User talk:GregorB/Archive 5

Hello; since I've seen that disgrace of promo-campaign at en wiki (and I'm bored with edit wars)- would you be interested in reshaping it into a more balanced & truthful text ? As it is, the text is similar to the "Pravda" pamphlets during Brezhnev's era. You got tons of quotable & realistic material at Croatian wikipedia. Best Mir Harven (talk) 12:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand. Be as it may, the article is a complete junk, one-sided & irrelevant sources simply adding to the heap of lies. One could write an article, fully supported by quotations from Stalin, Goebbels, Molotov, Ribbentrop .. on the necessity of German- Soviet 1939. pact, and it would still be nothing but bunk. The entire article should be erased, but this is highly unlikely. Wiki has long since become a battleground re controversial themes & not a credible source of information. Mir Harven (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you nominated Edo Stojčić for deletion. I am a bit baffled as as to why you would question his notability (at least you gave no arguments). Please don't do bot's work. Try to help and improve the article or give a good, coherent argument as to why you think Edo Stojčić is not notable enough or why you think his works are not significant enough. ★čabrilo★ 09:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather reply here instead of the AfD page as it would be off topic there. Anyway, please consider this a friendly criticism of a person who was active on Wikipedia from 2004, but had to give it a rest due to personal obligations: You really didn't give a clear argument. Please keep the following in mind when nominating articles for deletion:

1. Not everybody is well versed with Wikipedia's procedures and the reading of pages such as WP:ANYBIO is not particularly easy for somebody who doesn't frequent Wikipedia often.
2. Many contributors (including myself) have a limited time to spend on Wikipedia. Since this site is a collaborative effort, it would be much more productive to give a detailed description of which problems you find with the article and how you think it can be improved. Slapping a boilerplate message and adding some tags is not too helpful.

Your time would be, in my opinion, much better spent if you spent your efforts on trying to recruit contributors from e.g. Rijeka to find sources to help improve the article.

As far as Edo Stojčić goes: I don't really have enough time to "fight" for it, but I think it's worth fighting for, since the guy is a great satirist and a good writer. He was most prolific around 2002 when he was relatively often in the media (especially in Istria and the parts of Croatia he lives in), so Google is not the best way to find information on him, but his books are available in libraries throughout the world (I first found him in a library in Kansas). So, I am asking you, as a fellow Wikipedia contributor, if you have spare time and some will, to please try to dig out some online sources or to recruit people from Rijeka to help you find offline sources. A good start is here: an article in Slobodna Dalmacija that lists a number of critics that praised his works (Igor Mandić, Fadil Hadžić, Marinko Krmpotić, Siniša Pavić). Best of luck, whether you decide to help with this article or not. ★čabrilo★ 09:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC) 08:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Could you please give me any advice on use of non-free images? Specifically, I'm not entirely sure what procedure need be followed to have fair-use apply to specific photos. Details are posted at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on the issue. I tried to upload one of those, but the upload form seems to be too complex for me right now - explaining why words alone are not sufficient, why I'm confident commercial opportunities will not be harmed etc... There's still other things to do with the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Phew. Managed to get one off the ground. Could you please have a look if I messed up the NFC rationale there?--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I hope to get the rest of the images in place by the weekend, and the article is a lead rework away from GAN!--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Done!--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Just occurred to me... need the images be tagged by the wikiproject?--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! In an effort to make some sense in the Operation Storm article (and get it to GA or FA in the process) I thought to move out a part of material on the Trial of Gotovina et al to a new article, leaving a summary in the Operation Storm article. Basically I moved the "ICTY trials" [sic] section to the new article (fixing an unreferenced claim in the process) breaking it up in two sections (indictments and trial), added background and aftermath sections and the said (slightly modified) summary as a lead. Now, I wanted to start a talk page for the article, borrowing from Talk:Trial of Slobodan Milošević, but there are so many projects listed that got me to pause and ask you to see which would be appropriate to tag this new article. Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Mind you, the copied material needs a lot of work, but I think it would be best done in the new article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The text (Indictments and Trial sections only) is actually moved from the Operation Storm and replaced there with a summary. Does it still need the copied template then? I agree that the article needs much work yet, but I think it is a good start, especially since a lot of the material there has little bearing on the military aspects of the operation now that the final verdict is out.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Just to be on the safe side, that goes someplace in the talk page?--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Risking being quite silly, but is that Talk:Operation Storm or Talk:Trial of Gotovina et al?--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

After thinking about it a bit, if it aims to provide attribution of the text moved, there's no point in placing it in the original article talk as the text is no longer there. If it is dealing with copied text instead, there'd be a reason to place the template at both - therefore I'm opting for the destination talk only (for now at least).--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Is there a way to include this into the Split Agreement article?--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually I meant if one of those tags similar to commons category should be used even if the wikisource is hr wikisource. If not, I'll add a link to the full text of the declaration in the external links.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I've submitted the article to WP:MILHIST B-class assessment - to save us the trouble.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Just had a look at Karađorđevo agreement - and I noticed that WP.Cro importance of the article was set to High. Since the Erdut Agreement is of Mid importance, I feel something's wrong there, but I'm not sure which. I'm leaning to demoting the Karađorđevo agreement to Mid or even Low importance, but I'd really appreciate your opinion here. Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

