Happy New Year! Am trying to find some discussion or consensus about (non-)inclusion of romanticized depictions of early medieval rulers of Croatia and Serbia, but don't remember where read about it. I find strange, and misleading, having in the infobox and article poor images which are also a product of nationalistic romanticization from the 19th and first half of the 20th century (e.g. from 1940 recently added by UserCruz.croce in many article of Croatian rulers, orVišeslav of Serbia,Zaharija of Serbia,Vlastimir whose look and attire are more of high medieval nobleman instead of early medieval rulers). If it is a notable painting or sculpture of some cultural value it is something else (for e.g. those byOton Iveković), but otherwise there's none. What do you think about it?Miki Filigranski (talk)01:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to let you know that I took a deeper look at that RM and your follow-up section that you posted about and I said I would follow-up on the talk page. First the issues is more involved than I have time for a the moment to respond to but I will cycle back on it, especially since I'm fairly familiar with both topics. But one thing I don't really understand from the outset is why the navel-gazing about if the hat note or inline link to the philosophy is significant. The volume that we're seeing there appears to be so insignificant that it doesn't seem to matter and keeping both in the Operating System article would seem to be otherwise acceptable. If the OS remains the PTOPIC then the hat note would seem appropriate as the next most popular use of the term, and the in-article reference also seems appropriate since it has to do with its origin of the name. While the HATNOTE might help suggest that people found this PTOPIC accidentally, whereas the inline would support "further exploration" of the topic, those overall numbers are such an insignificant number regarding how people are finding it. Is the point that only 500 monthly are using the hatnote, versus the say 900 finding it throught either one, and thus their are fewer people finding the OS page in error? I'm not certain that either number would weigh significant on a DPT for the RM discussion or perhaps I'm overlooking something?TiggerJay(talk)16:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tiggerjay The problem with saying it's navel-gazing is that it assumes that these one thousand readers a month are the only ones confused, out of a much larger mass of people visiting the page (~44k). That's not necessarily so, because most of the traffic to our articles is navigated to us not organically, but from search engines and contextual links. That means we can't actually properly compare these.
If we were to move the article about Ubuntu the OS to a different title, the vast majority of that traffic would almost instantly move there, and only after a while would we be able to start measuring the traffic at the base name to more neutrally assess this.
And even then that might not be a completely neutral situation, because search engines also learn from our navigation. They would most likely start sending the readers for whom they can't easily discern which meaning they want to the disambiguation page. With it then being at the base name, this might in turn create a slanted impression at our end about the qualities of reader traffic for the base term. --Joy (talk)18:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, let me start by saying, I do think that there is a discussion to be made about if the OS really is the PTOPIC for the term Ubuntu. I would agree that there are many complexities with regards to the interaction between search engines and Wikipedia, and that it is difficult to tell how the chicken-and-egg scenario play out, and we've got limited tools to assess these. I think it isnoteworthy that prior to the OS being moved to simply Ubuntu, that at that time[1] it was commanding a much higher page views than the philosophy, demonstrating that the OS numbers were not impacted by thebase name bias.
You're also correct that only a certain percentage of people who end up in the wrong place will also follow the hat note to where they intend to go. However we do know from WikiNav that of the 45.7k pageviews, 36% clicked over to another page (indicating they stuck around long enough to discover more on the topic). Of those, just under 1k went to philosophy, and your creation of the unique redirects helps us infer if they ended up in the wrong place or were rather just exploring more about the OS and effectively stumbled upon the relationship between the two. All good things to be certain, and to a degree, more information is helpful.
The reason why I call it navel-gazing (and many apologies if you were offended by it), was because out of 45.7k views, a paltry 500 hat-note visits is barely 1%. That isn't going to make or break a PTOPIC discussion.That isn't to mean than those 500 real people are insignificant. Yet, when we're talking about tens-of-thousands per month, where that a 16 people per day isn't really going to make-or-break any arguments.
