User talk:Tuvixer

Re: ankete
(Odgovaram na engleskom iz pristojnosti prema ostalima ovdje.)

President Josipović at some point called them the Kukulele koalicija in a derogatory manner during a campaign; to the best of my knowledge, the name didn't catch on generally. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

An invitation to join the WikiProject Croatia
--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Your invitation was most gracious and I humbly accept. Tuvixer 23:41, 4 May 2014

Popular vote
Where are you getting your information about the popular vote for the EP 2014 article? Almost certainly needs to be footnoted. Gabrielthursday (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I started to calculate on my own, and then found out that someone else has done it. You can see that on the french wikipedia article. For control I calculated the popular vote for EPP an S&D to the end and it matches by number, so that other person has done a good job. Tuvixer (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think this is helpful information, though perhaps better suited for the election charts than the infobox. Maybe you would like to comment on that. If this is WP:MATH, I think we need to footnote the methodology. Does it count votes for affiliated parties that failed to gain representation? If so, what is the standard for "affiliation", given the oftentimes flexible link between EP party membership and EP group membership? For parties like Romania's PNL that changed affiliation, does it count votes for it as being votes for the EPP or votes for the ALDE (post and pre-election affiliation)? For Fianna Fail, do all its votes count for the ALDE, for the ECR or do Crowley's votes count for the ECR and the rest count for the ALDE? For tranferable-vote jurisdictions, do we count first-preference votes or final-count votes?
 * Also, if we're going to have this, we do need a count for the EFDD. Thanks, Gabrielthursday (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * PNL is counted as EPP, Fianna Fail as ECR. Why should it not be in the infobox? There is a section called popular vote. First-preference votes. Oh, yes right. xD I didnt realise that it isnt counted. I will do it tomorrow. Tuvixer (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I suppose the reason why it might not be best in the infobox is because it's sort of a complex thing to figure out, and the methodology could be controverted. That, and we do try to keep the infobox manageable. That said, I have no absolute objection to it being in the infobox, and I certainly won't take it out if you think it belongs there. I seem to recall that it's difficult to put footnotes in the infobox, if not impossible. Perhaps the answer would be to also put the popular vote in a bottom line of the main election results table, and put the footnote explaining the methodology there. Then the infobox information would also be available in the body of the article. Just a thought.
 * Thanks for looking at the EFDD numbers. I'm glad to see a positive relationship developing between us, given the recent unpleasantness. Gabrielthursday (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * do you agree that it is not right to put as leaders of parties for this elections politicians who have been elected to that position after the elections. I am talking about Manfred Weber and Gianni Pittella for example. Do you understand? They become leaders only after the elections. during the elections other politicians were the, in this case Joseph Daul and Martin Schulz. Tuvixer (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand your point of view, but would rather not reopen what proved to be an unfortunately unpleasant disagreement. I am glad to work with you on matters such as the popular vote, where we do not have such divergent viewpoints. Best, Gabrielthursday (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I just don't understand why they are presented as leaders whilst they were not leaders of they political groups on the day of elections? I am not saying that there should be images of "Commission President candidates" but of leaders of their respected political groups that held that position on the days of elections and during the campaign. Understand? So Daul and Schultz for EPP and S&D. Tuvixer (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

