User talk:Joy

Add new comments below.

I am requesting a name change to Joy. --Shallot 12:16, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For my SUL troubles, see User:Joy/SUL. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This page is now archived. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Operation Storm

I see you've been involved with the article recently, so I have a question. Tomobe and I are currently doing a B-Class assessment drive, so - given the situation with the recent dispute about Operation Storm - I considered reviewing it too and leaving comments in the assessment summary page. Is now the right moment, or you are planning do to further work on the article? GregorB (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Doesn't look that bad to me - there are problems, to be sure, but not necessarily of magnitude that would fail the article on WP:BCLASS criteria, which are of course still significantly below what is required for a GA. (Caveat: haven't actually analyzed the entire article.) Anyway, I might still revisit the article for a review once B-Class drive is finished (in a month or so). GregorB (talk) 09:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Bošnjani

Hi Joy, thanks for tidying up the article in question, I've been meaning to do it myself but never got around to it. Despite your clarification I still find it difficult to grasp what Natalino had in mind with his edits, and what the whole deal about the "Serb ethnonym" is about? I would love to understand the point of it, as it is now I am not really sure it has a relevant place in the article whatsoever. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The De Administrando Imperio was written in the mid 10th century so it can't have possibly referred to any date latter than that. The DAI describes the Serbs as settling in the 7th century the regions of Southern Serbia (Rascia), Zahumlje, Trebinje, Pagania, and Konavli, while Bosnia proper is not mentioned in regard to this period and would remain a terra incognita (presumably ruled by local chiefs, of unknown ethnicity) until the late 9th century (Map) when Petar Gojniković succeeded to annex the valley of Bosna after defeating one local Tisemir about whom very little is known. John VA Fine also corroborates that following the settlement of Serb and Croat tribes in the region the rest of Bosnia seemed to be a region between Serb and Croat rule. Now when it comes to the early 10th century in Bosnia we are looking at something of a "break-through" in the Serb rule of the region with the integration of Bosnia (extent unknown) into the short-lived state of Časlav Klonimirović (927-960) after which Bosnia would disintegrate from Serb rule. In the DAI, which was thus written in the period of Časlav's rule, Bosnia is nowhere described as a region "inhabited by Serbs", in fact no unequivocal information is given on the character of the population in Bosnia of this time. I am therefore not certain on how to interpret your understanding of the sentence Bosona as one of two small regions behind the hills that the Serbs inhabit, nearby Rascia which I have quite frankly never heard of before and would, in my opinion, constitute an interpretation rather than anything else. In fact I am almost positive that such a formulation is to be found nowhere in the DAI (Read here where a balanced discussion of Bosnia's mention in the DAI also is provided). Regardless, I am sure the people in this region were familiar with the phenomenon "Serb" as I am sure they were also with the "Croat" one, and most certainly also "Bošnjanin" (this term couldn't have exactly popped out of nowhere in the Charter of Kulin Ban). So to sum up, it is obvious that the Serb ethnonym in some sense probably circulated in Bosnia both prior to and after the Charter of Kulin Ban, but I fail to see how this bears any relevance whatsoever on the development of the term Bošnjani. If anything the paragraph on prior Serb rule and the Serb ethnonym tends to suggest that "Bošnjanin" emerged as a regional twist of "Serb". What I however primarily don't understand is the sentence At the same time, all Bosnian referrals to the Serbian medieval realm are exclusively Rascian. All "Serb-" references in domestic Bosnian documentary sources are either early self-referrals so I can't say you've really answered my actual question. In my opinion the whole excursus on the Serb ethnonym is irrelevant and only serves to confuse. If someone wished to underline (whether it was you or Natalino) that the Serb scholarship considers the term Bošnjanin as a regional designation for Serb tribes in Bosnia such a discussion would fit better under a "controversies" headline, however the disputed nature of the term "Bošnjanin" is already mentioned above so I wouldn't necessarily see a new section appropriate either. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Basically, the article is not one about whether medieval Bosnians were actually Serbs (or Croats or a separate group). If anything such elaborations belong better in the Bosnians (or even Bosniaks) article, naturally cited, and preferably outlined as a (nationalist) controversy given the contentious character of the matter. Well for one, Bašić clearly explains that the reference to Bosona in the DAI is a matter of interpretation, whereas you have unfortunately presented the interpretation most frequently found in Serb historiography as a seemingly indisputable fact (while De Administrando Imperio puts it within baptized Serbia). I will have to elaborate this in the near future using Bašić. Moreover, the assumption of the existence of early "Serb" self-referrals is also a matter of interpretation and great controversy (not least the Charter of Ban Matej Ninoslav), but is unfortunately presented once more as an indisputable fact. There is no doubt you have clarified the text and brought objectivity to what Natalino wanted to say, but the problem is rather with Natalino bringing this up in the first place. Also the fact that citations are lacking altogether doesn't make it any better. I would want to remove the paragraph in question until I have the time to write up something based sources (e.g. Bašić) Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I never doubted your good faith Joy. It is truly a joy to have you around. No worries :) Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Just one last thing Joy, I reviewed the revision history for the article and noticed that the segment in question originates from an apparent anonymous POV pusher [1]. Following this user's contribution on the 5th of February 2011 the POV material was consistently maintained by user Biblbroks until Natalino's edits. Seeing the segment was introduced by a POV pusher it confirms my fears that its sole purpose was to claim the original Slav inhabitants of Bosnia as Serbs eventually transforming into Bosnjani. Needless to say, we are looking at the core of nationalist Serb historiography based on one-sided interpretations and assumptions of history. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Luka Misetic