Can you please help with this issue?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It works now. Thank you very much for your help. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi! It appears that the B-class business is nearly over - it only took three months longer than I first thought it would! What happens after the last one on the list is tagged? Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Huh. Talk about synchronicity. Well, yes, add them to the table or simply list them at the end. If they meet B-class criteria, that should be a breeze.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, 41 have been reassessed (tagged) plus three that are still pending on the list. That leaves 8 extra articles someplace.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Wait! I rewrote some articles and MILHIST project reassessed them... most of them are Bs now: Battle of Gospić, Battle of Kupres (1994), Bombing of Banski dvori, Operation Jackal, Operation Summer '95, Operation Tiger (1992), Siege of Dubrovnik... that's 7.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Now it has it. All seven were recently reviewed by WP:MHA process, so it's safe to assume they're all clear. It's just one article missing then.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Found the missing one: Ustaše Militia!--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we're finished... (Whew!) I'll switch the checklist option on this evening (time permitting), and then we'll notify the project. GregorB (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Great! At least we have now meaningful B-class ratings in place and clear-cut pointers for development of more than a hundred articles - 48 B's to take to the GAN and 60-ish C's with deficiencies spelled out so those can be remedied over time.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Just now I copyedited the Operation Storm article and realized that the article I just recently wrote - Vance plan includes all information contained in the Sarajevo Agreement, while the two are not entirely synonymous. Need anything be done or is that situation fine?--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Redirected until more info can be fleshed out on say, negotiations that precipitated the Sarajevo Agreement.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by reviewing a page. Please explain.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Could you please provide feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Suitable name for a campaign? I posted at WP:MILHIST talk page since the issue largely falls within the project scope, but I trust you might provide a good advice too.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

I am glad to inform you that WPS has no unassessed articles in terms of their quality. What do you think could be next actions of members of this project? Thanks in advance.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I am also surprised that the huge backlog has been dealt with so quickly. Most of the job did User:Milicevic01. I followed his assessments and after a couple of remarks I think they did it properly.
• Thank you very much for your advices:
  • Making the Main page of WPS more compact
  • reviving the Announcements section
  • motivate people to do more of what they would have done anyway, and, occasionally, to show them a new and better way of doing things
  • Reviving the Collaboration of the Week

Thank you. I will try to follow your advices. Do you know why Redirect sorting does not work in our project?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am talking about redirect-class assessment. Currently there is only one article listed within redirects in the Assessment box. That one I assessed manually myself. Based on your instructions here WhiteWriter created subpage of wp Serbia banner. I thought it is necessary to wait for a while, but there is no result after two months. I am sorry to bother you with this, but if you are able to help it would be highly appreciated.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. There are many redirects which are tagged as such withing the tag WPS. But instead of Redirect it is classified as NA. I.e. Srbija.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I just had a look at the Lisa Stublić and Sandra Perković articles, and it's a real pity those are not already at the GAN... If you know what I mean. :) Tomobe03 (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, and this is entirely unimportant, how come the WP:CRO notifications show some A-class reviews, but not the others? Does it have to do with ACR parameter placement in the article talk banner?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I know there's one at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/D21 road (Croatia).--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I have created a discussion at BLP/Noticeboard to discuss Savo Štrbac. Your participation would be appreciated. Stephen! ^Coming... 12:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Stavil sam vire na Vukopis. Liepo pozdravjenje Vukopisac (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

In the future, when you encounter this kind of a page, please apply WP:ATP ({{db-attack}}). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I actually would have concurred, but another user modified it to be less of an attack page, rendering the tag moot. When I came across it, I just cleaned it up further. The key difference is that "Vukopis" was both an attack page and a fringe biased rant by a single-purpose account, cherry-picking references to largely non-reliable sources and DoSing us with a list of generic uninlined "references", all about a topic that is not generally notable even if it's truthful. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ted Haggard may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Poljana, Bjelovar-Bilogora County, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Poljana (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) 14:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please venture an opinon here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trial of Gotovina et al. I already posted there, but I have next to no experience on the AFDs. Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Tomobe03 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Editor GregorB as Editor of the Week for his tireless contributions to articles, templates and performance of tasks often considered too tedious to pick up by any other editor, including fixing citations, assessing a wide range of articles and contributing a lion's share (if not virtually all) of maintenance work on the WikiProject Croatia pages. As a result, he is one of the most prolific editors of the English Wikipedia, currently well within top 200 most active editors on wiki with more than 132,000 edits since he started editing eight years ago! His other contributions include 21 successful Did you know? nominations and a Featured list of Croatian submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. He is always ready to give advice or lend a hand when asked, and regularly plays a constructive role in any discussion - a true team player!

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Go Phightins! 19:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• You're welcome. Modesty aside, your work is as valuable as a couple-dozen FAs as a wiki-project of a hundred articles, no matter how good, would not make much sense without tens of thousands of edits you make. EotW rules made my choice of a WPHR editor (I instantly though of two deserving editors, if you get my drift) to nominate very simple since the award is reserved for non-admins - and I honestly believe you and Joy equally deserve such a praise. Keep up the good work, and - cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Thank you for your long years of adding to the quality of the Encyclopedia. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• A most sincere thank you for the years of quality edits. Editors like you are the backbone of Wikipedia. You may not get the spotlight, but you add relevance and substance to the project. Without editors like you, it would be a much lesser place. Wish we could clone you ;-) Good job. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 13:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks for all you do for the project, GregorB! -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• I sign every word of the comment Dennis Brown wrote above. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• Congrats! Sounds like this honor is well-deserved! Gandydancer (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