"Diet of Croatia" redirect
Hi Tuvixer, I'm really not trying to change the Croatian Parliament article itself. It's just that Diet of Croatia exists as a redirect, and has since March 2014. It's creator is Croatian and an administrator, so he probably had a good reason for making it. More importantly, as long as that redirect exists, some people will get to that page by searching "Diet of Croatia". And some of those people may be looking for information about food—see the similar hatnotes at, for example, National Diet and Riksdag of the Estates. So if you think "Diet of Croatia" should redirect there, you can nominate it at WP:RFD for deletion, or perhaps retargeting to Croatian cuisine. Does that make sense? --BDD (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it makes no sense. If Joy has created that redirect, you should ask him what he intended. I am sure he did not intend it to be a redirect for Croatian Parliament because the term Diet is not used for Croatian Sabor/Parliament. I am from and I live in Croatia, so I know. Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Joy, what do you think? Tuvixer, do you think "Diet of Croatia" should take readers to the Croatian cuisine article instead? --BDD (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Sure not to the Croatian Parliament. :) --Tuvixer (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would think that it's fairly clear that the English word "Diet" used in this kind of a context, should refer to a parliament. Not unlike e.g. Federal Diet of Germany, Diet of Finland, ... See also what a Google Books search gives for the phrase - I would imagine that the more likely phrasing for the other diet would be the less formal "Croatian diet", but even that phrase has been used in books to refer to the parliament - . --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I've restored the part of the redirect referring to Diet of Croatia. If you want to change that, please let me know if you want at a hand at RFD. --BDD (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Why did you do that? Leave it to Joy to make that change if he wants to. He is from Croatia and i am from Croatia so leave that to him, I think we have a better understanding of Croatian Parliament than you. ;) --Tuvixer (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright. Let's work this out. Suppose "Diet of Croatia" has to redirect to Croatian Parliament. Say Jimmy himself said this has to be the case, or Wikipedia will be discontinued. Given that, there should be a hatnote, right? Especially if it's not a common name for the parliament, some readers using that term will be looking for food. Now, I'm not saying that redirect has to exist, or that it needs to point to the parliament. But as long as it does, that hatnote is necessary to help confused readers. Do you understand? --BDD (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My point is that the status quo that you're reinforcing is one where "Diet of Croatia" redirect to Croatian Parliament, and we do nothing to suggest that phrase could refer to anything but the parliament. I really don't think that's what you want. --BDD (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Then create redirects for all parliaments in the world, for example Diet of Italy, Diet of India,... Also create redirects for Assembly,and so on. The term Diet of Croatia is not used for Croatian Parliament, like Diet of Italy is not used for Italian Parliament. --Tuvixer (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, see, what you want is for the Diet of Croatia redirect to be changed or deleted, then. Keeping a hatnote off the parliament article is only going to add to confusion. --BDD (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, this just occurred to me—did you think my edits at Croatian Parliament were creating a redirect? They're not; the redirect was there before and it's still there now. Nothing I've done has changed that. --BDD (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So don't do anything, just leave it like it is, or/and change the redirect for Croatian Cuisine or Food. OK? --Tuvixer (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, alright. That sounds like the easiest solution. --BDD (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Order
I opened a thread on the subject you're discussing at Talk:Kolinda. Cheers. -- Director  ( talk )  14:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah Tuvixer, please respond to this WP:CANVASS. I'm sure it will help the case.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 14:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't care about the note. You two were acting like children. Stop that. Also you have proven your knowledge on this topic by saying that UK is a federation. So please stop editing articles about which you do not have basic knowledge. --Tuvixer (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Lol.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 14:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems you know less about WP:CANVASS than what makes a head of state :). -- Director  ( talk )  15:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems your penchant for trolling is carrying over to user talk pages as well. You may need to talk to experts on that.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 15:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Timbouctou you are a sociopath, please stop commenting on my talk page. I don't want to have anything with politically biased users, and you have proven on so many articles that you are on Wikipedia just to promote your political ideology and you are even prepared to write lies and manipulate just to make your point. So please leave me alone, and when you are wrong stop acting like a child. Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

List of Presidents of Croatia ANI discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Latin/Cyrillic
Actually whenever there is a difference between Serbian and Croatian Latin, we should add both. European Union is totally unrelated. Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, if you say so. I was thinking that someone was trying to make a mess. But ok. --Tuvixer (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

3rd President
Putting 3rd (as opposed to Third), also removes the ambiguity, hence the thanks.Pincrete (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. :) I just looked how it is with Obama. :D --Tuvixer (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cabinet of Zoran Milanović, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ministers. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Dalmatian Italians
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dalmatian Italians. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * @Robert McClenon There is no Committee's decision. --Tuvixer (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed that for you, assuming that they meant to put the sanctions for Eastern Europe. OP, if I was wrong for what sanctions you meant, simply change it. However you linked to the letter B. cnbr15 14:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Ministry of Health (Croatia) with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 23:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) It is just late. --Tuvixer (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.


 * Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection (Croatia)
 * added a link pointing to Božo Kovačević


 * Ministry of Health (Croatia)
 * added a link pointing to Andrija Hebrang


 * Ministry of Maritime Affairs, Transport and Infrastructure
 * added a link pointing to Mario Kovač

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs (Croatia)
I just wanted to make lists of ministers at Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs (Croatia) ‎and Ministry of the Interior (Croatia) identical as list at Ministry of Defence (Croatia)... The new version contain more data, I don't understand why you are against it? --Sundostund (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry. I did not realize that. Tnx for your edits. :)--Tuvixer (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, Tuvixer! I'm glad that we cleared up misunderstanding... By the way, I saw that you recently remodeled many lists at articles about Croatian ministries, so would you consider to remodel them to look as list at Ministry of Defence (Croatia)? I don't have enough time to remodel all of them myself, but as you can see I did it at Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs (Croatia) ‎and Ministry of the Interior (Croatia). It would be helpful if we have the new version at all articles. --Sundostund (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, you mean that all tables contain the "Duration of office"?--Tuvixer (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, pretty much. But also some other stuff (just see all elements when you open the list scheme at Ministry of Defence (Croatia)). --Sundostund (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.I'm still sorting through the rest of the dispute, but I'm giving both of you edit warring warnings now, because nothing justifies the edit warring that you both participated in. Monty  845  14:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Privatization in Croatia. Thank you. Monty 845  15:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Balkans
Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

3 RR violation
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Josip Broz Tito. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You have made four reverts in less than 24 hrs. Please self-revert your last revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

BTW, since I see that you've been warned about edit warring previously, if you don't self revert I will report you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, I did not realize that. Please ,will you go to the talk page and engage in a constructive discussion and stop changing the article? Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Yugoslavia
Hi Tuvixer. Consider joining WikiProject Yugoslavia, you seem to do a lot of your editing in that scope. -- Director  ( talk )  17:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the official language
The constitution and all legal documents are pretty clear on the matter (as are secondary sources who cite those documents, I referenced those). Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had no official state language. The constituent Socialist Republics are the ones that had official languages. 93.141.88.210 (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sry, I thought that you had removed that, and you have added that. Tnx for your edit. :) --Tuvixer (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Rijeka
Explanation of my removal of sourced text:

I was trying to consolidate different articles about Rijeka on Wikipedia: - History of Rijeka - Timeline of Rijeka - Croatian-Hungarian Settlement - Port of Rijeka - Corpus separatum (Fiume)

The original text reads:

Until 1918, FIUME was part of the Austrian monarchy (Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia after the compromise of 1867), in the Croatia-Slavonia province.

The text I removed reads:

From 1804, Rijeka was part of the Austrian Empire (Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia after the Compromise of 1867), in the Croatia-Slavonia province.[5]

Here are my problems with the text: - it suggests Rijeka joined Austrian Empire in 1804, not that the Habsburg monarchy was just renamed - it suggests the corpus separatum status has ended in 1804 - there is no mention of Croatia-Slavonia province at that time on Wikipedia, just Kingdom of Croatia and Kingdom of Slavonia; link redirects to Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia formed in 1867 - fails to mention disputed status (Croatia/Hungary) and changes in governing during the 19th century - suggests it was no longer part of the Austrian Empire after 1867

I understand the text is "sourced" (obscure offline postage stamp cancellation book), but even the original clearly conflicts with other articles and the current version is misleading at best. Please explain why the conflicted "sourced" text should not be removed.

And if you feel very strongly about not removing the text, please take some time and edit the section to create something that is not as confusing as the current state.

Dedekmraz 20:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dedekmraz (talk • contribs)

Thanks
@Tuvixer: Nothing wrong. I appreciate your help. Said so on the article talkpage. Yours, Quis separabit?  19:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Tito report
Too bad mate, I was faster. Peter238 (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Stranica Ivo Josipović
Zašto uklanjate moje izmjene na stranici Ivo Josipović ? Slika iz 2011. sa obljetnice Oluje je daleko bolja i bolje kvalitete od trenutne koju Vi uporno postavljate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.156.183.142 (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't be disrespectful, this is English Wikipedia. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I will translate. Why you constantly remove my changes on the page Ivo Josipović? His photo from 2011, from the celebrating of military operation Storm, is much better with more quality than current photo whom you set. I don't understand where is the problem ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.156.151.90 (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The picture was just fine, if you want to change it present the changes on the talk page and wait for a consensus. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Electoral system
The following info was in the Croatia election article. Do you know what happened to redefining the constituencies to account for population changes/make them follow county borders etc. An the introduction of open lists etc. It would be good if you could check this point by point.Regards --Batmacumba (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