I know about the diacritics, that's why I moved redirected the page in the first place... But, how do you move a page on the already existing page (like you moved Misetic's talk page). I tried to do so with the article, but I previously created a redirect "Luka Misetic" so I was unable to, so I redirected Mišetić to Misetic. --Wüstenfuchs 11:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I totaly forgot... even now I don't remember. But in future I'll report that to admin. --Wüstenfuchs 11:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

recommendation advice

User (and I think you know who I mean) is removing very reliably sourced info simply due to WP:OWN or WP:I DON'T LIKE IT - if warnings do not work, first step - ANI? or ______ ? Never had to take this step before, usually the articles I am interested in/editing are watched over by more than one Admin and they usually open them. Not sure what the escalation "politeness" should be.  :-) Thanks.

A small request

This was kumioko's edit and unfortunately you - in subsequent edits - entered your comment in between the paragraph's of Kumioko which is frankly very confusing. Would you be so kind as to shift your valid comments below kumioko's comment? This will help us tremendously in maintaining a steady flow. Thanks, Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Joy. You have new messages at Mrt3366's talk page.
Message added 16:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Portugal

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ancient Portugal, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://portuguesecitizenship.blogspot.com/2010/12/history-of-portugal-roman-lusitania-and.html.

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 Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)Template:Z119 MadmanBot (talk) 10:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ancient Portugal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beja (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) 12:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Help needed

I'm sorry to ask you this, but, few days ago I redirected Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Bosnia and Herzegovina article... can you please move this talk page there... This was before you told me about moving the pages.

Thanks. --Wüstenfuchs 16:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Vladimir Petković

Hi Joy, can this stay [2]? That user inserted and Serbian without a source and now that insertion looks like its supported with a source, at the end of the sentence, where it is not mentioned at all but only that he holds Swiss and Croatian passports. In his interview which is source [2] where he says that he is Swiss and Bosnian Croat from Sarajevo (Ich bin Schweizer und bosnischer Kroate aus Sarajevo) he also doesn't mention any Serbian.--Rovoobo Talk 23:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, there seems to be a number of his other insertions, deletions, changes to articles without sources...[3][4][5][6][7] [8] could be more didn't look further.--Rovoobo Talk 23:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Your integration

Hi Joy, I was looking to find who added references for Srbosjek as the nickname of the Gräwiso knife so to ask the user(s) who added them at which pages in some of those referenced books can it be found under that name and have come accross your integration [9] of the Srbosjek article in Jasenovac concentration camp article. Is there an archive of that ex-article Srbosjek so to look further who actually added those references? I'm interested to find out when actually the nickname Srbosjek occurred first for that Gräwiso knife and if surviving inmates of Jasenovac called it like that in their published books. It started to interest me when I came accross Dr Nikola Nikolić's book ("Jasenovački logor smrti") in which he doesn't call the knife Srbosjek.--Rovoobo Talk 10:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Your move

Hi Joy. (cur | prev) 16:27, 14 July 2005‎ Joy (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (2,316 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Medjugorje moved to Međugorje) (undo), see current discussion. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, was that Support or Oppose? not clear. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

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.

