are not entirely up to standard. More importantly, even assuming B class articles are all correctly assessed, the depth of B class is a bit of a weakness of this project at the moment. I hope the following figures illustrate the situation:

So, B+C looks okay, but B class looks weak. (I have arbitrarily used Start class as a baseline, but things would probably look more or less the same using any other metric.) No worries about the GA class, thanks chiefly to you-know-who. :)

I agree fully with the idea of starting an assessment campaign. (I thought about it before and even dabbled a bit myself.) Moreover, I would extend this campaign (either concurrently or in phase two) to C class articles, where the objectives would be to: 1) identify conservatively assessed articles and reassess them as B, if they meet the requirements, 2) leave the assessment comments for the rest, pointing the way towards the B class criteria, per your suggestion, 3) possibly pick the "low-hanging fruit", i.e. improve those for which it is fairly easy to do so to B class on the spot.

For coordination, a good approach might be to create a project subpage with the list of articles to be checked and the results/comments. The size of this drive (500+ articles, if C class is included) is the only thing that worries me at this moment, but there is no rush to complete it in any given time frame. And yes, I say let's take it to the project and see where it goes. GregorB (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would be more natural to start with the B class, then triage the C class. The articles will go both up and down the scale in the process if these two classes are addressed concurrently, and that might be slightly confusing.
 * I didn't assess too many B class articles (not too many are there anyway), but I tended to see them in a holistic way ("this looks like a B class as a whole"), rather than as a sum of components ("this meets each and every B class criterion"). The latter is the way to go: if B class is a stepping stone towards the GA, then itemized assessment makes sense, because that's how GA class is assessed too. In this way, conforming B class articles could really be elevated to GA class without excessive effort - I agree with you on that.
 * This brings up a question: do we formally adopt a five- or six-item checklist for the B class, like e.g. WP Milhist, WP Slovenia and others? This is a good chance to introduce it. GregorB (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Useful tool
C-Class WP Croatia articles assessed as B-Class by at least one other project: http://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php?depth=3&categories=C-Class+Croatia+articles%0D%0AB-Class+articles&ns%5B1%5D=1&doit=1

Start-Class WP Croatia articles assessed as C-Class by at least one other project: http://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php?depth=3&categories=Start-Class+Croatia+articles%0D%0AC-Class+articles&ns%5B1%5D=1&doit=1

Already upgraded 5 or 6 articles which are clear cases, there are still more. If the "other project" is WPMILHIST, their assessment can be accepted as reliable. GregorB (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I've made just one upgrade from C to B: Sava. The rest were upgrades from Start to C, based on prior WP MILHIST assessments. Anyway, these articles with divergent assessments are potentially interesting to have another look at. GregorB (talk) 13:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with your assessments. Zagreb Airport is lacking in referencing, but is certainly good enough for C. GregorB (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Francetić
Thx for your notification. I am interested in upgrading the article but it will take some time as I have alot of obligations here. -- Wüstenfuchs  18:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:HWY/ACR
Hi! I'm just curious... are you still interested in taking A1 (Croatia) to ACR? --Rschen7754 20:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Main Page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of the article Counties of Croatia know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on November 5, 2012. You can view the TFL blurb at Today's featured list/November 5, 2012. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors, or , or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  21:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

<div style="background-color: #F4C2C2; border: 1px solid #1234aa; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em; padding: 8px; height: 1%;"> <div class="plainlinks" style="background-color: #FFFFFF; border-width: 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: #88a; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 1em .5em 1em;">

The counties of Croatia are the primary administrative subdivisions of Croatia. The Kingdom of Croatia was first subdivided into counties in the Middle Ages. The divisions have changed over time, reflecting territorial losses to Ottoman conquest and subsequent recapture of some territory; changes in the political status of Dalmatia, Dubrovnik and Istria; and political circumstances, including the personal union and settlement between the Habsburg kingdoms of Croatia and Hungary. The traditional division of Croatia into counties was abolished in 1922, when the oblasts of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes were introduced. Communist-ruled Croatia, a constituent part of post-World War II Yugoslavia, was organised into approximately 100 municipalities. Since the counties were re-established in 1992, Croatia has been divided into 20 counties and the capital city of Zagreb. The city of Zagreb has the authority and legal status of both a county and a city (separate from the surrounding Zagreb County). The counties are subdivided into 127 cities and 429 municipalities.

Assessment drive
No further comments in the project's talk page, so I guess this is it.

A general plan for us might be: What do you say? GregorB (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Use Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia/Assessment for coordination.
 * Generate a list of all B-Class articles and paste it there.
 * Go through all articles in the list and:
 * Leave a six-point assessment in the project banner, using B (a very convenient template) and possibly downgrade the article accordingly.
 * Mark it as done in the above mentioned list.
 * Leave an assessment comment in the article's talk page (optional).
 * Once all articles are done, activate the B-Class checklist option in the WikiProject Croatia template. If I understand the mechanism correctly, for articles lacking Y in any of the six points, but not downgraded to C accordingly, the downgrade will take place automatically at this point.
 * CatScan can do that. I'm volunteering, anyway... GregorB (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding copyright issues with Zagreb, I'm not sure myself. If offending sections are not too big, maybe they could be fixed right away. Otherwise they could be deleted or commented out, if deletion would be too drastic. GregorB (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

re: An invitation to join the WikiProject Croatia
Hello, thanks for the invitation, I really appreciate it (and your great work on articles as well). I will take some time to explore what this WikiProject is and could I really be of some assistance. Cheers!

Tomi566 (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Osijek
This was a tough one. Web Archive does not help. Still, I've found a way to resolve it, see the Backwardscopy banner at Talk:Osijek. GregorB (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Disambiguation possibly needed
I've moved Trenck's Pandurs to the more exact title, and kept the redirect, but I've also tried to make Pandurs (disambiguation) more straightforward per MOS:DAB. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Croatian-Hungarian relations
I remember you promoted this article and in order to keep it in GA status I think that you should iclude Čačić's case somewhere, otherwise the article is outdated. -- Wüstenfuchs  15:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That is a good thinking. -- Wüstenfuchs  16:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

News expirience
Sorry for bothering you again, but do you have any news expirience? I'm talking about In the news/Candidates. Look at 16 November. I nominated Gotovina and Markač for the "In the news"... any advice or help? I mean, did I did it right? -- Wüstenfuchs  13:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I appriciate your help. I'll see what I can write. -- Wüstenfuchs  17:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you look at the articles... any suggestion? -- Wüstenfuchs  18:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Josef Philipp Vukassovich
Thanks for this...your and GregorB's extra work to achive GA on Vukassovich.--Kebeta (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I am not quite sure, but the castle we are talking about is this one for sure. Although, I am quite certain that 'Dießenstein' is not an english word. I will revert myself until we can be sure.--Kebeta (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ops, I did't know that the pandurs have disambiguation page which distinguish "Trenck's Pandurs" and "Pandurs (Croatian Military Frontier)" and others.--Kebeta (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Pandurs from Croatian Military Frontier served later as Trenck's Pandurs, and some of Trenck's Pandurs later served for the French army, should they have a separate article, like French Pandurs?--Kebeta (talk) 10:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I think that I understand what you mean. But, as you have said before - some material could be copied from this article (etymology and such) - this could be a problem for "Pandurs (Croatian Military Frontier)", since some editors can see now nonexisting article about Pandurs from Croatian Military Frontier as a content unfork.--Kebeta (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK!--Kebeta (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: No comment
It's WikiProjectBannerShell that provides the display. A bit odd. Maybe there's an alternative way to display it, but I'm not aware of it. GregorB (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify: November Newsletter and December Drive

 * Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Wikify, 22:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Independence of Croatia
I'm not sure if I replied to this or not :) In the meantime I've done a fair bit of work on moving more non-war content from the war article into that political history article, hopefully helping both. Indeed, now that the background section has been 'inflated' to this level of detail, the successive sections could use some more expansion to bring them in line. I'll keep working on it, time permitting. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Branimir Inscription
If this is already stated: "The Branimir Inscription (Natpis kneza Branimira) is the oldest preserved monument containing an inscription defining a Croatian medieval ruler as a duke of Croats - Dux Cruatorvm."

then this: "The Branimir Inscription represents the oldest preserved inscription containing a record of a Croatian medieval ruler, Branimir of Croatia, as a duke of Croats."

appearing only 2 sentences later is redundant without adding any further information or context. Per WP:LEAD, yes, we're supposed to expand in the body of the article on the summary of what's stated in the lead but please differentiate between expanding and repeating near-verbatim with nothing further added. I won't revert you further and I hope you don't revert me for the 3rd time. Hopefully we can agree on this. 108.162.127.121 (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Operation Storm
Hello; first- congrats for your assiduous work on Croatia-related articles. Just, I have one minor objection- since you've removed from Operation Storm article a referenced part on the scope of MPRI involvement & replaced it by general MPRI leadership denial, I don't think it's sufficient info: any organization would deny their involvement, regarding the circumstances. On the other hand, Croatian declassified material, available also at Memorial War Museum, dispels this myth more thoroughly. And- I know this is not for wikipedia article- MPRI guys were good fellows, but virtually useless. My comrades who attended their seminars hadn't learned anything worthwhile (very different when compared to the French Legionnaires training in Šepurine). This whole stuff about MPRI was more a political show, as you probably know. As far as their actual involvement in serious military operations goes, this is just another fable, as Stipetić had confirmed numerous times: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb7UlTVWRic. Be as it may, I won't interfere with the article (why bother with revert wars), but I think you're making a mistake by this "minimalist approach" re sources, so to speak. Best, Mir Harven (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, no, you're doing great job (frankly, not participating in wiki for years, I forgot about numerous technical details and editorial nuances). You've done a great deal of rather tiresome work re clarification of various dubieties- just keep the good work. Best Mir Harven (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Storm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jasenovac (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Operation Storm (2)
Well, Aftermath of Operation Storm seems like a reasonable name, and then you don't have to delete anything. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The court used "Gotovina et al" I think, so Trial of Gotovina et al would make sense. Nevertheless, I think that should be a section in the aftermath article (and a section redirect) first, because there isn't enough content to split, and the topic overlap is significant. You could cut out the part of the OSM map the same size as the infobox map and use it with the location map template, that would be reasonably easy to make and easy to follow for readers. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Have a good trip!
Hope it's a fun one. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Storm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Trial of Gotovina et al
Not 100% sure about the projects either so I put the straightforward banners. Surely not all from the Milošević article are applicable here.