"The electoral system will likely see some changes compared to the last four elections. In December 2010, the Constitutional Court of Croatia decided to inform Parliament that it is necessary to update the electoral unit definitions according to current population data, in accordance with the provisions of the 1999 Law on electoral units. It was too late to change the system for the 2011 election cycle, since electoral laws cannot be changed less than a year before the election. Therefore, the next election will occur with boundary changes to accommodate shifts in the population.[1] Minister of Public Administration Arsen Bauk announced major changes in the composition of the geographical electoral units. It is expected their number will be reduced from ten to five. They would follow the borders of Croatian counties with each encompassing several counties. This means they would not be roughly equal in size, as was the case before, but rather each district would give a different number of MPs, in proportion with their population. The population would be determined by census numbers, rather than the number of registered voters as was the case before. Two non-geographical districts, which give 3 seats for diaspora and 8 for minorities, would remain unchanged. 140 members would still come from the five geographical districts meaning the total number of seats would still be 151. Proportional representation would still be the method of electing members, however it is not clear whether the D'Hondt method would remain and whether there would be an introduction of open lists.[2]"

Yugoslav People's Army
Respectable, if I'm not mistaken, in Serbo-Croatian (or Croato-Serbian), word "narod" means both the "people" and the "nation". So, in case of Yugoslav People's Army, correct translations of "Jugoslovenska narodna armija" are both Yugoslav People's Army and Yugoslav National Army. In materials of US DoD, JNA is translated in both ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.149.232.157 (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No it is not because it means army of the people.--Tuvixer (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Social Democratic Party of Croatia
Both you and Tzowu have been warned for edit warring at Social Democratic Party of Croatia. Either of you may be blocked if you continue to revert, without making a serious effort to get other opinions, or to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Thank you, 15:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Rijeka - Regency of Carnaro period
I think there was nothing to be deleted on the Regency of Carnaro part of the Rijeka article. You should have only asked (rightly so, indeed) for sources. They are provided now and please before you delete something find them online and read them, where possible. It is an extremely important moment of the town's history and the only one in which it was part of the world news on a weekly basis. So it deserves a deep study and good academic-like description for the reader. Moreover, you should not change the Autonomous Party into "autonomist party", it is not a generic name but the proper official name, like for example "the Communist Party of China" or "United Russia" or "the UPM party of France", etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marintu (talk • contribs) 16:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You have to provide the sources. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Croatia
Regarding your revert: could you point me to the debate that you've mentioned? I can't find it in Talk:Croatia or its archives. GregorB (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss go to the talk page of the article, this is not the place for that debate. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * For info, GregorB, I've started a discussion about this here. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Croatian Parliamentary Elections 2007 + 2011 + 2015
I don't mind, that You deleted my tables with the results of the 21 zupanjas - as long as You replace them with real tables (I don't have the technical skills therefor)! But the zupanja-results - it took me days to sum up the municipality-results - ought to be provided by us, especially as the DIP isn't able to that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agricola Planitius (talk • contribs) 15:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You need to have a source. There is no such thing as zupanjas. Without a source "your" sums don't mean anything. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Could use your help!
The page Anti-Croat Sentiment requires some formatting and editing. There are also problems with vandalism impeding the progress. Any help would be most welcomed. Stariradio (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring
I'll thank you to not intervene on the side of the edit-warring party, who has done nothing to attempt to achieve consensus on this article. Either read the talk page history or butt out. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * AS I said, you have not been involved in this article, but I will be glad to involve you if you continue to intervene on behalf of an obvious single-issue editor who is pushing a POV on the article. The only DR attempted (a RfC) resolved strongly against the POV the user was pushing. But it's up to you. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Croatian government being formed
If you are a Croatian, why don't you know about your new government being formed? --212.186.0.108 (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not being formed, they have not even been voted in the Parliament. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Silvio1973 (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