GregorB, možeš li mi se molim te javiti e-porukom? Lijep pozdrav :-) --Roberta F. (talk) 12:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Ne znam koliko si proučavao Zakon o autorskim pravima i npr. članak 89. prema kojem također imamo slobodno pravo fotografirati događaje, prenositi izjave..., koji nam uz "FOP" daje dodatnu slobodu. Primjerice kod ove slike obrazloženje za brisanje je "The claim that this is own work is dubious. The exif data is missing. The resolution is low". Fotografija nije moja, ali osobno ne sumnjam na suradnike dok nemam opravdani razlog u obliku druge slike koja je postavljena negdje prije postavljene fotografije na commonsu (pri tome ne tvrdim da možda sumnja nije opravdana). Ili prijedlog za brisanje morčića ili prigodne/povijesne zastave uz odgovarajuće manifestacije... (svim autorima sudjelovanje na projektima postaje vrlo demotivirajuće nakon ovakvih i sličnih akcija). Lijep pozdrav :-) --Roberta F. (talk) 12:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Ne mogu se složiti s mišljenjem o zastavama, jer tada bi trebalo sve fotografije sa zastavama koje ljudi nose u rukama također pobrisati. Prateći obrazloženja na slovenskoj wiki nisam dobila dojam da su sve slike predložene za brisanje s pravom obrisane (adminima je na commonsu vjerojatno lakše obrisati nego razmišljati o slikama koje su bitne nekoj manjini s ovih projekata). Tebi sam se obratila jer i ja cijenim tvoj rad na hrvatskom projektu na en:Wiki i možda si jedan od onih koji će najprije primijetiti nedostatak kvalitetnih fotografija. Dok na commonsu ima izobilje fotografija poput korica nedavno objavljenih knjiga, slika preuzetih iz medija i drugi primjeri koji bez dvojbe krše autorska prava (ili bogatstvo neenciklopedijskih fotografija uz kršenje autorskih i još nekih drugih prava u kategoriji povezanoj sa ženama), predlaganje brisanja fotografija s nedovoljno dobrim razlozima ne čini mi se ispravnim. Wikipedija treba suradnike i darežljive autore, ne obrnuto, uglavnom. Lijep pozdrav :-) --Roberta F. (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi! A while ago I posted two entries at WPHR announcements for 28 June. I know GA announcements should be combined together, but I was unsure should that be done when one of them is GA and another A-class. Please feel free to amend as appropriate. Or leave them as is, it is quite likely that both entries will slip down the list sufficiently in a little while to be archived :) --Tomobe03 (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, at least I found out how many GANs will the page display at once :) --Tomobe03 (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I just had a quick look at the Croatian War of Independence article - and even though I plan to revisit the prose later on - thought of a way to trim the article down a bit. I'll be bold and split of the "Movies and documentaries" section into a list and link it from the "see also". "List of movies and documentaries dealing with the Croatian War of Independence" while accurate seems like an unwieldy title, so I thought to ask if you have an idea? Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Croatian War of Independence in film appears relatively brief and accurate. I think I prefer that one (number 3).--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Split now. If only there was an editor experienced in film-related FL development :) --Tomobe03 (talk) 10:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Is there a way to use {{Croatia Yearbook 2011}} and {{Croatian Census 2011 First Results}} along with the {{sfn}} template?--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It is possible to avoid "Ostroški" in the ref, using ref={{harvid|DZS Census|2011}}" or something like that. I'd appreciate any experiment with the templates. If you need a particular article to test them on, both are used in Sava.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks great! Go ahead... and thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You tagged this for lack of notability in May, so you might be interested in weighing in at the AfD. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Declaration on the Status and Name of the Croatian Literary Language may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{quote|In the state administrative system, in the means of public and mass-communications, as well

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a copyvio website and was previously and deliberately removed en masse, please do not add to articles as you have done at Mate Šestan. Regards, GiantSnowman 11:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I atempted to add it to the blacklist previously but my request was rejected, for whatever reason. If you want to re-attempt it then you will have my support. GiantSnowman 12:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, probably because the website is not being spammed, but is instead being added in small numbers by good-faith editors such as yourself... GiantSnowman 12:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, perhaps before this edit - not mine :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello GregorB, I'm contacting you because we need some Croatian translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on hr.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need help with a personal message for the Croatian Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gregor, Jimbo Wales is asking for aditional input from Croatian users regarding the situation on Croatian Wikipedia. Please feel free to voice your opinion. Timbouctou (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gregor! I've translated most of Bešker's article. It is quite long and incredibly time-consuming so I skipped some bits where he delves into philosophy and whatnot. His style of writing is a bit pretentious, as you probably know. You can find the text here. Cheers! Timbouctou (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'm a little bit amazed by the echo of our Balkan quarrels. Anyway, I don't believe in punitive measures. Btw, do I have to apologize for my sometimes professorial style when writing out of the Wikipedia? :) Inoslav Bešker (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I recently edited the Battle of the Dalmatian channels article. While the current title conforms to WP:MILMOS naming policy, I'm wondering if redirects are needed to accommodate possible searches of the Battle of the Split Channel and the Battle of the Korčula Channel. Also, do you think a hatnote is needed to distinguish the latter from the Battle of Curzola? Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sports Reference LLC. Since you had some involvement with the Sports Reference LLC redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Poštovani kolega GregorB

Vidio sam da tražite pomoć u prikupljanju činjenica o nepravilnostima na hr wiki, - meni su dali crveni karton 2010. i od tad više ne surađujem na tom projektu - casus belli možete pročitati na meti - Requests for comment/Vitek. Meni se osobno neda petljati sa tom malom rigidnom grupom osionih administratora, pa ukoliko Vam moj slučaj pomogne - da dobijete uvid u ono što se dešavalo - dobro, a ukoliko ne, izvinite na smetnji.

