User talk:GregorB/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about User:GregorB. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

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)

On 6 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rimac Concept One, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Rimac Concept One (pictured) has been described as the world's first electric supercar? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rimac Concept One. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — 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)

Hello. You are invited to join Darius Dhlomo Drive, a project which aims to cleanup and resolve one of the oldest copyright investigations on the sire. We hope that you will join and help to clean what's left of the copyright violations. You are getting this invitation because you have helped out previously, and I am inviting you back to hopefully wrap this up. Wizardman 01:35, 14 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
life Reopening Old Wounds for New Life] | work=Ministry Today Magazine | accessdate = 2009-06-25}}</ref> The man, Grant Haas, added that New Life Church paid him $179,000 to cover his counseling to

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)

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for tireless contributions to tedious tasks. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

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)

GregorB

Croatia

Editor of the Week for the week beginning June 16, 2013

A random article patroller with over 130000 edits, more than 20 DYN mentions and 8 tears plus of diligent and active WP participation.

Recognized for

"tons of quality edits"

Nomination page

• 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)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For helping to finally clean Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo. Wizardman 19:57, 30 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)

This is an archive of past discussions about User:GregorB. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12