ARBMAC notice regarding your edits on World War II in Yugoslavia

 * Just to make this absolutely crystal clear for you, if you remove any sourced information about the negotiations from that article, I will have to assume you don't care if you are sanctioned for it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not remove sourced material, Please go and see. Read the edits, don't make assumptions. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Which my addition was disruptive to you? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.146.247.248 (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes you did, you removed the following ", further stating that "there was no reason for the Germans to attack the Partisans, and it would be in the interests of both if hostilities stopped and areas of responsibilities were agreed"." It is sourced to Lekovic. Don't remove it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * As a courtesy, I must point out that ARBMAC sanctions are also enforceable at Josip Broz Tito, because I have a feeling I'm going to be taking your behaviour on that article to WP:AE unless you cease the tendentious stone-walling on the talk page. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: UN Secretary-General
Hi. I saw you reverted my edits of the UN Secretary-General elections -- and instead alphabetically, you've put them in random order. Also, why list more than 1-2 former positions? Veni Markovski &#124; Вени Марковски (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

A very important question...
...is still unanswered: what kind of mention of political oppression would you consider appropriate for Josip Broz Tito article? Without a straight answer, the process turns into a guessing game, in which Silvio attempts to find a way to insert changes, only to find them repeatedly rejected for one reason or the other. Please state what kind of changes would you accept, and Silvio will attempt to work in that direction (instead of guessing in multiple random directions), and the issue will have been resolved. GregorB (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI
I closed the discussion on the admin board and reverted the 13 March addition, rather than protecting the article at the wrong version, for the simple reason that all parties seem now to have agreed that the text in question is poorly written, exhibits a strong POV and rests on questionable sources. It is not part of the stable version of the article. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ok, I did not realize that, you are the admin. --Tuvixer (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 April
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Croatia page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=713148099 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F713148099%7CCroatia%5D%5D Ask for help])

European Council table
Hi Tuvixer, it is not generally considered to simply revert an edit you don't like. See WP:DONTREVERT. I edited the page because I find it much clearer. In the case of Merkel, for example, it makes sense to show each of her may elections. This is a table of members of the European Council, not one primarily to indicate the most recent and the next election in each state. If you have an issue with what this means in the case of Croatia, you should discuss it, preferably on my own page so that I'll get a notification. On your specific point, while he didn't contest the election, Orešković was the prime minister appointed after the 2015 election, as indicated on Croatian parliamentary election, 2015. William Quill (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited City Council of Rijeka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Independent. 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) 10:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of City Council of Rijeka


A tag has been placed on City Council of Rijeka requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.rijeka.hr/en/city-government/city-council/scope-and-rules-of-procedure-of-the-city-council/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

June 2017
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Slaven Bilić. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard
I have decided to post this on Dispute resolution noticeboard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Croatian_presidential_election.2C_2014.25E2.2580.259315 StjepanHR (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution noticeboard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Rijeka_City_Council StjepanHR (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Croatian presidential election, 2014–15
Since previous attempts provided no conclusion, I have decided to try once more to engage third party opinion:. I tried to wait for Your return to Wikipedia, but I will be absent most of the August, so I must do it now. StjepanHR (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Nomination for deletion of Template:Autonomous Regional Party/meta/color
Template:Autonomous Regional Party/meta/color has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Translation of grije as kissed
Surely a translation of Croatian to English needs to be accurate. If the translation is not accurate how can people be assured that any other information is accurate. Grije means to warm. There is absolutely no reference to kiss in the original anthem. How can you possibly justify translating grije as kissed. Frank Kolmann (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am not justifying anything, You can't change the sourced text as You like. I suggest that You get familiar with the rules of Wikipedia. Thanks. --Tuvixer (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok then, I am supposed to get agreement to the change. Well who do I contact to discuss this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Kolmann (talk • contribs) 13:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, You can't change it because it is the official translation by the Croatian government. Do You understand now? --Tuvixer (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I tried to find the official translation, I found nothing. I checked the references there is no official translation in the references. In any case the government is only a representative of the people. The translation is incorrect. How can one inform the relevant department that a correction in needed.Frank Kolmann (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you joking??? Please look at this: http://www.mvep.hr/en/about-croatia/state-emblems/national-anthem/ And please stop wasting my time. You can't change the official translation. Please educate yourself on how Wikipedia works. Thanks. --Tuvixer (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Language template at Josip Broz Tito
As I have explained in my edit summary, there are Cyrillic scripts in several languages. In this case, the Cyrillic script being used is that of Serbo-Croatian. It is therefore necessary to use the Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic template. I have no idea why you have an issue with this simple fact. As you deleted it, and were reverted, the obligation is on you (per WP:BRD) to start discussion on the talk page. The sh template has been there for ages. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have started a discussion on the talk page of the article in question, seconds ago. Thanks. --Tuvixer (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Operation Storm
Well, does it all say there, why put double, one should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.125.51.20 (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please go to the talk page of the article so we can have a proper discussion. Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus in Croatia
Bok Tuvixer!