--Vitek (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me. FWIW this is what I wrote to them:

Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 12:11:12 +0200
To: tim@dailydot.com
Subject: How pro-fascist ideologues are rewriting Croatia's history

Hi,

In the article http://www.dailydot.com/politics/croatian-wikipedia-fascist-takeover-controversy-right-wing/
you wrote:

 Croatian editor Joy, like others who support the current incarnation of
 Croatian Wikipedia, insist that a conspiracy is afoot to bolster outside
 skepticism.

 "[T]he simple fact [is] that some anonymous people generated an online
 controversy and then immediately latched onto whatever media coverage of it
 in order to promote the same controversy on Wikipedia," Joy wrote.

I'm Joy and you have grossly misrepresented my position.

I do *NOT* support the current incarnation of Croatian Wikipedia, nor do
I insist that there's a conspiracy of any sort.

You cherry-picked an arbitrary quote from what I wrote and completely
missed the mark.

What I think of the shenanigans at the Croatian Wikipedia is obvious
from reading the *entirety* of my comments on that same page

  I've been aware of these hr: wiki-related feuds for a while now, and I
  have personally been on the receiving end of abuse of one of the implicated
  editors in the past over here. None of this changes the simple fact that
  some anonymous people generated an online controversy and then immediately
  latched onto whatever media coverage of it in order to promote the same
  controversy on Wikipedia. This is exactly why we have the policy that
  Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The fact that these kinds of shenanigans
  happen all too often in this topic area is exactly why the Macedonia
  arbitration case resulted in such harsh rules being imposed on it.

To think that I (unequivocally) support the Croatian Wikipedia, when I
already said that I have been abused by one of those editors, is ridiculous.

Also, read my comments at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/2013_issues_on_Croatian_Wikipedia/Evidence/Conduct
where I pointed out a specific case of admin misuse of the Croatian
Wikipedia and said in no uncertain terms that it needs to end.

I expect a public apology and a retraction of the offending statement.

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Could you please take a look at the Operation Labrador categories. I'm not quite sure on keeping "Antisemitism in Yugoslavia" and "Battles and conflicts without fatalities" - the thing was not really about antisemitism nor was it a battle. Still, it was about an attempt to portray one group as antisemitic and it was a part of a conflict - hence the uncertainty. Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The topic seems hard to categorize indeed. It was very hard to dig up sources for the events, there's precious few of them - I got a feeling that were the affair not brought up at the ICTY trial, it would be next to impossible to come up with anything coherent on the topic. For instance, there's not a single news report of the explosions available, except for the NYT article - fortunately NYT archive has a great search tool! At any rate, thanks for the feedback.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi GregorB, I've got a question. On what grounds did you assess the Valve Hammer Editor article as Start? The two refs are both for the History section, so the article has no source for its verifiability (I know VHE is notable enough to warrant an article, but there's no source in the article saying so). Also, the entire "Files and compiling" isn't about VHE, but about the generic BSP compilation process, so in essence the VHE article is only 5 lines of text, so it fails the "The article has a usable amount of good content" quality criteria as well. --DanielPharos (talk) 09:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I recently edited the Battle of the Miljevci Plateau and I am still struggling to figure out one of the categories previously assigned to the article - specifically the "Mass murder in 1992". Sources indicate no civilians were killed on either side and one POW was shot. I doubt that one death (besides combat fatalities) constitutes a mass murder.

I assume the category was added based on this Slobodna Dalmacija article claiming 29 POWs and an unspecified number of civilians killed (SD referring to an unspecified HHO report) for a total of 50 Serb fatalities. I disregarded the source in the article since it appears to be particularly off the mark. Multiple Serb sources (including Veritas, for what it's worth) indicate a total of 40 killed Serbs, all of them Territoral Defencemen, and none besides one (Miroslav Subotić) killed as POWs. To make matters more puzzling, even the earlier largely unreferenced incarnation of the article offered support for the category. As far as I can tell, a war crime was committed (Subotić), but not exactly a mass murder. Thoughts?

Also, since I'm already bothering you with this, what is the proper way to categorize articles: some of items in the Category:Battles of the Croatian War of Independence, e.g. the Battle of Gospić is listed under "G", while the Battle of Vukovar sits under "B". I assume, one of those should be changed to the other, but which?--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I assume "Operation Foo" also sorts as "Foo, Operation"?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Could you please offer an advice on the following: I was checking up an ISBN number, specifically for Rat u Bosanskoj Posavini 1992. / Jerko Zovak, and could not find it on WorldCat, which seems funny enough. The book quite appears to have been published. It is featured here, even sporting ISBN 978-953-6357-86-4 (which draws blank when searched itself). The book was also reviewed by Davor Marijan and the review is available here. For the time being, I included the ISBN found at the bib.irb.hr in the source information, but I would like to verify this if possible. Thoughts?--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. Found it at the NSK. Still I wonder why the WorldCat does not have it in. But not enough to investigate.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hal Abelson may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• for his continued contributions to the pedagogy and teaching of introductory computer science<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.computer.org/portal/web/awards/taylorbooth |title=Taylor L. Booth Education