If I understand correctly the text is the result of a split, so I'd advise tagging it as such with Copied. Not bad at all for a spin-off article, by the way, just needs to be reorganized a bit. GregorB (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it needs the template if it is a result of a copy. As the template says, its purpose is to provide attribution info by using the original article's history. GregorB (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That's right. I could have put it there myself, but I guess you're more familiar with the actual split. GregorB (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, that's a good question: surely the target talk page, but it appears that the template is intended for the source talk page as well. GregorB (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Non-free images
Yeah, these forms tend to be confusing, plus they change over time, so I usually find myself baffled...

Anyway: looks good, as far as I can tell. GregorB (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. Might be useful: if the image should ever get nominated for deletion or something of the sort I guess the alert bot would pick it up. GregorB (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Trenck's Pandurs GAN
G'day Tomobe03, Just a query about Trenck's Pandurs. Is it your understanding that it was failed at GAN? I see it is still listed as nominated. I checked with Hchc2009 and he wasn't sure why it was still open. I'm happy to close it as failed on the basis of the review page if that is your understanding. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Linkup of Croatian and Bosnia-Herzegovina armies during the Operation Storm, Tržačka Raštela, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 6 August 1995.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Linkup of Croatian and Bosnia-Herzegovina armies during the Operation Storm, Tržačka Raštela, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 6 August 1995.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Croatian President Tudjman at the Knin Fortress during the Operation Storm, 6 August 1995.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Croatian President Tudjman at the Knin Fortress during the Operation Storm, 6 August 1995.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Split Agreement
Um... You mean as a source? GregorB (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, found the template. Looks a bit ungainly, but the third param can be used to override displayed title. GregorB (talk)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Belgian French Community
Yes, actually seems they should be voting right now (from 17h). Hope they will publish the results. Tomi566 (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out and correcting, I accidentaly copied parts of previous reference into new one. And seems the Waloon Parliament will vote in the near future, because the report stage was last week. I'll put this dossier page in the references, as I presume they will update it after voting takes place. Hope we'll manage to fill the whole Belgium table without much headache. No wonder editors of European_Stability_Mechanism decided to include only 2 main Belgian parliaments. Tomi566 (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Karađorđevo agreement
We obviously agree: three years ago I noticed the same, but I fumbled the edit:. As you remarked, even low importance would not necessarily be wrong.

This is an interesting article because it is controversial and its current version is disputed. I'll take another look at it and comment in the article's talk page. GregorB (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. GregorB (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Walloon Parliament
Hi Tomobe03, thanks for those great finds. I believe the voting results for Brussels United Assembly will be published here (bottom of the page). And luckily, seems we now have a user from Belgium editing the table as well (Sigur). Regarding Dutch ratification, I expect it will be widely reported in the media, so there shouldn't be a problem with the reference. But the find is also nice, didn't notice they really put it on agenda (I was following this dossier from time to time. Tomi566 (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Request
Hello there! I'm currently working on User:Yerevanci/List of European cities by Muslim population and I have this problem. I can't find a location map for the European Union on the whole Europe's map, so the reader would know which countries are part of the EU and which aren't. I've found for Serb-controlled areas of Croatia made by you, so I would like to ask you to make a similar map to overlap the EU-27 countries on. Thank you in advance. -- Ե րևանցի talk  05:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! -- Ե րևանցի talk  18:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

GAR Operation Storm
In response to your query, I feel that the following section does not contain enough references to back up the claims it makes

''The HV's success was a result of a series of improvements to the HV itself and crucial breakthroughs made in the RSK positions that were subsequently exploited by the HV and the ARBIH. The attack was not immediately successful everywhere, but seizing of key positions led to collapse of the RSK command structure and overall defensive capability. HV's capture of Bosansko Grahovo just before Operation Storm and special police's advance to Gračac made Knin nearly impossible to defend. In Lika, two guards brigades rapidly cut the area lacking tactical depth or mobile reserve forces, isolating pockets of resistance and placing the 1st Guards Brigade in a position that allowed it to move north into the Karlovac Corps AOR, pushing RSK forces towards Banovina. Defeat of the RSK at Glina and Petrinja, after heavy fighting, defeated the RSK Banija Corps too, as its reserve was pinned down by the ARBIH. The RSK force was capable of containing or substantially holding assaults by regular HV brigades and the Home Guard, but attacks of the Guards Brigades and the special police proved to be decisive.[126] Colonel Andrew Leslie, commanding the UNCRO in Knin area,[127] assessed Operation Storm as a textbook operation that would have "scored an A-plus" by NATO standards.[128]''

Retrolord (talk) 11:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, to clarify, the issue I with that section wasn't that the references weren't detailed enough. I am just concerned as to whether the Balkan Battlegrounds source is objective enough to be used for the section. I am happy to reevaluate the article if you can provide further information regarding this source. Thanks! Retrolord (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

After further deliberating and considering the points you raised, I have passed your article! Congratulations. Retrolord (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Note
Regarding this edit, the sourced material was not being removed, but moved to the Serbo-Croatian article. (diff). Either way, I've started a discussion on the talk page. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

SC as a macrolanguage of which and only country?
Tomobe03, why do you not write the complete story about Serbo-Croatian, as complete as described in Ethnologue ?? How didn't you notice that the Ethnologue defined the 'Serbo-Croatian' as A macrolanguage of Serbia...

This means that only in Serbia, the 'Serbo-Croatian' is used as a 'macrolanguage', and that for Serbian linguists - the name 'Serbo-Croatian' is used for the three languages, the Bosniak language (Bosnian), the Croatian language (Croatian) and the Serbian language (Serbian).

Only for Serbia, the 'Serbo-Croatian' is mentioned, and Ethnologue doesn't list the 'Serbo-Croatian' in the "articles" about Croatia, or Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Slovenia, Macedonia, etc. - Ethnologue list it only in the article about 'Serbia' titled 'Languages of Serbia'. See here !

Ethnologue should not be used to defend any "truths" other than what is written in it, and that "truth TM" doesn't support Kwami, Taivo, nor Joris (a physicists).

We have the Ethnologue language tree, but it is massively falsificated by the group which POVpush the non-Slovene West South Slavic "language", and the Ethnologue doesn't list it that way. West South Slavic "category" contains four languages. Only the absurdity of the POV will dismantle it.--Nesmir Kudilovic (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting subject, Wikipedia has some good info. It seems that the linguistically correct term is Shtokavian (based on the word for "what" -shto- common to its dialects. Shtokavian is the same as Serbo-Croat except that it excludes 2 small dialects of northern Croatia (Kajkavian and Čakavian), also it is free from political overtones. 24.108.61.172 (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No, that is not anything like a linguistically correct term, that is WP:OR. Serbo-Croatian is as dead as Yugoslavia . No matter how fond one may be of it, there's nothing to be done or accomplished trying.--Tomobe03 (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, you are really knowledgeable! I suppose you will nominate Shtokavian for speedy deletion? 24.108.61.172 (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: Royal Assent
Yes, I've now provided temporary reference until they update. Cheers! Tomi566 (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Always a pleasure to read your work. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Edinburgh
Thank you for your review of Edinburgh - it was enlightening, to say the least, and encouraging.Jamesx12345 (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: A hatnote and two possible redirects
The Polish battle isn't the primary topic for "Operation Winter", so I moved the disambiguation over there and cleaned it up (see WP:HATEXTRA, MOS:DABENTRIES).

You can create those redirects, and tag them R to section.

(No idea about Flash pictures.)

--Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Croatian Army Operation Flash 1 May 1995.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Croatian Army Operation Flash 1 May 1995.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Croatian Army in Okucani 2 May 1995.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Croatian Army in Okucani 2 May 1995.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:RSK Surrender Pakrac 3 May 1995.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:RSK Surrender Pakrac 3 May 1995.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Edinburgh
A fair bit of work has gone into Edinburgh over the past few days, and it now has 194 references (up from 140) as well as layout changes and modifications to the prose. I would appreciate your looking at it to point out shortcomings. Many thanks.Jamesx12345 (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Edinburgh is ready to be reviewed again, and either held or nominated. Many thanks. Jamesx12345 (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Retract that - there are some tags still present. Jamesx12345 (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Cleaned up. Jamesx12345 (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Pohvala
Svaka čast za sve tvoje članke na engleskoj wikipediji, odlični su! Možda će ti malo zvučati smiješno, ali pišeš li prvo članke na hrvatskom ili direktno na engleskom? Jer odlična bi bila stvar ako imaš ove članke na hrvatskom jeziku da ih ubacimo na našu, hrvatsku wikipediju! Lijep pozdrav! --93.180.110.215 (talk) 10:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC) hr:Suradnik:Mostarac

Operation Storm Prose
Hello, I'm copyediting Operation Storm as part of the Guild of Copy Editors March 2013 Backlog elimination drive. I noticed you wrote something about correcting the prose in your copyedit request. The below sentence from the "Order of Battle" section is too confusing for me to decipher. Could you take a stab at it? Unless you or someone else who is knowledgable about the topic has an idea about its more complete meaning, I unfortunately intend to keep a truncated and less informative version. Breaking the problem sentence into two or three sentences might help. Problem Sentence: ""The Lika Corps commanded about 6,000 troops facing the Gospić Corps along a 150 kilometres (93 miles) front or the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ARBiH) in the Bihać pocket in RSK rear, forming a wide but a very shallow area.""

Truncated and less informative option: ""The Lika Corps was composed of about 6,000 troops facing the Gospić Corps along a 150-kilometre (93-mile) front.""

Thanks for your help! -   &#x0288;  u coxn \ talk 00:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you. How do I join a wikiproject? Ana Radic (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again, and sorry, I'm still pretty terrible at editing pages. Ana Radic (talk) 11:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

A-class
Hi, I see some of your articles have been at GAN for a while. I'd like to help, at least for the articles that are headed to Milhist's A-class review after GAN (so that people can check my work). Are any of those GAN's headed to A-class? - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reading them again, I think whoever reviews these needs to have more perspective (and should be able to read Croatian or Serbian or both). Sorry, I'll help out when they get to A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 13:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

A1 (Croatia)
Hi! Are you still interested in taking this article to WP:HWY/ACR? --Rschen7754 02:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I am. It will need some updating first though. For instance the Vrgorac-Ploče section was scheduled to open in 2012, but it was rescheduled for this year instead . Furthermore, the contractor for the section recently got into financial problems evidenced at the A7, so I'm not exactly holding my breath.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, no problem. Just go ahead and nominate it when you're ready. --Rschen7754 09:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you think about nominating the D21 road (Croatia) at the ACR provided it clears GAN? It is a much shorter article and it would allow me to familiarize myself with the process first - if that quality (being short) is not an obstacle in itself.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That should be fine. The one issue is that we've updated the junction list templates to have both mile and km columns, but that's something that we can help you with at the ACR. (This was done because FAC reviewers kept asking for that, so we finally went ahead and did it). --Rschen7754 10:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. I'll nominate both then, A1 when I get around to updating it and fixing any linkrot or similar issues, and the D21 once it clears GAR.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

February 2013 Wikification Drive
Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's February Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 500 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Siege of Dubrovnik, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Operation Tiger and Stradun (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Operation Storm ACR
I've responded to your comments at the Operation Storm ACR. -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 13:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I should have been more precise about the references, this is what I meant:
 * They should be amongst each other not before or after as sets. -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 14:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * They should be amongst each other not before or after as sets. -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 14:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * They should be amongst each other not before or after as sets. -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 14:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * They should be amongst each other not before or after as sets. -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 14:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment
Hey Tomobe03; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Disambiguation of nothing?
No, I don't think the function of years there is to disambiguate, it's to normalize, it's probably codified in a naming convention for election articles. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Flash
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Operation Flash you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

B-Class assessment drive
As of this moment, WP Croatia has 52 B-Class articles, but only 41 have been assessed as B in the assessment drive, which means that some of the articles have been assessed as B after the list was created. Should I add them to the list? Without the B-Class checklist, these would be automatically downgraded to C once the checklist is switched on in the WP Croatia banner. GregorB (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, by chance I answered your question before you asked it... After the list is finished, I'll turn the checklist on in the banner. From that point on, it will be mandatory (i.e. without it, the article assessed as B in the class parameter will instead "register" as C). So, provided we didn't miss anything, this will not cause a change in the number of B-Class articles. Then we'll announce it to the project, etc. GregorB (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well that's it then... No problem - we don't actually need to formally run them through the assessment drive - but note the above mentioned automatic downgrade of all B-Class articles without a checklist (e.g. Battle of Gospić does not have it). GregorB (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi
Greetings! You can read in Russian? Good luck! Соколрус (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

GA review for Bombing of Banski dvori
You may not have noticed my comments, but there are still unresolved issues regarding the lede in your article. Fix these and it should be good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Operation Flash
G'day, I was not intending to rain on your parade, but it appears I have inadvertently provided an excuse. However, I do not think the article in its current state is GA, but probably not for the same reasons as the reviewer. It definitely has the makings of A class, but it needs a strict line-by-line check of grammar and references, some argy bargy at RSN to eliminate the dodgy refs, and I have also made a number of suggestions on the talk page about the underweight Background section and map placement. "Russian Falcon" appears to consider you are excluding reprehensible actions of the HV and only including those committed by the ARSK, and in my view you need to be scrupulously balanced in all respects (not saying you aren't trying to do that, just making an observation that you need to be seen to be doing that as well, if you know what I mean). I also suggest you use the term ARSK throughout as that is how they were referred to by the UN throughout the peace mission there. I've provided some refs. There probably should be an Army of the Serb Krajina article, actually. They are certainly a notable organisation. Again, apologies. I am happy to look over it when you've been through it, so let me know? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to further comment as I've taken up the copy edit request. I'd like to get some linkages cleared up. However, I'll have to put it on hold for now as I will be going away on holiday from tomorrow for a week. I'll put the request at GOCE on hold for the time being as I'd like to discuss how some of the events link up and the refs after I come back, if that's ok. Blackmane (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Btw, you're entirely entitled to discontinue this review and ask for another one and not go through what has become a content dispute debate with the current reviewer.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:BCLASS checklist is on
Everything seems to look the way it's supposed to. All 48 B-Class articles are still there, but it takes some time for the changes to propagate, so it is still possible that some of them might disappear from the category (in case something's wrong with their checklists). Nothing to worry though, we'll catch them.

Added the announcement, but this change (as well as the B-Class assessment drive itself) still needs a full explanation in the project's talk page. A bit too tired for it now, I'll supply it tomorrow morning. GregorB (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify April Drive
Hi there! I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify's April Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog size by over 500 articles and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks!

-- Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Wikify.

Reassessment of the review once it is failed
During my review of GA nomination of Operation Flash you stated that you will seek community reassessment of the review once it is failed. I noticed that after two days you still did not do it. I would appreciate if you can be so kind to let me know if you will seek reassessment now after I failed this nomination so I could plan my further activities?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Duplication
A very nice job with the article, as always... It's either R to section in Sarajevo Agreement or main + summary in Vance plan - the question is whether the final agreement is naturally a separate topic or not. However, the way things appear to me now, anything other than R to section does not seem right. GregorB (talk) 09:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Bijeljina massacre
Would that be it then? -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 10:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Operation Jackal
Hi, I took up your copy edit request for this article and have just finished it. I have made some terminology changes to make it more consistent. There was a frequent mix of geographical directions, e.g. north and south, with relative terms like right and left. Based on the map and the text, I converted right and left to east and west, which should be correct, but I'd appreciate if you'd check it out with the reference, if you have access to it. If you have any comments, please reply here. I have your talk page watch listed. Blackmane (talk) 11:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Everything checks out. Thanks for volunteering time and effort to improve the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Presumably you're sending it up for review. Feel free to drop me a msg on my talk page if you want help after you get feedback. Blackmane (talk) 08:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The article is a GAN for a while already, and if the GA review turns out fine, I'll request a WP:MILHIST A-class review. I'll take you up on your offer then.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Editor of the Week
User:Khazar2 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
 * I nominate as Editor of the Week for frequent, high-quality contributions on Croatian geography and history. In three years on Wikipedia, Tomobe has been a major contributor to one Featured Article, 35 Good Articles, and 47 DYKs. Standouts include the core articles Adriatic Sea and Croatia and the controversy-attracting article Croatian War of Independence, all of which Tomobe guided to GA status. He/she is a tireless contributor, having made 500 edits in the last ten days alone, and on a personal level, is warm, positive, and a pleasure to work with. I wish every country in Wikipedia could have an editor half as good! -- Khazar2 (talk)

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
 * Thanks again for your efforts! Go   Phightins  !  15:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your tireless efforts on behalf of all readers everywhere. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  16:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks! I really don't know what to say except thank you very much. I appreciate this gesture very much.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's well deserved--congrats!