I see you are editing the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Croatia article. I am working on the Croatian language version of it. Today in the morning we had one confirmed death in Istria. Together with all the newspapers, the official government source koronavirus.hr said so aswell. But now the site was removed. I am 100% sure that it was even in the webarchive - since I added the archivelink as a source on hr.wiki. But now are both, the izvornik and the archived page, completely gone. I have no explaination for that, it is really weird. What would you say about this? How should we on Wikipedia deal with this?

Srdačan pozdrav, Koreanovsky (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, maybe they still don't know if coronavirus was the cause of death. I don't know. But they would not remove it without a reason. --Tuvixer (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Genocide of Serbs page
I see you included Chetnik activity as part of Racic’s activities. Where is that sourced from? I did not see that anywhere and removed it. For now. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It is in the source, please read it again. Thanks--Tuvixer (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks. Also I notice that the context was wrong. Radic was not responsible for the assassination. Prenar’s outburst accusing Racic of corruptions lead to the shooting. Radic was quiet during this time. On Radic’s page a new similar edit claiming Radic accused Racic of corruption, could you take a look the source is valid? Thanks. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't have time right now, but if it says that Radić "provoked" the killer Račić, it is either false or/and unsourced. --Tuvixer (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Vandelism
User Александр Ашкаров keeps making the same vandalizing edits on the Genocide of Serbs page. Three times now. Can the page be protected or the person blocked? They are vandalizing other wiki pages too it seems. They seem to be engaged in historical whitewashing. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You can make a request for page protection.--Tuvixer (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems like double standards.
Looking at the Ivo Andric and Tesla page, one ethnic Croat, other ethnic Serb both born our of the identifying nations, Nikola Tesla’s name is listed as Serbian, but Ivo Andrić’ name is listed as Serbian or Serbo-Croatian. Seems hypocritical. Who is deciding this? 74.101.190.2 (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Issue with pov skewing on article.
On the Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia there is a user who keeps pushing edits that seem to over inflate the intro or unbalance the article. For example one edit is their claim that Genocide is integral to Greater Croatia ideology. This is unsourced and is wrong, it was an Ustasha ideology based on Nazi Racial Theory which is a sourced fact. This editor is also backed by another editor both of which cannot source their edits and keep edit warring. How does one combat this? Thanks. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * RS have been added by fellow editor @WEBDuB. Please do not resort to canvassing.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  19:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The sourced supplied do not state that Genocide was a requirement or a rule of Greater Croatia ideology as the editors implied. Genocide was an Ustashe idea formed from Nazi Racial Theory. Look at the sources and you will see the sentence wording does not match what the sources say. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Socialist Republic of Croatia
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nbanic (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