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed that an awful lot of reference links contained in recently promoted GAs began to suffer from url changes, redirects and outright disappearance and thought to archive at least some of those. Now, there's one particular link - Glas Slavonije reference in the Bombing of Banski dvori article which seems to have gone missing from the GS server, and wayback machine has no archived copy of that. I googled it up some more and found a copy located here credited to GS and the same reporter. What do you think, would it be better to replace GS url with this one or specify this new url as archive, or archive this url at wayback machine and specify that archive as GS article archive? Or is there another way to tackle this? Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm editing as much as real life will let me, but I don't have the intention of stopping, especially now that I've noticed some naval topics require working on :-). --Saxum (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I just edited Operation Vrbas '92 a bit and noticed it is categorized as a "Battle involving Croatia". After reading what sources have to say on the matter, I'm not convinced about justification of such categorization -- Croatia of course supported HVO in many ways, but I don't think the force deployed in Jajce received any direct support from HV or something like that. The battle is also listed in {{Wars and battles involving Croatia}}, so I thought to ask for advice before removing the article from the two (the category and the template). On that point, would it be sensible to create a category of "Battles involving Croatian Defence Council" or something along those lines to categorize this article and others similar to that one? Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, all the HVO battles are related to the Bosnian War exclusively. The borderline issues (pun intended) were a diversionary attack conducted by the HVO during the Operation Storm - north of Glamoč and combined HV/HVO efforts such as Operations Winter '94 and Summer '95. I guess those would warrant inclusion in multiple categories, but I see no problem with that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

One more thing: Shrader p.3 refers to the battle as the "Siege of Jajce". I believe most sources use the term to refer to 1463 Siege of Jajce making the 1463 battle the primary topic of the term, but should there be some disambiguation or a hatnote for the two?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip - added now!--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

 Template:JPL Image has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

Best wishes for the holidays and a very successful new year!--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi GregorB! Have a very merry Christmas and a happy and a happy new year! Cheers! Timbouctou (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

  FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

 Template:Afc2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.. QED237 (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

 Template:Afc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.. QED237 (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on your decision to semi-retire, I hope the reason is a happy one. If you happen to be able to spare any attention to the hrwiki evidence gathering pages on Meta while they're still active it will be very welcome and appreciated, but thanks in no small part to your experience and judgment, I believe, with some trepidation, that I've learned enough to see them through to completion. It's been a pleasure working with you, and I'd like to extend my immense thanks for your work and initiative, along with my best wishes for an enjoyable Wiki-semi-retirement! 😎 – Miranche ^T C 18:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the thread on Jimbo's talk page you'll see that it ain't over till the fat lady sings :D. Your absence actually hasn't been felt until the last few days. I myself took a hiatus of about a month, during which I've been keeping track the (glacial) developments on Meta, but largely kept away from hrwiki to save my nerves. Things seem to be picking up again lately, as there's an initiative from the stewards to de-CU Speedy, and Trijnstel's message to Jimbo gives me hope more is simmering behind the scenes.

As far as the evidence pages go, I'm trying to set them on smooth sailing toward the close with a 30-day comment period. I won't bother you with details, that's a topic for the talk pages. As you may guess, the Scylla is that I cannot afford to fuck it up and the Charybdis the need to keep the demands on my time manageable.

That's pretty much what my Wiki world now looks like. Medium term I'm hoping to get more active at hrwiki both in discussions & in editing. – Miranche ^T C 19:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll contact SJ; if you recall, he was one of the first contributors to the evidence pages.

If you feel like pitching in with advice, any contribution to the talk pages will be appreciated at any time. The two active threads that could benefit from your take now are, in order of importance, one (self-explanatory) and two (my latest response starts with "Speaking of long replies"). No pressure, though. – Miranche ^T C 21:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Do make sure you also enjoy your semi-retirement. 😌 – Miranche ^T C 21:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad you like how it's been turning out. There are things we could do on the basis of this without WMF, however, such as initiate a bona fide consensus process about hr.wiki while involving the community, as discussed here and here with User:Abd. This would be IMO the right way to go but is unrealistic at the moment, insofar that it's unlikely that some of the important names there (and so necessarily also the users who trust them) would consider such a process as needed or legitimate. Also, I'm not sure which user or users have the communication skills, serenity, stamina & free time to perform the required role of honest brokers in presenting the information to Meta. I must admit I find the idea tempting (I feel I might be getting my sea legs here) but the key players probably don't trust me and I'm not sure if I have the energy to stand the abuse. Challenges to overcome, perhaps, but the reality is I simply don't have the time. – Miranche ^T C 04:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

To save you time, Abd didn't suggest to broker a compromise but, as a first step, a fact-based presentation of the problem which fairly documents the viewpoints and disagreements of different sides. I'm afraid that even this kind of an effort would be subject to attempts of derailment that would require a near-professional level of conflict resolution knowhow, and would eventually be rejected by key players simply for providing a sounding board to opinions of users who are, deservedly or not, considered personae non gratae on hr.wiki. – Miranche ^T C 18:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I hope you will not decide against retiring altogether, the work you have done here is tremendous, I think you are an excellent editor with a head much cooler than mine, and good people like you are in short supply on Wikipedia. I would certainly be sorry to see you go. I just hope your decision has nothing to do with the whole hr.wiki affair as it is frankly not really worth it. Cheers man. Timbouctou (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, long time no type! Glad to see you around - I thought your computer went bust or something :) Seriously now, enjoy your semi-retirement (you were spending some serious time editing... now where else did I see that?), but do stick around - as Tim said, level-headed editors are few and far in between. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

+1 and   Thank you

– SJ + 21:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I am conducting a survey of most active Wikipedians, regarding reasons they may reduce their activity. I would be very interested in having you participate in it. Would you be interested? (If you reply to me here, please WP:ECHO me). Thank you for your consideration, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. Would you prefer to reply to the survey questions on wiki, or would you use an anonymous email service such as Mailinator? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's the applicable part of the survey (Questions 1-3 are for editors who have not reduced their activity, so I am skipping them as to not waste your time):