 * One of the nice things about the Editor of the Week program is that it brings to light people like yourself, who spend a lot of time trying to make Wikipedia a better place. Often, people think their hard work goes unnoticed when it is simply that no one has yet to take the time to say "Thank you".  Your efforts have been noticed, and you do make a difference.  Your contributions here are indeed impressive.  Thank you for making Wikipedia a better place for the both the reader, and your fellow editors.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 00:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow. You, Sir, are one of the best contributors on Wikipedia that I've seen! Thank you, and congratulations!!! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for your kind words. This is really a great incentive to keep contributing to wiki!--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Speaking of incentives, here is a cool box for you to display as "Yours" anywhere you want. It also goes to our Hall of Fame! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I like the box, but the surprising gesture and kind words are all the incentive one may ever hope for. I've never stumbled upon the EotW project before, but it sure looks like a great idea. I might have an idea for a nom or two down the road. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Way to go! Congrats! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Thank you! I enjoyed writing those, and I hope to be back with some more soon. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Signpost
Did you see you got a shout-out in this week's Signpost, too? Congrats! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha! No, not until you told me about it. Now that's a neat coicidence, but nice to see anyway. Thanks for the tip.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Siege of Dubrovnik
I'm currently reviewing the article and it would suit me to rattle through what I think will be minor changes. If you could please fix references 12, 15, 41, 52, 91, 126, 129, and 135 and be aware that "Thomas, Nigel; Mikulan, Krunoslav; Pavlovic, Darko (2006)" and "Bijelić, Gabrijela (10 March 2011)." have the harvnb parameter but are not used anywhere in the article (perhaps they relate to the other type of error). These I will have trouble fixing by myself. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Cites fixed, and the two "unused" ones were actually broken (fixed now) cites used by some of those reference numbers you specified. Sorry about that one.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

citation not needed

 * Thanks! No point in prose without the cites.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews January–March 2013

 * Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Ping
You were mentioned (though not by name) at WT:MIL. You might consider helping out a bit more with whatever reviewing tasks you feel most comfortable with. - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Pozdrav
Bok Tomobe, Roberta me je zamolila da ti pomognem oko fotografija za cestu D21. Ja ti živim oko 4km od ove ceste i prolazim njome bar dvaput tjedno radi posla. Trebaju ti fotke, koliko sam shvatio...mislim da bi najvažnija mjesta za fotografiranje bila: početak ceste kod slovenske granice, most preko rijeke Mirne (i tu sam stvarno doma, 4 km od moje kuće), most preko Limskog kanala, raskrižje (petlja) u Kanfanaru i završetak ceste u Puli. Reci mi, koje bi ti slike najviše trebale? Meni je najlakše slikati most na Mirni i početak na SLO granici, ali ako treba, mogu se zaletiti i dalje...Javi mi se na hr.wiki.--Dean72 (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Bok Tomobe,

postavio sam dvije slike ceste D21 na Commons. Nadam se da će biti od pomoći. Ako ti treba još koja slika, javi mi, otići ću nešto dalje za uslikati. Pozdrav.--Dean72 (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: UNCRO move
No problem, but if you don't get a timely response from me, please feel free to ask at WP:RM/TR. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC:Infobox Road proposal
WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to. Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.


 * Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads/RfC:Infobox Road proposal

You are being notified as a member on the list of WP:HWY

Nbound (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Einsatzgruppen GAN
G'day Tomobe03. I thought your handling of the GAN review of Einsatzgruppen was excellent. Well done. In recognition of your recent successful foray into GAN reviewing I present you with the coveted Coonawarra award Regards, Peacemaker67  (send... over) 11:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Your input was very valuable, and I appreciate it a lot.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * You're welcome. It was a very interesting article and a I enjoyed performing the review.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Emilia Plater/GA1
Thanks, replied there. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=554718311 your edit] to Robert Surcouf may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

Op Winter '95
G'day Tom, a couple of ideas for tightening things up prior to FAC: Otherwise I reckon it is ready for a run at FA once I've finished a quick c/e run through. I'll ping you when I'm done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * per Worldcat : "United States. Central Intelligence Agency. Office of Russian and European Analysis." is the author of Balkan Battlegrounds.
 * I suspect the correct identifier in the citations then should be "CIA" instead of "Balkan Battlegrounds". Right?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree.
 * 13 digit isbns for all books, but they should all be properly hyphenated. Try this tool
 * Modified as instructed.
 * some of the authors of refs have their own articles, recommend you use the "author-link" field. Hoare and Woodward are examples. Also some journos, such as Sudetic and Maass.
 * Some already had the link in place, added a couple, the rest have no articles on them.
 * why does Hodge think "denying Bihać to the Serbs was strategically important to Croatia"?
 * Doesn't say so specifically, only that it was strategically important and that the possibility of its capture by the VRS/ARSK was sufficient to put HV on alert. HV General Ćosić said that possible fall of Bihać to the VRS/ARSK would have opened them routes to threaten Sisak and Karlovac (padom bihaćke enklave otvarao im se put prema Karlovcu i Sisku - supported by the ref in the following sentence). The same source also carries his statement that Šušak proposed immediate offensive against ARSK if Bihać were captured since he expected the ARSK to reorient its troops to Karlovac soon afterwards. The Hodge source/sentence may be redundant, but I thought to include it as a non-Croatian and non-newspaper source. It is not critical to keep it though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me, I think add what Cosic said about the threat to Sisak and Karlovac.
 * Done.
 * I don't think you need to collapse the tables in the ORBAT section.
 * Un-collapsed.
 * I think you should introduce the idea that the Op Winter '95 offensive resulted in a salient towards the end of the "Timeline and results" section. At present it isn't mentioned until Op Leap 1.
 * Included a mention.
 * what CAIRS did the VRS use during Leap 2? J-22s?
 * The source used does not say more than there were two airstrikes without specifying type of aircraft. I'll see if I can dig that up somewhere though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I recommend you use the "Lika, Northern Dalmatia and Western Bosnia" map in the top infobox. It gives much better and wider context to the three ops. Swap it with the tactical map and move the Bihac map up the Background section.
 * Moved as recommended.
 * Thank you very much!--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: A subtle note
Well, that's something of a painful subject, since I've designated both of these as maintained articles, which regrettably just means they are permanently on my watchlist, not that I actually maintain them. Both are slightly out of date at the moment (Stublić has a massive new marathon PB, Perković has a new coach), and I guess I've developed full-blown content laziness recently... Anyway, thanks for the suggestion, I guess at least one of these might soon see GAN. GregorB (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that's odd, I was under the impression that all ACRs are tracked. At any rate, it seems that all WPMILHIST ACRs have been picked up. Do you know of any ACRs of WPCRO articles outside of WPMILHIST? GregorB (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I see... Well, it may not be exactly "entirely unimportant": I'd say it is important when a WPCRO article passes an ACR. Certainly important enough to be announced - just recently I've been asked to provide advice regarding project coordination, and among other things I've explained why I feel the Announcements section is important for a project. I'll try and see why Article alerts do not pick up these (your guess is very likely correct). I'd also like to see the list of all WPCRO articles that are assessed as A-Class in any of the other projects, but the toolserver is shot at the moment, so that will have to wait. GregorB (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The bot apparently checks Category:Requests for A-Class review, so I added Category:Open Highway A-Class Reviews there. I'm not quite sure this will work, though. I hope I haven't broken anything by doing it. GregorB (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay: there are six A-Class WPCRO articles at the moment, all of them promoted by WPMILHIST (and all of them fairly recently). Hopefully there's going to be one outside of WPMILHIST soon... :-) GregorB (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears that the bot did not pick up these, regardless of the category. I guess that's because it expects to find articles' talk pages, not review pages. Maybe the Highway project should pursue this issue, as I believe participants might find A-Class article alerts useful. GregorB (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for your GA review of Twelfth Siege of Gibraltar! Much appreciated. Prioryman (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
--Al Ameer son (talk) 03:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Restructuring an article
Just go ahead and be bold, much better to rewrite it than let it rot like this. It reminds me of the 1991 Zadar riot article that's also in a similar sad state. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I was just thinking about the same topic (UE) yesterday but in relation to Operation Maestral. Google Books searches are something like 50:50, tilting slightly in favor of Mistral in the relevant context. Nevertheless, Mistral (wind) implies that this isn't actually the English name of the Adriatic wind - it's a French loanword for the French NW wind, not the Adriatic W wind. You might want to get that clarified, too. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * ACK. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Trial of Gotovina et al for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Trial of Gotovina et al 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/Trial of Gotovina et al 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. The Historian (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I must say that I have a fair share of AfD experience, but I've still never seen anything close to this argument... GregorB (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Opinion sought
Given that we've talked about this article before, it would have been reasonable to assume that I'll notice that AfD anyway; what you just did there can easily be described as canvassing, so avoid it in the future. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
{||}

Thanks
...for you continued interest in Editor of the Week. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  22:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It's a very good project and I'm happy to chip in.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!
You're welcome. Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Advice needed on a merge and a possible new article
The titles 1991 anti-Serb riot in Zadar and 1991 protest in Split seem neutral enough. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Editor of the Week
Thank you for your kind words, I really appreciate it... And I'm a bit embarrassed too, because - try as I may - I can only hope to be the second greatest editor WP Croatia has to offer, if you get my drift. :-) GregorB (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Operation Summer '95
Hi Tomobe03, I'm beginning the copy-edit of the above article you requested at the GOCE Requests page. Please feel free to contact me, or to correct or revert my edits if necessary. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done - feel free to contact me about any issues arising from the copy-edit. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Aldenham (L22)
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Operation Tiger (1992)
Hi Tomobe03, I'm beginning the copy-edit of the above article you requested at the GOCE Requests page. Please feel free to contact me, or to correct or revert my edits if necessary. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done—feel free to contact me about any issues arising from the copy-edit. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=561034032 your edit] to D21 road (Croatia) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * route reaches a grade separated intersection, a two-[Interchange (road)|ramp] partial cloverleaf, with D303. D303, in turn, links to the [[Kanfanar

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Minefields in Croatia
Hi again—just wanted to let you know that the copyedit is done. Good luck (eventually) with FA and all the best,  Mini  apolis  22:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Siege of Kijevo
Just Google it :) There was apparently also a siege of the Kosovo village of Kijevo in 1998. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Not particularly, no. I just saw it as a missing piece of the puzzle. A cynic would say that there was no Croatian propagandist to match a Serbian propagandist's creation of the Zadar riot article. :/ --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I still don't think it's good enough, because the main source for the lead-up is the municipality history which is easily seen as an inherently biased primary source, and there's no explanation of what went on in the area in the time between May and August. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, I know, I only used it for non-controversial bits, but it's still subpar. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Combined announcements
No, that's just right - a single entry for two different events would have been unwieldy.