A tip on your ANI post
You should mention efforts you made (talk pages, etc) to try to resolve the conflict. ANI is intended to be "after everything else to fix it has been tried". Schazjmd  (talk)  23:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice. --Tuvixer (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Kitchen Sink
Looks like one of the three editors you called out now is trying to accuse me of sockpuppeting haha. And projecting their obvious nationalist pov pushing on article on me trying to accuse me of doing it. Despite my edits being sourced and agreed on by other non-Balkan editors. I think I've just about had it with Wikipedia. People like them win. PortalTwo (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Report
Can you please tell me, how the report was not brief? I really don't understand how is that so, as I can't find any guidelines on how to write a report and as I have compared the report with other reports. --Tuvixer (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Because (on my screen) the report was more than a page in length. Many people will see a report that long and just not bother with it. You should aim for two paragraphs at most (with no long lists), incorporating diffs (for example, when referring to the Glina edits you could have just written something like "On the Glina article there was removal of reliably-sourced information on several occasions.
 * If you want more of a guide on length, look at the report you made on my talk page and compare the length of your initial report with the responses that follow from myself, JamesHSmith6789, Sadko and Griboski. That's what I mean by a paragraph. If you can't explain the problem more concisely, not many people are going to read it. Number   5  7  14:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought that when speaking about length you meant how many words are in it. So what can be done now? Can I now condense the diffs like you showed above? I didn't know that it was forbidden to reply to the comments of the users that are being reported. --Tuvixer (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's too late to salvage the ANI thread – no-one is going to look at it now all the people you reported piled in. I'm also not sure what you mean in the last part of your comment. It is not forbidden to reply to anyone. Number   5  7  17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ok, thanks for explaining. So what can be done now? Another report? You mentioned arbitration committee? I misunderstood something, I misread your last statement. It seems unfair to me that the report is not going to be looked on, only because I wrote the diffs one under the other and not in the same row. but that is over, I learned this, and thank you very much for explaining. I don't want that the disruptive edits "pass under the radar" just because of my amateurism. --Tuvixer (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The issues is that there is a lot of misbehaviour on Wikipedia and admins (who are volunteers and don't have unlimited time) need to be presented with a clear and concise case of misdoing. If reports are too long, they are unlikely to attract attention because people will look at it and think 'I'm not bothering with that' (basically WP:TLDR). Long reports also often tend to be filed by editors who are themselves problematic, so it really doesn't help your case to do so.
 * I would recommend reports against individual users at WP:AE. For this you will need to prove a pattern of disruptive and highly partisan edits across multiple articles (for example, removing sourced text that promotes an opposite viewpoint, adding large amounts of POV text that is WP:UNDUE or adding text that is clearly about nationalist point-scoring). Cheers, Number   5  7  19:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * do I need to be brief or there is another approach? --Tuvixer (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You have to be brief as AE reports are limited to 500 words and 20 diffs. But this is a skill you need to apply to all discussions on Wikipedia if you want useful responses. Number   5  7  18:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Why have you reverted my edits?
Why have you reverted my edits?!!! I have added sources for number changes in my summaries!!! I think if you would read my edit summaries and open that links, you might know that my edits are true! Only one, who vandalises the page, is you! Moson81 (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Left Bloc
The Left Bloc in Croatia is a coalition, and its primary ideologies depends on the majority tendencies of its member parties. A coalition cant be claimed to follow an ideology in which none of its member parties have, and claiming that the bloc is eco-socialist overall when the only socialist party in the coalition doesn't even have that ideology, simply doesn't work. As for the source you added, it does not mention socialism, nor does it mention "Lijevi blok" which is the name of the coalition. Remember that your own analyzis of an article is not reliable for sourcing on wikipedia! You are also not at liberty to provide me with a final warning for edit-warring when no previous valid warnings have been given, and the situation does not meet the standards for what proper edit-warring is! It is also highly negative that you when reverting has not even bothered to provide a reason or rationale through the edit-summary. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Revert Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Albanian Language
Hello Tuvixer, why reverting to a statement, that is obviously and de facto wrong with stating, that there were three main languages in Yugoslavija? I did not put the note to the source behind "Albanian", so the remaining reference/note from the former sentence was not misleading at all. I am not into edit-wars (so I am not reverting again), but the sentence as it stands there by now is just not correct. The sentence does not -by wording- inform about the (at that time) legal majority languages of the federal states, but makes a general statement about the main (=biggest languages) of Yugsl. As can be even clearly seen by the following remarks of the article, Albanian is without any doubts amongst the biggest languages in Yugosl. - and should therefore be mentioned amongst these, Stephan Hense (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Question
Just a question: have you some problems versus punctualitation? But is it important for you? Honestly, I made a minimal change: take it easy! For me without punctualitation is the same: no edit war by me. Your message in User talk:Arslan Arie is not collaborative and hostile versus valid user. Regards--Forza bruta (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Dubrovnik
Stop restoring the personal attacks from the IP at Talk:Dubrovnik. The removal certainly was not "vandalism". Bishonen &#124; tålk 14:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC).
 * Bishonen Thanks for the warning. I will stop. I restored them because I don't see them as personal attacks. --Tuvixer (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Tuvixer. There is a group of Croatian IPs (probabbly the same pearson) that stalk and abuse me. Please don't speculate about my alleged previous username. Such accusations can put me in danger. Thanks.--WEBDuB (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Mongrel
mongrel. Cheers. --Bedivere (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Bedivere What do you want to say? You need to see the context, and in the article about President Boric, it is not used as a derogatory term. So please revert yourself, Thanks. Tuvixer (talk) 05:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Dentren
Thanks for keeping Gabriel Boric's article in accordance to policy. That user has been making several POV-pushing edits and even created an article on the inflation in Chile making almost exclusive mention of Boric's gov in that matter. --Bedivere (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain yourself in future from biased editing and participating in edit wars. You've been caught multiple times.
The sources disagree with you, other editors also pointed out the sources disagree with you in other articles as well yet you keep ignoring them and simply using your personal ideas on what's true or false. I won't accuse you of anything however, after quick look through your page, you seem like a rather biased editor that does not follow Wikipedia's simple but important "be objective" philosophy. Also hiding behind "wait for common consesus" is simply an attempt to prevent objective edits being done.