Question 4. Chose one answer which BEST describes the reason you have reduced your contributions: a) because of new commitments (job, family, another hobby) or health reasons b) because of unpleasant atmosphere, conflict with other editors, or lack of respect c) because of being overworked with Wikipedia needs d) feeling undervalued e) other (please elaborate):

Question 5. Do you agree with the following statement (YES or NO): a) some of the most stressful moments in my life were related to my involvement with Wikipedia

Question 6. On a scale of 1-5, how likely are you to start contributing again (or return to your peak activity levels)? (1=Never, 5=Definitely, it's just a matter of time)

Question 7. If you would like to elaborate on the reasons you reduced your contributions, dispute that claim, suggest reforms to Wikipedia that would make it a better place for you to edit, or provide any other comments (including links to Wikipedia pages), please include them below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hvala na odgovor, I tried copying your template but it's just showing a red link but whatever it's cool though Zastavafan76 (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Opet velika hvala! Zastavafan76 (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, i just found out you recently rated an article, i am the main contributor of, as "at least start class." What was missing for a "C-rating" other than the missing picture? Thanks, by a rather inexperienced user. Rka001 (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding [1], this was live for three years so there's little point in outright removing it now; I archived it instead. It was not an insulting discussion as such (unlike the previous one). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

In their second (and last) message, that user provided a source for the question, and they posted the question with the explicit intent of respecting WP:SOURCE (thereby respecting the spirit of WP:BLPGOSSIP). Per WP:BLPTALK, that's just the kind of archive that allows us to apply the rule: Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You need to add a modicum of justification somewhere on that article and/or its talk page... the lead section still uses the Croatian spelling and the talk page is empty. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I would appreciate your help with copy editing of Leftist errors.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi! What are you trying to do at Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia/Frame? Does it have anything to do with the tabbed page design discussed at WT:CRO a while ago? Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, right. I had a go at the tabs a while ago and forgot about that completely until today. I managed go get a test version in my sandbox before I thought of how to move it to a project talk page and then ... well thinking of something else completely. :) --Tomobe03 (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It's just a skeleton, which appears to be exceptionally simple to do: User:Tomobe03/sandbox/1 All the links work, the tabs need be applied to every project page as the "header". I placed there five tabs - nearly at random, but tweaking their names/links and their number is a fairly simple affair.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure. There's the possible solution in use at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, where such tabs link principal pages directly using Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Tab header, and the rest is linked through Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Navigation. Maybe that's worth exploring? I mean, there's no need to reinvent the wheel.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The tabs are absolutely the same thing: Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Tab header. I find the MILHIST secondary navigation more visually appealing, but either format is fine really.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm awfully busy these days (denying me time to edit as much as I'd like to), but I'd be willing to throw something together in terms of the secondary navigation (akin to MILHIST box). I assume you are much more familiar with pages which should be linked from there, so could you please come up with some sort of list (preferably structured) of those? There's no particular rush, of course. And could you comment on what might reasonably be included in the tabs, while you're at it?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Could you please take a look at the Croatia-Serbia border dispute in terms of B-class assessment and I'm not entirely sure if there should ba a hyphen or an ndash in the article title (please move accordingly if necessary). Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to redo that edit, go ahead, but do the same for all the analogous items. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

A compromise could be the creation of a subcategory Category:History of countries and regions bordering the Adriatic Sea. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Happy holidays and enjoy Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia/News and alerts. Be sure to let me know how do you like that page.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

There's redlinked "showcase" link in the navigation. I thought to have User:JL-Bot maintain an automated listing of recognised content. One such listing maintained by the bot is available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Balkan military history task force#Article statistics. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, the showcase will be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia/Showcase. It's currently empty, but the bot should fill it in next time it runs (few days at the latest, judging from bot activity log). Once the bot populates the list, it will make sense to propagate the tabs elsewhere (the two currently tabbed pages are not linked from elsewhere yet) and redesign the main page. I'll try to cobble together a main page design in my sandbox in the meantime using a minimalist approach (i.e. essential stuff only) and we can take it from there if that's alright. I plan few more tweaks to the navigation box, but nothing major. Regarding the list of templates included in the project navi-box, I pulled few from the top of my head. If you think of some other template (something frequently used, I expect) to put there, please do so, or let me know if you're not sure how to (although it's fairly simple, so I doubt it will come to that). Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the bot has already populated the showcase with FAs, FLs, GAs and DYKs. All figures and lists in the page are fully automatic and require no maintenance whatsoever. A proposal for the main page design is ready here. Once the main page design is decided upon, all that's needed is to copy and paste the first two lines of code found in showcase page to each project page and that's just about it. In case of talk page it should be only the top line copied and pasted because the talk header boxes and the navigation will clash and create a large blank space unless an editor uses really high screen resolution - or if those talk header boxes are scrapped as in case of WT:MILHIST, or if the {{Talkheader}} there is replaced by {{Shortcut}}.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Me too. I'd settle for non-negative. :) --Tomobe03 (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 in Croatia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mirko Kovač (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) 09:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that interesting discussion you had on WP Croatia over minority languages. I have two questions.