And yeah, they don't tend to stay too long up there these days... :-) GregorB (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Osijek
Please see my reponse at Talk:Battle of Osijek (in case you don't have it watchlisted). Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

June 2013 backlog reduction drive

 * Thank you very much. I was happy to contribute!--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Battle of Osijek
It's fairly clear that both articles generally describe the same topic, and that the battle article is better referenced, but that doesn't mean all that much. The question is whether "battle of X" is a generic, descriptive title that can be used despite the fact no secondary sources use it literally. I googled a bit and found e.g. Ratne štete kao posljedica Domovinskog rata i njihov utjecaj na razvoj Osijeka. I'm not saying you should use that specific title, just that it seems that "Osijek in the Croatian War of Independence" (note also the missing "the") is also fair game. Merge the content and run an open-ended WP:RM immediately afterwards to see what people think. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It doesn't actually matter. To avoid any allegation of impropriety, merge into the wrong one and then request a move the other way :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Ideas for a name
I thought about it and the options are: This is a fairly tricky question, but I'd say 1) or 3) are probably the best options. GregorB (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) As suggested (possibly "dealing with" → "about").
 * 2) Two separate lists, one for films (which is generally assumed to mean "feature films"), one for documentaries.
 * 3) "Croatian War of Independence in film". Cf. Vietnam War in film, where "film" apparently applies to documentaries too.
 * 4) "List of works about the Croatian War of Independence" - perhaps too broad and not really precedented.
 * Looks good. Is also interesting as a subject. Well, added to my (already quite long) todo list... GregorB (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Operation Winter '94 FAC
Thank you for handling my comments with such high class. Your article is indeed very interesting—I like to learn as much as I can from military history articles. I would be happy to look at the article again if you decide to bring it back to FAC in the future. I'm afraid I can't be much help in copyediting since I am very weak in that topic area. Is there anyone we can get to help? -- Laser brain  (talk)  01:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

SMS Pfeil
Hi Tomobe, I just wanted to let you know I finally got around to completing Talk:SMS Pfeil/GA1 - I had lost track of it for a while. Thanks again for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and no problem. The review was a pleasure to do.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Possibly needed disambiguation and redirect
Go ahead. Note also a 1942 agreement, cf. Talk. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * Thank you very much!--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Swath, Papuk, Hurricane
Maybe all three of these should be in the same article? The timelines and the territories seem to overlap sufficiently. Call it 1991 Croatian Army campaign in western Slavonia perhaps? :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Just copy that explanation into the Talk pages. :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Kupres (1994)
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Battle of Kupres (1994) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- 22:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Tang campaign against Kucha GA
Thank you for the review. I have responded to problems in Talk:Tang campaign against Kucha/GA1. I also feel obligated to review one of your GA nominations, and will do so shortly.--Typing General (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There is absolutely no quid-pro-quo implied. Nonetheless, I'm certain that all editors submitting GANs (me included) would appreciate your efforts.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Hurricane-91
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Operation Hurricane-91 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Typing General -- 20:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Templates and sfns
I'd say yes, with a slight change in these two templates (Croatian Census 2011 would actually be the other one, as Croatian Census 2011 First Results is now obsolete). I'm still working out the details (I've had very little experience with sfn and other similar citation templates), but I'd say that simply adding "ref=harv" to e.g. the yearbook template would do the trick. (Perhaps with some unintended consequences: if I understand correctly, the shortened citation would look like "Ostroški 2001, p. 22" - do we want to emphasize the editor's name here?).

And, on second thought, Croatian Census 2011 seems unfit (at least for a straightforward solution like the one above): used multiple times in an article, it may point to more than one URL. So, saying " ref= " inside the template, and plugging in " ref= " in the template's invocation might do the trick.

Shall we test it on the yearbook template first? GregorB (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Tested on Sava. It was a quick edit so you might want to amend it as necessary, but it seems to be working. In essence, the ref parameter is simply passed through, so any template that is based on some other ref-compatible template (cite web, etc.) can be made ref-compatible too. If this is OK, I could change the census template in the same way. GregorB (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Census 2011 done too. GregorB (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

White Coke listed as hoax
Hello. I wanted to inform you that an article you created has been tagged as a hoax. I am not sure I agree with that assessment but thought it would be polite to at least inform you in the event you wanted to leave a comment or take a different course of action. Thanks, AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I could not make sense of the hoax template on the White Coke article so I have finally removed it.  AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of the Barracks
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Battle of the Barracks you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Albacore -- 17:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Hurricane-91
The article Operation Hurricane-91 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Operation Hurricane-91 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Typing General -- 08:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Hurricane-91
The article Operation Hurricane-91 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Operation Hurricane-91 for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Typing General -- 10:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! For both the beer and the earlier GA review.--Typing General (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Both are well deserved.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Kupres (1994)
The article Battle of Kupres (1994) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Kupres (1994) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- 23:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of the Barracks
The article Battle of the Barracks you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of the Barracks for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Albacore -- 17:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Brioni Agreement
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Brioni Agreement you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of QatarStarsLeague -- 18:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Re:CoA articles
Hello. I've replied to you on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia but I will reply here as well since you posted on my talk page. First as I mentioned on the WikiProject CRO page I am not put down by other people comments or the ratings...I find them helpful actually. I was just being curious how the rating system works. So don't worry about that. ;)

As for some of the sources I know they are quite basic and I will try to improve on that, if I can. As for the intros and opening paragraphs please feel free to edit the articles, I don't mind...obviously. I don't own those articles and contributions and input from other users is most welcome. Cheers. Shokatz (talk) 09:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sava, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kalnik (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Brioni Agreement
The article Brioni Agreement you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Brioni Agreement for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of QatarStarsLeague -- 21:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Osijek
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Battle of Osijek you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of ErrantX -- 10:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Osijek
The article Battle of Osijek you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Osijek for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of ErrantX -- 14:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Šibenik
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Battle of Šibenik you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of ErrantX -- 15:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Re:Removal of refimprove tag
Excuse me but I don't see any additional tags on the Dalmatia article which are disputed or tagged for verification. By placing a general tag on an article without specifying where exactly are the improvements needed is greatly confusing. You should be more specific. Inline citations are needed only for: direct quotations, statements that are being challenged (I don't see anything currently being challenged in the article), sections which are likely to be challenged (again I don't see any fact tags) and contentious material (this applies only to living persons). I reiterate, you should tag what exactly is in need of improvement as most users are not psychic or telepathic. Shokatz (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The only reason why I removed the tag is because I guessed you will probably respond. Desirably with an explanation by specifying what exactly needs to be referenced. However your aggressive stance is completely unwarranted and unexpected, and if anyone is condescending it is you. Who says there is no need for additional tags? You? How do you think one will improve the article and correct the missing citations if one does not know what is disputed? Do you think I (or anyone else for that matter) own a crystal ball? I am not really sure where do you come up with this theory that every paragraph needs one reference and even more that every sentence needs one. References are needed for bold statements and quotations and certainly not for every sentence. Also from what I see refimprove tag is indeed placed on the article where there are many references in need, however those (or at least the section where the disputed paragraph is placed) need to be tagged properly as well not because of some Wikipedian policy but as simple courtesy to other users who might want to correct it, otherwise everyone but you is left guessing. Tagging the entire article in such manner is pure and simple lazy. You did not elaborate why is the tag placed there except some general remark that "article needs more inline citations", you did not elaborate in your edits and certainly not on the article's talk page. And thanks for accusing me of disruptive behavior....that was very "classy" of you. You can have your precious tag, couldn't care less anymore... Shokatz (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Šibenik
The article Battle of Šibenik you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Šibenik for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of ErrantX -- 09:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

July 2013 Milhist article contest

 * Thanks! I'm looking forward to do some more work!--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Million Award
The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much!--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Military history Wikiproject coordinator election
Hi Tomobe03, I'd like to encourage you to nominate for the upcoming election for coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject. Given your experience in working with other editors to develop high-quality articles on what can be controversial topics I think that you'd be very successful in the coordinator role. Details on the election are at WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2013, but please do let me know if you have any questions about the role or the election process - neither is very time consuming. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement. Although I wasn't exactly planning on filing a nomination, I suspect it would only be fair to give something back to the project I thoroughly enjoy participating in. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * More encouragement here, Tomobe -- Nick just beat me to it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement, nomination posted!--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for nominating! Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sava, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
For your GA review work!