Based on the 2 hours I've spend on this topic today, if this was an RM I'd likely !vote on either natural DAB for both, or PARENDIS for both with a DAB page for the base name. I'm just not sure how 500 people would shift my perspective either way. They're both unquestionably very notable, but neither of them demonstrate a clear and convincing PT regardless if there was 500, 1000 or even an extra 5k extra in either direction. And for that reason I'm just not sure what the point on getting into that small detail. But again, I still might be overlooking some greater purpose beyond simply addressing the RM/AT/PT issues.TiggerJay(talk)01:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with looking at the 2008 discussion is that the organic popularity of Ubuntu the OS vs the philosophy might have been different at the time. IndeedGoogle Trends show it at peak popularity, and it has waned significantly since. Now, their identification of the trend for philosophy is consistently much lower, so that's a better data point here - as far as we can trust their system to be internally consistent, that's comparison of apples to apples.
With regard to the 45k vs 1k, again, that's not the realistic comparison, when we know there also exist the 20k people who read about the philosophy[2]. Sure, they don't all come there from a search of just "ubuntu", but Google Trends is actually showing that simple search to be clearly most popular one identified withboth topics.
Because the two meanings are interconnected, it's going to be very hard to figure out whether it makes sense to change navigation. The latest modest experiment with redirects is also inconclusive - it shows most people who choose philosophy to be picking the hatnote, but not by a large enough margin to be clear. Yet we also observe that minority of readers who come to the Ubuntu article and then seemingly abandon our navigation links in favor of search again. We do not have any clear criteria about how large either of these reader contingents has to be in order to trigger navigation changes to try to measure or accommodate. --Joy (talk)09:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joy, I was recently reminded of this discussion and was wondering if your data analysis has revealed anything meaningful to you yet. I did see that on one day recently the other link took the lead -- but one for a single day, and for the month is sitting around a 2:1 ratio.TiggerJay(talk)08:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can make any new conclusions yet. Let's give it some more time to see if what a more long-term trend might be. At the same time thanks for the reminder to move the most relevant new parts I posted in this discussion toTalk:Ubuntu. --Joy (talk)13:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two editors (Eimaivault and Sadko), under the pretext of neutral wording, removed atNikodim Milaš sourced mention of his activity and claims being related to the Greater Serbian propaganda (reduced to unspecified "romantic nationalist ideology of the time", also removing mention about his claim on the Serbian monasteries foundation which is of higher importance than the rest of the claims).Miki Filigranski (talk)08:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
S. Bačić's review of Milaš's influential workPravoslavna Dalmacija is available atinternet archive, Šime Batović in its introduction on pg. 5 also noted, "Knjiga Nikodima Milaša, dakle, ne bi bila vrijedna nikakve pažnje jer je to gomila laži, neistina i krivotvorina, da ona nije do danas "evanđelje" i temelj velikosrpstva i srpske osvajačke politike, negiranja i samog postojanja Hrvata i katolika, osobito temelj velikosrpske mitologije u Dalmaciji, posebno sjevernoj". Also I. Pederin's article "Povijest i književna povijest kao autobiografija nacije" (1996).--Miki Filigranski (talk)10:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't removed any sources. Please double-check and refer to the page TP first before making complaints about the work of editors you currently disagree with. Best. —Sadko(words are wind)13:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joy, I just noticed that you've been posting your !vote towards the end of your statement, which I think has some interesting merits, but I was wondering if you had a specific reason for breaking from convention?TiggerJay(talk)08:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TiggerjayWP:CONS policy says we need to havestructured discussions rather than voting. Our general convention of bolding the vote part first and thenmaybe giving a rationale later does seem to fit well with a lot of people's thinking, but I don't think it is really in line with the spirit of the policy. I hope that me doing it the other way around makes it harder for anyone to try to gauge consensus by skipping over rationales and jumping to conclusions. :) --Joy (talk)14:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I can certainly see how that can force people to read -- I'm not sure I agree with breaking with convention (just IMHO), but I do certainly agree that too often any sort of consensus building can (errantly) end up being distilled down to vote counting (or at the least the appearance of it) which is a problem we see in places like move