Grad (toponymy) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Gradišče and Podgrad

Horod (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Horodok and Horodyshche

Hrad (toponymy) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hradiště

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Map making

Do you have any idea which software is frequently used by Wikipedians? Thanks in advance. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Advocacy?

I would think not, or do you in fact doubt that the Bosnians are Slavs? The "Sklaveni" settled all over the western balkans, is their any rationale for the Serbs and Croats to usurp them? Some seem to believe that Serbs and Croats have a monopoly on Slav history in the region. Obviously the Bosnians draw their descent from the "Sklaveni" just as much since they too are western South Slavs; allow me to quote John Fine and Robert Donia from their "Bosnia-Hercegovna: A tradition betrayed":

The Slavs settled in Bosnia (as well as Serbia, Croatia, and Montenegro) in the late sixth and early seventh century. They appeared in small tribal units, but were drawn from a single Slavic confederation - the Slaveni [i.e. "Sklaveni"]. Thus they were all one people, which means that the Bosnians come from the same Slavic base as today's Serbs and Croats. In the second quarter of the seventh century, the Croats invaded and asserted their overlordship over the Slavs (Slaveni) in Croatia and parts of Bosnia. In regions to the south and east of Bosnia, the Serbs came to predominate over the Slavs there. Whether these newcomers asserted their control over all the Slavs of Bosnia is unknown; it also impossible to determine which parts of Bosnia fell under Serbs, which fell under Croats (other than the northwestern counties mentioned in Byzantine sources), and which remained under neither. - Bosnia-Hercegovina: A tradition betrayed, p. 14-16.[10]

I will undo your revert and enter this source as a reference.

Thank you. 90.230.54.125 (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

And just to let you that when I first made an edit to that sentence some time ago it only mentioned the Serbs, thus I doubt that you have any actual knowledge of what the sources are saying. Any way, I have provided you with one now. 90.230.54.125 (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Joy, I fully understand your objections but I do not believe that I have displayed a disruptive way in my editing history nor did I actually think of you as biased. My intention was to convey the lack of historical evidence to conclude that the Bosnian Slavs would have originally just been "Serbs" or "Croats", there is simply not enough data on how tribes coalesced and formed in the early medieval Balkans. However, as you can see, according to Fine, the predominating substratum among today's Croats, Serbs and Bosnians would actually simply be South Slav and thus largely independent of the Serb or Croat name which only came about as a ruling legacy of elite casts of Iranian origin referring to themselves as such (John Fine, When ethnicity didn't matter, Google books link available upon request). The article sentence in question is not really dealing with the 6th century Serbs and Croats, but the contemporary ones, so no one is really trying to claim any Bosnian distinction as early as the 6th century. Although, the Bosnian Slavs (i.e. Bosnians) have been a distinct people since at least the 10th century (even though their "ethnonym" only appeared 1100s) Fine, What is a Bosnian, London review of Books.I am deeply sorry if you experienced me as crossing the line, but the scholarship does not negate the possibility that Bosnians might descend from South Slavs uninfluenced by early Serbs and Croats, certainly this would fit the well with the lack of any definite Serb or Croat identity in Bosnia prior to the 19th century. 90.230.54.125 (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, it never occured to me the edit could be percieved in such a way. An account would be a good idea! Is there any way of tranferring my editing history to a new account? 90.230.54.125 (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Ekmecic

There's another issue regarding his inclusion and some third-party and knowledgeable on the subject input would be appropriate [11].--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Joy