Typing General (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

Re: Siege of Kijevo date formats
I went back and looked at the earliest revision, and that was inconsistent as well, so retaining any format was actually moot. It's dmy now, then. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Polish–Russian War of 1792/GA1
The review has been open with no action for a week now. Will you continue it? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please accept my apologies. I planned on reviewing the article this weekend, but I was held back by an unexpected and quite urgent project I had to attend to off-wiki this weekend. I plan to complete the review by Tuesday.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. Please note I left replies there. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Need help from Croatian users
Hi Gregor, Jimbo Wales is asking for aditional input from Croatian users regarding the situation on Croatian Wikipedia. Please feel free to voice your opinion. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 23:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 17:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Siege of Kijevo revisited
We should really be doing this at Talk:1991 siege of Kijevo...

As for #1, I think the fact that JNA had created a new output there as early as April is a critical factoid. It goes to show at a minimum that the situation was considered a non-trivial problem by the army.

I don't quite see the problem with #2. The source says ''u noći s 27. na 28. travnja 1991. kada je između Civljana i Štikova probijen obruč koji je stezao Kijevo te u Kijevo dolaze hrvatski redarstvenici i formiraju Policajsku postaju Kijevo''. Admittedly, the prose is a bit lax, the source doesn't say what this obruč was made of - maybe they just drove around a few checkpoints. I think it's necessary to clarify that throughout April, there was an effective blockade of the village in place, and that the act of creating a police station wasn't arbitrary. That is, assuming the claim is indeed true.

For #3, the source says ''Tada je tzv. JNA tenkovima i transporterima zauzela cestu ispred Policijske postaje [...] žene, djeca i starci; svi su stali između tenkova i policijske postaje, a svi radno sposobni muškarci bili su na obrambenim punktovima na straži.'' - that's a clear description of a human shield. The source describes it as something formed ad hoc, which may well be biased; but if it is true, it's worth noting.

I think the main problem is that we're still missing a reference to an actual secondary source on the events, a work that specifically covers the siege. We found some document archives composed by Ante Nazor, but we actually need a proper description of the events. Something like Slaven Ružić's paper, but not it, because it doesn't cover the area of Knin.

It seems to me that a search of good old paper sources is in order. Wikipedia shouldn't just be a summary of the Internet :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Tags on Triune Kingdom
I'd just like to point out that your recent tags there for WP:EXTRAORDINARY are supplanted already within the article just a bit below, published by Ivan Kukuljevic-Sakcinski in 1874. The work is a scientific-research collection of historical documents gathered and recorded by the said author. It consists of: Privilegia Regnorum Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae (from 1377), Transumpta documentorum iura Croatica tangentium (1249)...thus proving the terms was used for the Kingdom of Croatia (medieval). Also Protocolla Congregatio generalis Regnorum Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae (1557) and Acta Congregationum Regni (1562) thus proving it was used for Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg). Also I don't agree with your WP:Extraordinary claim. Perhaps you should elaborate? And btw. I am not the author of those claims....just to make it clear. Shokatz (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not quite as you present it. I challenged the statement that the term triune kingdom referred to all those periods. Sakcinski does not support that assertion and furthermore references 14-16 supposedly supporting the claim in the latter part of the prose do not support that assertion for period before 1848. For starters, Goldstein ref mentions no specific page, but I took time to check and found the word "triune" appears exactly seven times in the book and refers exclusively to period of 1848-1918 - not a peep on 1527 kingdom, let alone the medieval kingdom as the article purports. Reference 15, wikisource of the settlement does not even mention triune (trojedna) expression at all. Even if it did, it would apply to 1868-1918 period. The final ref, 16, likewise does not even mention the word triune, and it discusses the turn of the 20th century. Therefore no, the claim is not supported. The term "Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia" or variations thereof are one thing and triune kingdom is quite another in the context of an article discussing the term triune kingdom.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So you are contesting the sources because they don't contain the word 'Triune'?!? You do realize that the term 'Triune' is just a colloquial adjective coined in the 19th century  to further emphasize the political union of these territories? The article is about the ex-kingdoms of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia being one unit...either in political or nominal sense, not about semantics. Shokatz (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The article discusses the term triune kingdom specifically, therefore yes, it should be supported directly by the sources offered.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes....I agree now. I am still quite sure that the user who posted those assertions was referring to the fact the three nominal kingdoms names were used together in all periods...as has been shown by historical records and documents. I will try to reword and correct it. Shokatz (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright then. Since you're at it, why don't you try to organise the article into suitable sections: Origin of the term, Official use, etc. and an introductory lead? A proper article structure, comprehensive coverage and thorough referencing will probably suffice to bump the article quality rating to B. --Tomobe03 (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That would require some substantial effort which I am unable to do at this moment (as I don't have that much time) and personally I think the article itself is quite redundant and it would warrant quite a feat to expand it beyond current status, while at the same time keeping it unique and non-redundant with other articles related to Croatian history. IMO it should be perhaps merged with the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia to which it is very closely related... Shokatz (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That is quite possible. I thought the same thing (merge) when I read the article the other day - and asked for the sources which would substantiate a significant distinction between the Triune Kingdom and the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia: If on the other hand, the term "Triune Kingdom" is not really applied to the pre-1800s era, or if those are applied retroactively by authors active in late 19th century or later - then this is a good candidate for a merger. If you agree, I'll propose such a merger.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I said the term appeared in early 19th, possibly even already in 18th century during the Romantic nationalism era. It is a fact that the terms "Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, Dalmatia" (or Slavonia, Croatia, Dalmatia; Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia; etc., etc.) were indeed used as a reference to a certain single entity, but the term "Triune" and "Triune Kingdom" are of more recent origin and were indeed used retroactively as you say. I definitely agree with the merger proposal. Shokatz (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks very much for doing the GAR for Battle of Samakh. I'm very grateful to you for your interest and appreciate the time you have spent on this article. All the best, --Rskp (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I find reviewing GANs quite rewarding in itself because i get to read about things which I would otherwise likely overlook.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sava
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sava you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Royroydeb -- 14:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sava
The article Sava you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sava for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Royroydeb -- 04:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations
G'day, in recognition of your successful election as a co-ordinator of the Military History project for the next year, please accept this co-ord stars. Welcome. I look forward to working with you over the next year. If you have any questions about co-ord tasks, please let me know. I'm more than happy to help. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I expect to nag you about co-ord tasks quite a bit.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013 Wikification Drive
This message was delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To stop receiving messages from WikiProject Wikify, remove your name from the recipients page. -- EdwardsBot (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of the Dalmatian channels, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page In absentia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Battle of the Dalmatian channels
The redirects won't hurt, although I'd say it's unlikely they would be really useful.

"Battle of Korčula" currently redirects to Battle of Curzola, so I'd say something like (hope I nailed the syntax) might be added to the redirect target. The converse might apply to the "Battle of the Korčula Channel" redirect, if created. GregorB (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Zadar
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Zadar you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- 14:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Swath-10
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Swath-10 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dana boomer -- 19:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Swath-10
The article Operation Swath-10 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Operation Swath-10 for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dana boomer -- 18:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Zadar
The article Battle of Zadar you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Battle of Zadar for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- 05:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Zadar
The article Battle of Zadar you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Zadar for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- 13:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Sava
The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Croatian special police order of battle in 1991–95
Hi Tomobe - I have been looking through Croatian special police order of battle in 1991–95 and it seems to me that its format makes it a better candidate for FLC than GAN, as it appears to be more of a list than an article. However, I can see where there could be arguments with this. Do you have any opinion, or has this already been discussed elsewhere? Orders of battle seem to be fairly well represented in the MILHIST category of WP:FL (see FL), and there is actually another OOB list at FLC right now. Thoughts? Dana boomer (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest and the note. I wasn't sure myself to begin with if this is a "regular" article or a list. Initially I posted a request to assess the article at WP:MHAR and based on awarded MILHIST rating of B-class rather than BL-class, by User:Sturmvogel 66 (17 September), I opted to proceed with the article as a "regular" one rather than a list. Maybe I should raise this issue on MILHST talk before proceeding any further?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe post at MILHIST and invite the FLC directors to comment, as they would be in a good position to differentiate between list and article? Dana boomer (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea! I'll do that, thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! I just recently found out that new GAs are acceptable as DYKs, so...--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Thank you! I only wish I had time to do more. Maybe next time around!--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Voćin massacre
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Voćin massacre you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 1ST7 -- 20:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Voćin massacre
The article Voćin massacre you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Voćin massacre for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 1ST7 -- 23:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Voćin massacre
The article Voćin massacre you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Voćin massacre for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 1ST7 -- 00:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Gilbert Gerard of Crewood
Thanks, but I see that as a bug in the template. I set the class field to start ("class=Start") and a B rated article ought not to be a rating that a start class can have, but there is no reason why those criteria can not be met in a starter article. -- PBS (talk) 12:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "If all five checklist fields are set to "yes", the set class= parameter value will be overridden with 'B'". This is in my opinion a mistake, it shoudl not override the class parameter (or put another way the other fields should be dependent on the class).