reviews...TiggerJay(talk)01:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just came acrossUser:173.246.140.160 and noticed that you had blocked them indefinitely. We typically don't block an IP address to more than a few years, at most, so I just wanted to check in with you to make sure this is what you intended. Thank you and I hope you are having a good weekend.LizRead!Talk!21:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz there is a person that was using this IP address that has been relentless in their abusive use of Wikipedia, and temporary blocks have done absolutely nothing since 2022. The many, many iterations of this problem are linked fromUser talk:173.246.140.160#continuation of previous disruptive pattern. We can unblock this IP if you're comfortable watching it to make sure we don't just let them loose again. --Joy (talk)22:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Joy. Can you see these edits on this page [[3]] I think it's about untruths spread by Serbian tabloids whose leader is Sadko, who was already blocked for such things. It's about friar Jozo Križić, I found this about him in the wiki [[4]] "Local communist authorities proclaimed the newspaper as the "enemy propaganda" and both Fr. Ferdo Vlašić (first editor) and Fr. Jozo Križić (secretary) were imprisoned". Please take a look at these edits.78.0.41.200 (talk)23:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a user called “AshLikeTheFire” and I would wish to make a report about her behavior on my talk page without her knowing because she knows me in real life. Please look at the bottom of my talk page —𝟷.𝟸𝟻𝚔𝚖 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔)17:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@1250metersdeep looks like other admins already dealt with that abuser on-wiki. For off-wiki harassment, please seeWP:OWH. (I would have emailed you this, but you didn't set up an email in your Wikipedia settings.) --Joy (talk)20:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Could you look at this[5] please? The same user seems to have redirected an article to its version without diacritics twice citing different (both plainly wrong IMO) rationales. Their talk page seems to have record of similar pointless moves related to other articles. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk)17:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see though they are doing the same thing you pointed out before where in their edit diff they state “npov” but then changed information either not in the source or no new source added. My concern is their behavior isn’t changing.Edits like this with no cited source to back the argument nor does the caption promote anything inflammatory, seems like further pov nonsense rather than interest in improving articles.OyMosby (talk)17:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of a group of Wikipedians to better understand their experiences! We are also looking to interview some survey respondents in more detail, and you will be eligible to receive a thank-you gift for the completion of an interview. The outcomes of this research will shape future work designed to improve on-wiki experiences.
We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in thissurvey, which shouldn’t take more than 2-3 minutes. You may view itsprivacy statement here. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Kind regards,Sam Walton (talk)16:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you mean. We haven't generally split out the municipality administrative division articles from the Croatian place articles. I know people have done such religious splitting in case of e.g. Slovenia, but I also don't see how it helps the average English reader. --Joy (talk)19:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We'd be splitting island-name/municipality-name, each comes with its own infobox. If it was the settlement/municipality split, I'd totally be against it (srwiki has that for SR muni's too), but this is a little different. IDK, asking because I'm not sure what's best myself. I won't touch it for now.Ponor (talk)20:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that rare to have articles with multiple infoboxes, try it, and ponder splitting off if it becomes actually unwieldy. --Joy (talk)20:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Joy, you're much better at this, and you have some better tools – can you please help:
Some new articles (left columnhere) had corresponding redirects or disambig. pages, so their title had to be set manually. Whatever title is in the right column may need to be fixed, somehow, I'll let you decide. Thanks.Ponor (talk)15:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, I'll split the two Bobovišća's again, but then you need to make these kinds of notes in your table because this is just too cryptic otherwise. --Joy (talk)17:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm hm. That one must had been not connected with Wikidata. I only have the census settlement names and WP settlement names connected through some tables on hrwiki. (You know... databases with no unique key are a little bit of a mess). Thanks!Ponor (talk)20:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently editedPlace Guillaume II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageFranciscan monastery.