PlavaOmega (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Opinion polling for the next Croatian parliamentary election
I was wondering if you could tell me what the mistakes with the image graph on the Opinion polling for the next Croatian parliamentary election page are so that I can rectify them and restore the image to the page? CoaxAndBotany (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * For example, the data (line) for "SD" is all wrong. 2x1 komunikacije is a questionable source, but nevermind that, that party has incomplete data. You can't ignore the fact that some polls give "SD" 0% or less then 1%. Same mistake with Fokus also. Then, why did you put Fokus on the graph and not Centar or IDS?
 * The graph should only contain data for the parties (columns) that have consistent and present data in all the opinion polls. That parties are HDZ (blue), SDP (red), Možemo (green), Most (orange) and DomPok (black), with a line showing the combined percentage for all other parties (grey). And maybe also for "Undecided" (dark grey).
 * So, instead of "SD" and "Fokus" you should put a line for "Others", adding up the percentages of all other parties
 * I don't like the current graph, it looks awful, but how regular are you going to be with the updates for new data on your graph? Tuvixer (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would disagree that the line for SD is wrong or the data is incomplete. The data used is whatever is currently shown on the table below. No poll gives SD less than 1% on that table and any data point where there is a dash is ignored.
 * However I agree and on the lack of certain parties and I will add all the smaller parties together as Other.
 * So I will make a graph of HDZ (blue), SDP (red), Možemo (green), Most (orange), DP(black), Other (grey) and Undecided (dark grey).
 * And I will be updating this graph probably weekly if not even faster than that!
 * Also, would you be interested in me making a second graph with the political coalitions added together too (eg SDP + IDS +... etc)?
 * Many thanks for the advice! CoaxAndBotany (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I might not add undecided, and instead adjust the % values of each to account for no undecided (i.e reweight polls so they are still /100 after removing the undecided column) CoaxAndBotany (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Even better.
 * The second graph with political coalitions can be added when political coalitions are formally formed. Now there is only talks about a center-left coalition of SDP, Možemo, IDS, Centar and RF, but nothing official.
 * Also formal name of Možemo is "Možemo!". Tuvixer (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dominik Kuzmanović
Hello, Tuvixer

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username MPGuy2824, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I’ve proposed an article that you started, Dominik Kuzmanović, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. To prevent the deletion, please add a reference to the article. You may remove the deletion tag yourself once the article has at least one reliable source.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have added the sources. Tuvixer (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)