 * As to your other comments many of the people who were notable during the Civil War do indeed have a significant paper trail which allows one to list them from cradle to grave. However there is a whole raft of people who flourished during the war who do not. They tend to be Cromwell's "plain, russet-coated Captain, that knows what he fights for, and loves what he knows". This man is a good example of this, a Puritan Parliamentary Officer who later in life favoured Quakerism. One of the reliable sources I have referenced, note that "he left no portrait, no dairy, no personal letters by which we could come to know him". This make what you think is important such as image an impossibility for such a biography. As to infoboxes -- they are not supporting material. Other details (such as mother and father) may be added later if reliable sources are found, but that is why this is a start class and not a B class article. :-)


 * The difference of opinion that we seem to have, is that you think the criteria are there solely to support a B class article, while I see them as useful check list for any class of article. Therefore I see overriding the class setting as a bug not a feature.


 * Actually the reason I wrote a biography on this specific Gilbert Gerard is that he is a particularly difficult individual to track because he is one of about half a dozen Gilbert Gerard who were officers on both sides in the Civil War, and several of them were operating in Cheshire and so many of the sources are confused as to which Gilbert Gerard mentioned in a specific primary source (I have given an example of this confusion on Talk:Gilbert Gerard of Crewood). I have left out some of the details of his life because I can not be sure that one of the secondary sources I used and mentions him post Restoration did not confuse him with another contemporary Gilbert Gerard living in Chester after the war -- better to leave it out then put in incorrect information.
 * -- PBS (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said above I think we have made our potions clear so I will not comment further on this unless you ask me to. -- PBS (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of the Dalmatian channels
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of the Dalmatian channels you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- 18:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Juan Bielovucic Cavalié
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Juan Bielovucic Cavalié you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- 00:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Juan Bielovucic Cavalié
The article Juan Bielovucic Cavalié you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Juan Bielovucic Cavalié for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- 17:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Geography of Croatia
Unless the IP is being changed constantly, e.g. several times within a 24h period, you can and should use User talk. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Committee of Secretary-Generals GA
I await your comments ;) Brigade Piron (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to keep you waiting so long. It took me a while to verify sources. I promise to speed things up.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you very much! It is very rewarding to find out that someone enjoys reading articles to which one contributes. Cheers --Tomobe03 (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Juan Bielovucic Cavalié
The article Juan Bielovucic Cavalié you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Juan Bielovucic Cavalié for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- 23:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited State border–Lendava Railway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mura (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Committee of Secretary-Generals
Hi,

Could you comment on the changes made on the GAR page please? Brigade Piron (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of the Dalmatian channels
The article Battle of the Dalmatian channels you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of the Dalmatian channels for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- 22:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Plitvice Lakes incident
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Plitvice Lakes incident you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- 04:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Plitvice Lakes incident
The article Plitvice Lakes incident you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Plitvice Lakes incident for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- 13:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Široka Kula massacre
Quis separabit? 16:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "A monument dedicated to the victims of the massacre was built in the village in 2003" (last sentence in lede) — how about a name at least
 * "Most of those killed were elderly" — any evidence?

WP:ORDINAL

 * "As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine, if they are expressed in one or two words, may be rendered in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred)...". Please acquaint yourself with policies which you cite, which are selectively applied (i.e. use of "41" in lede), before leaving obnoxious edit summaries, rather than on the more private talkpage of the editor with whom you disagree. Quis separabit?  17:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Operation Labrador
I'm very glad to see you taking up this particular topic - it has been on my todo list for quite a while, as I was not too happy with the earlier version of this article.

Anyway: the antisemitism category is indeed not warranted. Also, the thing was essentially a terrorist act, rather than a battle. It is highly unusual in that it targeted the Jews, but was apparently not at all motivated by animosity towards them. That's why it'll probably prove difficult to categorize. (There are no categories such as "Terrorist attacks against the Jews", or the like.) GregorB (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * My thoughts too: for an event that was one of just a handful of terrorist attacks in Croatia (I can also think of Rijeka 1995), and the one that actually hit downtown Zagreb, it has a surprisingly low profile in domestic online sources. My guess is that contemporary reporting was "toned down" (censored, if you will), although that's not how I remember it, it was not exactly a secret (a 10-meter hole in a Zrinjevac building tends to get noticed too). One way or another, that's a bit unusual too. GregorB (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Borovo Selo
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Borovo Selo you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- 13:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Missing talk archive
When you moved the article, the Talk page got moved, but not its subpages - the archives. You either didn't see that checkbox, or you didn't click on it at the time. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I already took care of it, no problem. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Thank you very much!--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Borovo Selo
The article Battle of Borovo Selo you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Borovo Selo for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- 12:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=580651208 your edit] to Croatian special police order of battle in 1991–95 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * to replace the special police units disbanded in the process. Only the Lučko Anti-Terrorist Unit (ATU) remained active as a unit throughout the war.{{sfn|Večernji

Re: Categorizing Miljevci
I'm drawing a blank on Miljevci - at first I thought the event in question was the ambush incident involving Ž. Sačić, but it turns out that was Maslenica, not Miljevci. Mass murder category is definitely off here, as inclusion in categories - particularly controversial ones - obviously has to be supported by sources.

"Battle of Foo" is properly categorized under "F" in battle categories - I believe that's standard practice. GregorB (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. I've just taken a look at Category:Battles involving the United States and it seems to confirm it. GregorB (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

map
I agree to "Approximate extent of Serb-held areas, 1992-95" but I have no time right now to update map. --Mladifilozof (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Reply
Thanks for the welcome beer, i'll make sure to drop by the Military History project. The topics i'm working on now are something I covered pretty good on the Croatian Wikipedia, so why not do the same here, especially since I'm planning on spending most of my Wiki time, here. Other than that, I was planning on looking into Split-related topics, writing some articles about settlements in the Split-Dalmatia County and possibly war crimes during the 90s. Again, thats for the welcome! :-).--Saxum (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 06:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Šibenik and Velebit
I noticed the added ratings and im grateful for taking your time explaning them to me. First of all, you really dont have worry about me being put off because of the "start ratings" :-). I was aware that the articles will be somewhat "poor" compared to other articles here when I started writing, simply because it's a topic, due to their nature (small ships in a small navy), where information is scarce. Regarding what can I do to improve the articles, as soon as I find some spare time, I'll put a few more sentences into them explaining their characteristics and stuff like that + writing new stuff or fixing existing articles.--Saxum (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to admit, my experience with Good Articles is practically non existent because we didn't have them on the Croatian Wikipedia, so your help will be much appreciated when I decide to nominate on of them. But before that happens and before I start fixing what you mentioned to meet the required criteria, I'm planning on writing or rewriting a few more articles, mainly fixing up RTOP-11 and starting RTOP-12. I even considered expanding the Croatin Navy article itself, but that will depend on my free time for Wikipedia.--Saxum (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Backstop
Navbox definitely, not sure about campaignbox because it's hard to pinpoint a precise time where to place it? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * At some point the navbox would turn into a copy of the category, so I'd say leave that out for now. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify: November Newsletter and December Drive
Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To unsubscribe remove your username from this list. EdwardsBot (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in an interview for the Bugle newsletter
Hi, I'm one of the editors of the Military History Wikiproject's newsletter The Bugle, and would like to invite you to participate in a group interview we're conducting for the upcoming December edition. The interview is covering the views of editors who work on topics which are under-represented in the English Wikipedia, and we'd be really interested in your perspectives as an editor who's done a lot of work on Balkans-related topics. If you have time, it would be great if you could provide responses to some or all of the questions at WikiProject Military history/News/December 2013/Interview by Monday 9 December. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Link rot advice needed
Since the URL in question is more than 6 months old, it is not going to appear in the archive, so it's irretrievable. Not sure if specifying the non-archive link as archive is a good idea (archive links are supposed to be permanent, which sib.hr isn't), but Wayback archive link of sib.hr might indeed be provided as a substitute for an actual GS archive. I find this perhaps the "cleanest" solution, as the work and/or publisher is thus still GS, and not sib.hr, which simply carries the content verbatim, and does not actually publish it. GregorB (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Mahan-class destroyer
Thank you for your review and comments. I am presently on a vacation trip, and do not expect to return home until early next week. Can you grant me a few extra days to take care of your findings? Pendright (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Pendright (talk) 00:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Labrador
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Labrador you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Moswento -- 09:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Vrbas '92, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prozor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1992 European Community Monitor Mission helicopter downing
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1992 European Community Monitor Mission helicopter downing you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- 09:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Labrador
The article Operation Labrador you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Operation Labrador for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Moswento -- 10:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Operation Vrbas '92
I figured it was relevant here since it provides an update on the relations between the Bosniak-Croat communities after Jajce was captured by one of them and gives insight into the fate of Bosniaks who fled during Vrbas. -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 07:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But it was Vrbas that caused there to be 40,000 refugees from an area which held 45,000 residents. There must be some information on their return in the aftermath section. Given that tension between Bosniaks and Croats is a significant part of the article and since it played a large role in the operation's success, I thought it was proper to elaborate on what became of those tensions. Did they fizzle away with the Washington agreement or did they continue to exist? That paragraph addresses both of these issues.