I am sorry, Joy, i just want to tell you to stay neutral as you were in the time of the adminship. I still think that you are great neutral user, and please, stay like that. I was not talking directly to you, but to the rest of users in question. Be well, happy new year. --WhiteWriter^speaks 12:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ilija (given name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ilya (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) 19:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Medjugorje

Hello Joy - I was wondering if you'd had a chance to see my response to your concern about "Medjugorje" as established usage in English-language reference works here. I'd be interested to have your thoughts. Dohn joe (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Lukabeograd

Hello,

Just as a heads up, I've just caught User:Lukabeograd assigning FRY and SFRY results to Serbia in sports articles, and you have twice warned him in the past for doing the same thing under Arbcom discretionary sanctions. These changes comprise most of his edits since your last warning. I'm going to give another warning - that will be his fourth in total - but you may wish to consider whether any other sanction is appropriate. Kahastok talk 10:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I have raised the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Lukabeograd. Thanks, Kahastok talk 15:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

History of BiH (1878-1918)

Wouldn't be better I move the page to "Bosnia and Herzegovina in Austria-Hungary"? --Wüstenfuchs 12:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Translation request

Hi Joy, happy New Year. :-) Could I ask you a favour? I'm nominating Icelandic Phallological Museum for Today's Featured Article but would like to increase its score. It's only 5 languages off being a "widely covered" topic (you'll remember we had the same issue with Battle of Vukovar. Would you mind translating the stub article at User:Prioryman/Icelandic Phallological Museum summary for the Croatian wiki? Also, do you know anyone who might be able to translate it into the other South Slavic languages? Prioryman (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: User talk:BDD#Marko Mesić (soldier)

Hello, Joy. You have new messages at BDD's talk page.
Message added 21:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks

Thanks for fixing my stupid typo! bobrayner (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A question of socks

Hi,
Recently, several different articles have seen some problems with socks (or meatpuppets) who take a certain stance on recent Balkan history, but who are based in Canada. There have been several different ones. Can you remember if any of them were based in the Vancouver area? bobrayner (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Operation Storm (2)

Hi! You may have noticed I reworked a part of the Operation Storm article. I aim to have it ready for a FAR some time soon (probably following GAN - ACR - FAR path), but now I'm up against a potential snag. What's really left are the refugees and war crimes/trials and a largely unsourced section on "battle figures" before the lead, infobox, images, reference formatting etc are tackled. I know what to do with the battle figures, but I'm not so sure what's the best approach with the other two groups sections (refugees and war crimes/trials). They contain much redundant information and much information that is hardly relevant to the article - which lawyer did what and stuff like that. On the other hand, I am aware I'm about to enter a minefield as I'd like to condense the current info, leaving only what's relevant. Do you think it would be advisable to split off those two groups of sections into two new articles linked from this one with the main template? What would you recommend as their potential names? Or should I just go ahead and condense them? Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, I think I'll try to consolidate the information in my sandbox first and see what I come up with. I was thinking about setting up an article on Trial of Čermak, Gotovina and Markač (not necessarily alphabetizing defendants), as that might have a potential in its own right and the current trials section in the article at hand contains nothing but information on that trial. As far as refugees issue is concerned, I have no specific idea about it - but as I said, I'll see what turns up in the sandbox first.

On a side note - commons regrettably offers virtually zero images on the topic, and I don't expect fair use applies here - or am I wrong? I'm thinking of drawing SVG maps for specific dates in the timeline as SVGs. Placing specific units in correct positions should not be difficult given the detail supplied by sources, but do you have any suggestions regarding the background map that has a suitable licence?Using OSM map hardly makes any sense, and if nothing turns up blank locator maps normally in use on wiki may be the only option I have.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I'll take it a step at a time - I expect to have limited access to wiki the next week and a GA review of another article just began, so there'll be no rush on this one. Thanks for your advice.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. I located some non-free images that would be interesting to use in the article, but I'm anything but sure how to proceed on those. I posted a query at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, but please let me know if you have any thoughts on the matter. Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Yugoslavia timeline

Hello Joy,

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AYugoslavia_timeline&diff=531931803&oldid=531919540

The "{{{1|...}}}" meant that the parameter name "state=" needn't be included. Okay to put back? CsDix (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You have a new message at CsDix's talk page.