Firstly, I noticed you said that it is fine to add minority names in infobox of municipalities and settlements that officially introduced bilingualism/multilingualism. Let me explain, I mean specifically municipalities that take step to introduce bilingualism, not just municipalities that are obliged to do so under Constitutional law but maybe still did not (Plus I would exclude Vukovar until we get final picture). It would be municipalities like Borovo or Kneževi Vinogradi. I know that the user DIRECTOR make big issue about that last time, but does this last discussion shows that his position does not enjoy majority support of community?

Second question is if someone can add section "official languages" into infobox settlement as I improvised in article Trpinja?--MirkoS18 (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I was wondering if you might be interested in resources offered by the Wikipedia Library and I thought to drop you a note that they're granting access to various otherwise paid resources for free at Wikipedia:TWL.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I've replied to your message over there (just in case you aren't watching that page) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I had created a list of Top 10 WP:CRO DYK articles before my last block. If you think this is useful, please copy it somewhere so I can delete the content from my subpage. Timbouctou (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Specific-source templates by country, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Congrats on the DYK. Have you considered a GAN? Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, you seem to be a smart and cool-headed editor. There is a page similar to the Shaitsu page, with many of the same contributors, and some similar debates. Seems to be a group that is split strongly between pro-altmed and Skeptic or anti-altmed viewpoints. A few more neutral voices would be helpful. Like Shiatsu, it's a challenge to keep a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Would you mind watchlisting this page: Rolfing, and if the mood strikes you, chime in? I hear that you are semi-retired so I'm sure you have plenty on your plate, so I would really appreciate it. Thanks!--Karinpower (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at the Rolfing article. I see you already caught a typo that had eluded others. Do you have any comments about the recent kerfuffle around the reordering of the sections? I have surveyed a number of alt med articles and have yet to see one where Effectiveness (or the equivalent heading) is first. Since the same information is already in the lede, it seems pretty redundant to me - and now even more so with the new order. My impression is that there aren't any guidelines for how alt med articles should be structured - what sections should be included, what order, etc - and perhaps having some sort of a format that is standardized would be helpful. There is the start of a discussion on the talk page about this; I have been waiting to add anything to it until I have a better sense of policy regarding this topic. Your input would be very welcome. Thanks again! --Karinpower (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello again! Would you be willing to talk a look at something? This is a draft of something to post on the talk page. It will be a fairly conversation topic I think, as it has been argued in the past on the talk page but without adequate sourcing. I welcome any tips on making this argument clearer, cleaner, more WP-appropriate, etc. I have considered trying to add references to MOS:MED, WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS but can't see any specific policies that apply to direct our actions here. I also welcome suggestions on exactly what changes to the article to propose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Karinpower/sandbox. Thanks again!--Karinpower (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello again GregorB, I have appreciated your input in the past and especially that you seem to have a neutral yet educated point of view. I humbly request your assistance again. Three new Skeptic sources have been added to the Rolfing article; all 3 of these sources only mention the word "Rolfing" once, and only in a long list of alternative medicine topics. In each case, the author is making a blanket complaint about alt-med (though the grouping is quite different in each of the sources), and there is no specific information or criticism about Rolfing provided. The Skeptic's Dictionary is already cited, which is a much better Skeptic source, offering a full page of information and several specific criticisms. I believe these three new sources should be disallowed as they don't add anything about Rolfing. However, I am outnumbered as the editors on this page tend to favor a Skeptic source regardless of its quality. I realize this comes down to policy rather than a simple "vote" but a few more voices, and perhaps different opinions, would help. Everything is civil but I don't think we are going to be able to reach consensus on this matter. Thank you in advance!--Karinpower (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your observations. I do feel that we editors have come to a truce on that particular matter, though I am often vexed by one heavy-handed editor in particular who feels quite justified in claiming that strongly Skeptic sources are neutral. The Alternative Medicine page has suffered heavily from that, and to a lesser extent Integrative Medicine recently. (The tone is far too negative to be encyclopedic especially because criticism is embedded into almost every section, plus a separate section devoted to it). The claims that the Rolfing page has become too biased to "in universe" (pro-alt-med) perspectives I think is just a veil to say that it doesn't drip with debunking claims and half-accurate information like it used to. The Skeptic sources often do very little investigation into the modalities that they criticize. The Skeptic's Dictionary is the best one on this topic; it offers a full page of descriptive information and only has about 3 relatively minor errors (the worst is saying that this modality works with "energy" which does not seem to be the case).

Good call regarding the inappropriate use of the rolf.org source for the claim of less pain. This is a trend I've read in a handful of other sources; I will take a look at my notes and I think I can replace that citation with a couple of more solid, printed, non-primary sources (from books that summarize various modalities). I have been working to reduce/remove the use of the web sources. Any other comments? Thanks!--Karinpower (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, I find your comments to be spot-on. Nice to meet an experienced editor who is like-minded. The whole alt-med section needs more supervision from experienced neutral editors.... I don't have the clout or the know-how to fight all of those battles and really the culture needs to shift on a bigger scale so that "grudge editing" isn't the status quo for this whole section of topics. I believe that some of these Skeptic-oriented editors are exactly as you say - editing to prove a point, without much interest in the subject. It is essentially a COI, not one that involves their livelihood or personal benefit, but rather a strong personal bias that prevents neutral editing.

Here is a talk page comment that show the editing pattern I'm describing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Integrative_medicine&diff=next&oldid=634945092

Most members of the public would agree that Alternative Medicine is extremely negative; one would be appalled to find that article in a printed encyclopedia (and it would make me doubt the trustworthiness of everything else in it). You are exactly correct that the articles get littered with criticism and lack informative facts. Even the word choice is important - for example "purported" ("to appear or claim to be or do something, especially falsely" -Google dictionary), or "notion" (this was a replacement for "theory" which was overstated, yet "concept" was the neutral option I thought was best). Do you have any suggestions as to how to get support around these issues? So far you are the most helpful person I've found.