 * I'd be up for co-nominating the article with you. -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 13:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks good. The bit in the first paragraph about Serbs heading to Brčko, Mrkonjić Grad, Šipovo, and Banja Luka should then be moved to the Mistral/Jajce articles also. My mistake. -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 14:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Categories of Operation Vrbas '92
Both the categories and the inclusion in the navbox seem unwarranted. "Battles involving Croatian Defence Council" seems reasonable, especially given the fact these were limited to the Bosnian War (if I'm not mistaken). GregorB (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A search for "siege of Jajce" indeed gives mixed results, so yes, I'd add the for template to Siege of Jajce, pointing to the modern-day battle. GregorB (talk) 12:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Una
Feel free to remove that. I added the Croatian War of Indepence out of inertion because it was launched from the Croatian side of the river with no help of the ABiH, although its military objectives had nothing to do with Croatia itself. Cheers. :) --Saxum (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: A barnstar for you!
Thanks! --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1992 European Community Monitor Mission helicopter downing
The article 1992 European Community Monitor Mission helicopter downing you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1992 European Community Monitor Mission helicopter downing for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- 16:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Backstop
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Backstop you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nick-D -- 22:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Mahan-class destroyer GA review
I've contacted you here because it seems the likely place to do so. If I’m wrong, please let me know. I believe I’ve fixed the deficiencies you pointed out on the talk page and have noted them, except for the dead links. (I plan to follow-up on your “Ships in class” suggestions, once the dead links issue is resolved.) I checked five of the ship link references to the appropriate DANFS at navy.mil. While in agreement, they remain dead. The sixth ship, Reid, has no link from her Wikipedia article to DANFS like the others. How I came up with the URL information escapes me. The references were cut and paste, none were by template.

At the moment, I’m just spinning my wheels. So, is it possible you could favor me with some advice or help? Pendright (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Široka Kula massacre
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Široka Kula massacre you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- 23:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Daruvar Agreement
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Daruvar Agreement you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khanate General -- 21:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

GA Review of Graf Strachwitz
Thanks for reviewing. I did a first flypast and believe to have addressed your comments. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You have indeed. I took some time to re-read the prose just to check everything out once again.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Backstop
The article Operation Backstop you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Operation Backstop for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nick-D -- 10:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Successful GA nomination of the Mahan-class destroyer article
I’m pleased the article made the grade and obliged for your words of encouragement. You surprised me, though, with your comment about reviewing other nominations. I’m flattered, but wonder if I am down the road far enough for oversight? Thanks again! Pendright (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I will consider the nudge. Thank you.  Pendright (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Daruvar Agreement
The article Daruvar Agreement you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Daruvar Agreement for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khanate General -- 12:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Široka Kula massacre
The article Široka Kula massacre you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Široka Kula massacre for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- 22:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:green; background-color:white; font color:red; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

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

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

Christmas
Thanks and best of wishes to you as well. :-)--Saxum (talk) 16:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you too. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Merry Christmas!--Khanate General ☪ talk project mongol conquests 01:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Velebit, vol. 2
First of all I would like to adress the possibility of another, unfinished, Velebit-like boat. I have read the article by Boris Švel earlier on. Sadly, looking from todays perspective, 90% of whats written in the article is science fiction and wishful thinking. In that context he mentiones acquiring more "Velebit-class" boats which, of course, didnt't happen just like we didn't acquire pretty much anything that he wanted. I doubt that mr. Švel has any special "inside" information because he is not in the system, rather just a military enthusiast and his opinions are not MoDs official stance. With that in mind I believe that if he heard "rumors" about other new boats, they were fueled by disinformation: the fact is that during the 1990s Croatia didn't have good relations with SR Yugoslavia (who had a huge ex-JRM navy), the war was still fresh in everyones mind and everyone wanted our army to look more powerfull to the the "other side". Certain books such as "Conway's All of the Worlds Fighting ships 1947 - 1995" page 649 also incorporated these rumors into their publications (two Velebit-class laid up in 1995) but in every other work of that kind (Jane's All of the worlds fighting ships 2005) as well as official MoD documents there is no mention of those ships whatsoever. These pictures of Velebit with a number "3" painted on its side obviously did their job (picture 1, picture 2).

About the name. Just a slight glimpse at the sources and it's pretty obvious that there is no consensus regarding the ships name. The pennant number is not the problem, P-914 did remain in Croatia but was 914 Soča or Zeta, well. I used the name Zeta and referenced it with the paluba site. Paluba.info as well as the forum on it is run by former members of the JRM; the admin in charge was a commander of a patrol boat and most people discussing on the forums are former sailors. When I noticed they used the name Zeta for 914 I was sure it was correct because who else had better access to that kind of information than them? Some other sources also used Zeta for 914 (1, 2). Considering many consider 914 to be Soča, I think it would be best if I just mentioned that it served in the JRM as P-914 with a note at the bottom of the page stating that sources vary regarding the ships former name?

And regarding the two sources, Paracin and Paluba, I admit I don't fully understand the problem with them? Except for referencing the name issue at the start of the article, both sources are used for mere technical information that are not controversial or possibly POV for some reason.

And sorry for the really long answer :-)--Saxum (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Got it. I will go work on the article right now so you can check if everything is ok. Thanks for the advice!--Saxum (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just tweaked Velebit a bit, so if you don't mind checking it out. I removed the "needs source" tag on the sentence "Neither the overhauling or the eventual sale, didn't realize." because the idea of overhauling was just a option by the Navy commander and there is no evidence it was under real consideration. The fact that it wasn't sold is self explanatory considering it was offered to museums.--Saxum (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The source (BI) states it for Velebit, considering it was lengthend the underwater autonomy was increased from 4 days for the original Una-class.--Saxum (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, thats the problem with these publications that try to bring every single detail about every navy in the world; I have serious concers about their accuracy when it comes to small navies. The same source says that Velebit could carry 6 x 500 kg mines but BI (who designed it) states that it could carry 4 mines. Several Croatian sources claim Velebit was completed without a sonar because of the arms embargo at the time and that sounds about right to me. It is possible that it was intended to be completed with that sonar, but we can't know that for sure. Also, Velebit was launched in 1996, while the Guide says that happened in 1993. I also noted that they used a wrong names for some of the patrol boats: what they call "PB-63" (OB-63 and later on OB-03) is Cavtat not Vrlika, OB-04 Hrvatska Kostajnica was PČ-181 Durmitor in the JRM not Kozolo (no Mirna-class boat ever carried this name). They also state that Croatia has two (rocket) coastal defense batteries each armed with two Tatra truck launchers (4 total), in reallity there are o@=770&Uvf]=4 only 3].--Saxum (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I still have doubts regarding the sonar being installed. The submarine was de facto retired in 2005, and several sources, including an article from 2012 (regarding the potential sale of the sub) it is stated that it lacks a active sonar. The same is said here and the BI PDF file doesn't mention it. I'll get to the infobox/prose section by the end of the day.--Saxum (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me. :)--Saxum (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This source states: "Brodogradilištem specijalnih objekata (BSO) pri Brodosplitu u Splitu razvili, izgradili i temeljito ispitali podmornice klase Heroj", so during the 60s BSO was part of Brodosplit (a a subsidiary), and looking at their homepage i doub't anything changed..--Saxum (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well there was no date on the site or an information when it was published so I used the day when I accessed the information (site).--Saxum (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Anything else? :)--Saxum (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just noticed I did the date thing with some other sources too, gonna fix that in a bit.--Saxum (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure about that; the reference system and the web site itself work fine for me.--Saxum (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, there isn't a exact date. The batteries died sometime around the early 2000s, but it was early 2005 when they pulled her out of the sea (referenced in the text). I could use that?--Saxum (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good! --Saxum (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Tthanks for all these details. I'll make sure I incorporate them in the two other articles i'm working on (Split and Kralj Petar Krešimir).--Saxum (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help in getting here :-).--Saxum (talk) 10:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gospić massacre
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gospić massacre you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- 22:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gospić massacre
The article Gospić massacre you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gospić massacre for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- 23:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Advice
Hi. I need a bit of advice regarding some sources. As you may have noticed, I started working on the RTOP-11 article. In the "Design and construction" section I used a statement by Franjo Tuđman who decided on the ship's name with a reference leading to the official site of the president (http://predsjednik.hr/Zagreb15.Prosinca1995). The link was fine about two days ago, but today when I decided to actually put it in the article, I noticed that it "died" sometime in the last two days (I believe they changed the page). I tried using the WayBack Machine but with no success. I think that bit of information (and the quote) are important for the article but I don't want them to stay un-referenced. Any advice?--Saxum (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of the Miljevci Plateau
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of the Miljevci Plateau you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dana boomer -- 20:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of the Miljevci Plateau
The article Battle of the Miljevci Plateau you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Battle of the Miljevci Plateau for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dana boomer -- 23:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of the Miljevci Plateau
The article Battle of the Miljevci Plateau you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of the Miljevci Plateau for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dana boomer -- 16:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Croatian National Guard
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Croatian National Guard you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dana boomer -- 17:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Vrbas '92
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Vrbas '92 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ChrisGualtieri -- 05:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Corridor 92
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Corridor 92 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ChrisGualtieri -- 05:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Logorište
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Logorište you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ChrisGualtieri -- 05:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Kupres (1992)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Kupres (1992) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ChrisGualtieri -- 05:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Zrinski Battalion
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Zrinski Battalion you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ChrisGualtieri -- 05:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Well done and thanks!

 * Thank you!--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Croatian National Guard
The article Croatian National Guard you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Croatian National Guard for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dana boomer -- 19:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dalj massacre
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dalj massacre you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dana boomer -- 22:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dalj massacre
The article Dalj massacre you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Dalj massacre for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dana boomer -- 00:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)