You have a new message at CsDix's talk page.

You have a new message at CsDix's talk page.

Croatia-Slovenia relations

Hello, Joy. You have new messages at Talk:Croatia–Slovenia relations.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GregorB (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Prompt reply

Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.

Please respect Wikipedia:Administrators policy and promptly reply to query about your conduct at Talk:Ottoman conquest of Bosnia and Herzegovina.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion would go much more smoothly without statements that needlessly personalize the issue. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply

I haven,t been editing Balkan-related articles in a disruptive way, or engaging in a inappropriate manor so you can "quit" the accusations! TRAJAN 117 (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Bosnjani

Hello! I think we understand each other wrong. I do not hate anyone and please do not accuse me for nationalistic behavior ok. The topic Gotovina: I do not mean this bad at that time, but I thought at the time that you may be write as a Croat eventual not neutral, because many do not. In the end, I've retired. It should be no attack. At all other issues of course I will respond very sensible. I'm sorry, i had no evil intentions. Best regards Joy.--Nado158 (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Your block of 213.103.161.12

Hi, what was your block of User talk:213.103.161.12 about? I only see two contributions from them, and it's not at all clear that the second is unambiguously vandalism. Were there other contributions that have been deleted? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Nado158

This user's edit history testifies of a state of mind clearly affected by POV, not least with regard to the user's ruthless deletion of the article content of Bosnjani. This user seems to have been previously mainly concerned with soccer-related articles but appears to have recently moved over to various contentious aspects of Balkan history; a subject matter with should always be approached with proper citations and overall finesse. Lately, user Nado158 has been engaged in an edit controversy on Republika Srpska where I am currently in effort of explaining that territorial Serb claims in 92 cannot be said, as per fact, to be based on the persecution of Serbs in WWII (resulting in their alleged minority). I managed to convince user:WhiteWriter of this by posting him/her demographic maps of Bosnia based on Astro-Hungarian and Yugoslav censuses and which clearly show that Bosnian Muslims comprised the majority in large areas of Eastern Bosnia even prior to WWII (and the persecution of Serbs in this period), however user Nado158 remains to be convinced of this (informed him/her only a few minutes ago). I would kindly like to ask you to visit the article on Republika Srpska where the controversy is currently revolving around the word allegedly. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Aqif Bluta

Mind taking a look at this puzzle? When starting the RM, I was aiming at a fact-checking debate, which given the latest-of-many instances since Peacemaker67's AE about Antid. won't happen and I doubt that anyone who might check it at RM will want to take part after a quick glance.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't looking for admin intervention but another view as regards the original request.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

help

Hello Joy,

Can you help at hr:Naglasak? I am trying to fix confused iw's across 60 projects, but the WP-hr article has been protected; that one project with disrupt all the rest. (At every other project, if I was reverted, I would explain myself and that would be the end of it. At WP-hr, however, I've been reverted 3x despite trying to explain myself on their talk pages. The confusion is accent = stress vs. accent = regional speech. It's a real mess.) Thanks, — kwami (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

User talk:213.103.161.156

I popped a template on there as you forgot to. Remember there are other admins out there if someone is attacking you; I would have given more than 24 hours if you had asked me. How are things? --John (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it was a pretty trivial bit of profanity from a person who changed IPs numerous times, so I used minimum length because it was more of a token effort. Enforcing policies isn't much fun. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it just me or?