Regarding websites and primary sources, I agree that they can be useful; they back up a secondary source to say, "see, the subject doesn't disagree with the secondary source." What I'm working to remove are places where the website was being used as a placeholder for better sources.--Karinpower (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

To me, it seems that the alternative medicine project supports this Skeptic-biased orientation. This is absolutely a problem across most of the pages. I do not think that my small voice (as an editor with only 6 months experience) will be heard on this issue. This editor and half a dozen others like him use WP:POV and WP:UNDUE as weapons to silence objections, and they have enough power that it's hard to counter them. Also I am outnumbered, so they can take turns reverting my edit, essentially strongarming their preference. That's why I'm seeking your help. You seem to know quite a bit about the WP hierarchy and culture. Thanks again.

Regarding WP:AVOID, thanks, this link was helpful. "Claim" is a word used a lot in Rolfing and other alt med articles. I tried out a change to remove one of these to see if it would float and it didn't: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rolfing&oldid=prev&diff=635602674. Please let me know what you think. --Karinpower (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the compliment. That means a lot. I definitely have tried to pay attention and learn the ropes quickly. It became immediately clear that knowing the culture was the only way I would get anything accomplished, after all.

Yes, of course, all good WP editors must be critical thinkers and that equals a degree of skepticism. But I meant Skeptic with a capitol S. It's a philosophical movement that's all about debunking. Especially pseudoscience, including paranormal (UFO's and ghosts would be high on their list) but also alt-med (especially homeopathy). Their tone around these subjects tends to be scornful. About 6 of the regular editors on the Rolfing page (and regular on most other alt-med pages) are of this persuasion; a couple of them are fairly moderate and often value encyclopedic balance over Skeptic POV but the others are blatant about using their power to insert that POV everywhere they can. It disrupts the flow of text and makes the entries significantly more negative than any other coverage of those topics outside of Skeptic publications. On the other hand, the Skeptic movement has provided some really useful evaluation of alt-med and some helpful pressure for more scientific thinking. My issue is that it seems that these editors see red and just want to debunk everything, regardless of whether a claim is *plausible* yet unproven vs. off-the-wall. For a plausible claim, its' adequate to simply say there presently aren't enough studies to prove it; it's not necessary to sprinkle disclaimer words throughout. However the wording needs to remain such that it doesn't say those ideas are facts, just that it's a fact that the modality frames it that way. Speaking of which, I appreciated your comment on the Rolfing talk page. When you return from your trip I hope you might have a suggestion for how to phrase it. --Karinpower (talk) 05:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your talk page edit. Somehow it sounds more credible coming from you. And having more than one person saying it.

I would say the damage is actually 3-fold.... tendentious editing also scares away new editors, who feel that their changes are unfairly reverted and don't know enough to find recourse. I've seen this on many of the alt-med pages. For me, that injustice actually spurred me on, but in the beginning it also caused a lot of stress until I learned to see it as a strategy game. Patience, picking my battles, making allies, etc are all important skills. Strong POV sticks out in encyclopedic writing; it's just out of place, whether it's promotional, debunking, or otherwise. When an editor's agenda is stronger than their commitment to the encyclopedic purpose (to describe and explain, as you said), that's when WP as an organization needs to have clear recourse to back up editors who are countering that POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karinpower (talk • contribs) 21:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nenad Bach is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nenad Bach until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, GregorB! FYI: The following has been proposed on Talk:Sportsperson:

Sportsperson → Athlete – The content of sportsperson → athlete; the content at athlete → athlete (disambiguation)

I currently have no opinion on which way to go, however, there is some discussion regarding the "athletics" vs. "track and field" issue that we've stumbled over previously. Cheers! Location (talk) 06:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Imas email od mene. Pozdrav! --Kolega2357 (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi GregorB.

I just created an article about Paškal Jukić. Since this topic was not within my main field of interest before, if you know more about it will you please check if I have made some mistake there before I nominate it for DYK. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks GregorB. When I noticed that in the meantime another editor copyedited this article I decided to nominate it for DYK. I can withraw the nomination if you want to join with your article?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

After seeing this discussion I need to clarify if I can continue with this DYK nomination. If the Croatian language is actually the same language spoken by the Serbs in post-1900 period, am I here (again) breaching my topic ban on the post-1900 Serbia and Serbs related topics (broadly construed)? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Preposterous ... interesting word. No, I did not refer to my creation of an article on Jukić. I was concerned if my "continuation with this DYK nomination" would breach my topic ban since the hook I proposed mentions the language spoken by Serbs. Just under different name, as explained by the consensus reached at the above liked discussion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I will ammend the nomination. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like someone got to it before me following a WP:RFPP request; please feel free to use that in the future yourself, this is a no-brainer. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you please contact me at tomogrigor@gmail.com? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrwilhelm (talk • contribs) 10:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

 Template:Croatia Yearbook 2011 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. NSH002 (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited This War of Mine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wired. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. DS (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

I believe your concerns with the DYK nomination of the above have been addressed.

Georgejdorner (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

It has been said that repeating the same actions over and over while expecting differing results is a definition of insanity. What then do we call it when 50 or so of the world's most powerful men collaborate upon the repetition?

I hope my Sigma war games series will cause others to wonder the same.

Georgejdorner (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The DYK project (nominate) 11:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and your family! Timbouctou (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)