As the headline says I have a feeling a certain member is possibly abusing Wikipedia by creating several accounts and basically trying to change them to fit his own personal agenda. The reason why I am writing this at your personal page is because I believe you have come across this person as did I. I have a reason to believe that the person behind the accounts SkepticalBiologist, Taktika and Amir071 are all the same person also posting under the IP of 67.248.128.225. Identical interest, identical rhetoric and identical aggressive behavior. Now I have no intention in arguing with him or cross-edit certain articles but I am fairly certain this is somehow against the Wikipedia policy. Is there something that could be done or we are powerless against his seamless destruction of the quality of various articles? Shokatz (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Rad (journal)

This is ridiculous. We have thousands of articles on academic journals and almost all of them have their homepage listed by means of an "official website" template. Are you going to change all those? Note that this is not a reference, it's the journal's homepage. --Randykitty (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Why are you insisting on saying that I'm linking the official website as a reference? I'm not doing that. I've explicitly added it to the external links section, not a Sources or References section. The fact that I'm using a citation template is a technicality, but a useful one - one that allows us to tag the language and the unique ID of the document. Why are you insisting on using the bland {{official website}} template? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I suggest then that you propose {{official website}} for deletion. For my edification, where does that mysterious "unique ID" come from? UDC is not an id listed in the doc of the cite web template. --Randykitty (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Why are you reducing this to absurdity? UDC is the Universal Decimal Classification. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks for telling me what UDC means. I had a look at our article on UDC, but I still don't get where the code that you added to the Rad website (061.12(05)) comes from, as I cannot find it on the Rad website itself. Is this perhaps your personal evaluation of this website? --Randykitty (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• • • • • When you click on the first link on the web site, Bibliografski opis izvornika ("Bibliographical description of the source"), http://katalog.hazu.hr/WebCGI.exe?Tip=Listic&Jbmg=000006&Baza=1 it says that, UDK in Croatian. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Wow, well hidden... Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Google translate gives "The work of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts" for "Rad Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti". Could it be that a more appropriate translation of this title would be "Proceedings of the Croation Academy of Sciences and Arts" (many journals published by national academies are called "proceedings")? --Randykitty (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It's possible, and I was actually looking for an official translation, but I wasn't able to find it, so I went with the short common foreign name. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely, I agree that the article title should be as it is, because the journal has no "official" English name. I was just wondering whether Proc would be a better translation to give in the article. "Work" to me sounds like this is a journal about labor... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 12:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Joy,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC).

Operation Flash

Hi! Do you have any ideas regarding possible online or offline sources of photographs related to the Operation Flash? Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Croatian nationalism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Medieval Croatian state (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) 00:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

A hatnote and two possible redirects

Hi! I just reworked a bit the Operation Winter '94, and I got two questions: Could you take a look a the Battle of Daugavpils? Since the Operation Winter redirects there, I placed a hatnote in the article, but I'm not quite sure if another type of hatnote should be used instead. The second bit is about Operations that followed the Winter '94 - Skok 1+2. There are few sources on those, but the Balkan Battlegrounds lists them as Leap 1 and Leap 2 and I expect that will inevitably be the name looked up by non-Croatian readers interested in the subject. In that vein, I added Leap 1 and 2 as sections to the Winter '94 following (cited in the article) reasoning of Gotovina. Now, there is a potential problem that someone someday might go after "Operation Jump 1" or 2... Should I create a redirect?--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

A small and quick favor

G'day Joy, I would like to ask you for a small favor, namely moving the article Bosnian Sanjak to Sanjak of Bosnia which is the slightly more accurate title in English, while "Bosanski Sandzak" is the more common in BSC. Compare with Sanjak of Smederevo for example. I'd do it myself but the title in question has already been used up by a redirect. Thanks. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

List_of_World_War_I_memorials_and_cemeteries_in_Champagne-Ardennes

Hi

You have added two tags to the above.

On the question of verification I will revisit the article and see where I can add citations to substantiate what I have written.

The article is indeed long this relecting the amount of activity in this area in the Great War.

What I propose to do is create two articles.

List_of_World_War_I_memorials_and_cemeteries_in_Champagne-Ardennes- West of Reims List_of_World_War_I_memorials_and_cemeteries_in_Champagne-Ardennes- Reims and east of Reims.

I would then divide the article into parts.

Here I would appreciate your help as creating the new article "List_of_World_War_I_memorials_and_cemeteries_in_Champagne-Ardennes- Reims and east of Reims" would not be a problem but "List_of_World_War_I_memorials_and_cemeteries_in_Champagne-Ardennes- West of Reims" would be the rump of the old article but would need renaming. I am not sure how to do this and suspect that only an administrator could do this.

Please let me know that you would do this. I would then make the changes and when this is done I shall let you know so that you could effect the change of article name.

Many thanks

Weglinde (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Srbobran, Vukovar

Hi. It seems that the Vukovar Cyrillic problem is going to spill over to Wikipedia [12]. It's a followup from my recent involvement at Srbobran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and harrasment on my talk page [13][14][15].

For the record, I would support addition of Cyrillic into Vukovar articles, but it's a rather sensitive topic and the moment, and I'd prefer a calm discussion and a riddance of aggressive IPs first. Not that I'm bothered too much... No such user (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

help find sources project

Hello Joy, last time we discussed on the Template_talk:Primary_sources. This time I seek for your comments on my drafted IEG grant proposal here m:Grants:IEG/find_sources_2.0. The basic idea is to enhance source-finding and thus citing practices for contributors old and new by providing lists of online and offline resources and some basic general description on the nature of the sources in these resources (per general research/librarian perspective and per WP policies WP:PSTS WP:V WP:RS.

I hope that you will can provide comments to improve the grant proposal. Thanks. --_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 00:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

IP Vandal

Hi, I think that this IP [16], [17] associated with this Sockpuppet_investigations/Oldhouse2012--Sokac121 (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Da da ajde pokušaj da me zabraniš možda ti i uspe.

24.135.73.223 (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous user 94.189.197.200 few days ago on articles about Croatian football clubs in Zemun (HŠK Zemun, HŠK Dunav, HŠK Hajduk...) edited history (he changed some informations although they are there since 2009) calling it Ustasha propaganda. He also told that Croats are liars and for Croatian Wikipedia he told it is Nazi propaganda. After my reaction on his edits, he started with writting of nonsense mesages on my talk page. He told that my opinions are sick, hideous and Ustasha. Few days every day he wrote something like that on my talk page. Pinnacle of his insolence was vandal deed, by which he wrote on my user page that I am Ustasha. Now I see he is already mentioned here because of his edits on article Zemun, where he also "edited history" although facts are sourced. He should be blocked because it is evident that he is problematic user. --IvanOS 16:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Pa zabrani me onda,šta čekaš?What I wrote is true and I stand behind these statements.Many Croats here lie, and post progandada.Croatian Wikipedia is a Nazi Wikipedia because they mention the liberation of Zemun and east Syrmia from Ustashas under quotation marks.They also lie how Serbs made Croats leave Zemun which are lies.Then they lied how Zemuin is undeveloped even thouh it is one of the most developed municipalities of Belgrade and Serbia.They lie also when they say that Croats formed the majority in Zemun before WW2.Zvonko Bogdan is a Bunjevac and Bunjevci people are not Croats.Also Ivan used ethnic slurs and wrote "Serbs lie and make things up".If I get blocked the only reason would be the fact I am a Serb.Isto stoji što sam i rekao za ovog Šokca,čovek zaslužen za širenje hrvatske i to lažne propagande a osoba čak ni ne zna engleski što je očigledno uzmimo samo na primer njegovu gornju rečenicu "Hi, I think that this .... associated with this"

24.135.73.223 (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I've just come up on this guy today since I am following certain articles like Bunjevci and Zvonko Bogdan due to history of vandalism on those pages. I've also checked his edits and came up also on the Zemun article where he deleted a great part of a sub-section of the article claiming it's "unreferenced' although it was fully referenced. And now he just wrote on my page he deleted it because it's supposed "Croatian propaganda" despite the fact the section mentions Croats only peripherally (and only once and in the same line with Serbs). This person is becoming a serious problem. I will deter myself from going into edit war with him since it's beneath me. The pages he edit wars on seem to be all Vojvodina related. His IPs he edited with recently are IP 24.135.66.10, IP 24.135.73.223 and from observing edits on Zemun article it may be possible both are IP's of the user "Nado158". I think all the pages he edit war's should be locked for a short while and he reported for making clones and edit warring. Shokatz (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)