And regarding the disambiguation page: we don’t have articles on Romanian villages (not self-governing, no sources), but if we ever did, it would be calledPăpăuți, Covasna, on similar principles. —BiruitorulTalk18:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second, if you wish to pursue this further, you could start an individual RM, arguing why this particular page needs special treatment; or a mass RM, arguing why every place in Moldova should follow your preferred standard. —BiruitorulTalk19:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the fact that we’ve always (i.e. for at least 17 years) done it that way? I don’t know, maybe because some readersdo know more about these countries, and the district/county/province name immediately provides a lot more information than just the country.
The average readerfrom the country in question is going to be more familiar with his own country’s geography, and chances are higher the reader will come from said country than from some random country. For example, the reader ofChampeaux, Manche could well be French, though of course he could be from anywhere, but if heis French, thenManche will mean something to him, because every French schoolchild learns his country’s departments.BiruitorulTalk20:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of cases are going to be stuff likeIzvoare, Fălești andIzvoare, Florești (Moldova) orDobrotești, Dolj andDobrotești, Teleorman orGăneasa, Ilfov andGăneasa, Olt (Romania), where the county/district will remain because it’s the only way to disambiguate them. If you feel it’s that imperative to try and impose another standard for the few cases that differ — again, please request a move. Personally, I think it’s pointless to fiddle with an arrangement that’s consistent, clear, stable and widely used across countries. —BiruitorulTalk20:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never assume that readers of English Wikipedia know Romanian or even the geography of Romania, but any uncertainties they may have on this score are usually resolved by clicking a link. As to not linking villages, that’s just common sense. PerWP:GEOLAND, there is no requirement for Romanian villages to have articles, as they have no legal recognition, being informal subdivisions of communes. It also makes no sense to create an extra 50 thousand stubs when all relevant information about villages is covered under the commune articles. For Moldova it’s a little different, some villages have legal status and those have articles, but the others are folded into the commune articles.
I object to your accusations of arbitrariness: I’ve been aware of these issues since around 2008 and have spent much time creating and arranging articles for readers’ benefit. You may not agree with my approach, but an ounce of good faith is not too much to ask for, I think. —BiruitorulTalk10:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing more concise or natural aboutX, Romania thanX, Covasna. As to recognizability: the non-Romanian reader can simply clickCovasna County in the lead to see what that is, while the Romanian (and maybe Hungarian) reader is given useful information right away.
Given ro.wiki’s aversion to using sources, I wouldn’t put that much stock in what they say, but even if the information is accurate, it can easily be folded into in the parent commune article. That way, all relevant information is preserved while being presented in one place about a legally recognized commune, without sending the reader from permanent stub to permanent stub. Even in the rare cases where we have more information than simply “this village exists”, the model works, e.g.Coronini, where readers interested in its other village,Sfânta Elena, will find all they need arranged in the proper place.
Every article should at least have the potential to reach Featured status, and one that will forever say “X is a village in Y municipality, Z county, A country with a population of B (20__) first mentioned in the year 1___” doesn’t have that potential, and really is better off being covered in the article on the legal entity that administers it. —BiruitorulTalk13:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s hard to argue that using one word instead of another constitutes excess information. And it’s not just the Czech Republic — it is, if I may,standard for most European countries (and probably outside Europe too) to disambiguate smaller entities by sub-national units. You can try to change that, but you’ll have a lot of changes to make.
Stubs are fine, many articles start out that way, but I think an article should have the potential to reach, if not featured status, then at least a few paragraphs based on significant coverage in independent sources. Which simply isn’t the case for a lot of small, unofficial populated places. —BiruitorulTalk17:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We've talked in the past onBranislav Djurdjev's talk page, and as you seem to be one of the few administrators with knowledge of the Balkans, you've probably noticed thisRfC. I'm not asking you to give your opinion on the new wording proposed by Aeengath, the problem stems rather from the disproportionate reaction of an administrator who iscalling for their ban from all Balkans-related topics. I understand that you've already experienced similar cases, so I'd like your opinion on this, if you don't mind.Krisitor (talk)08:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi joy, I just noticed you edited the articleDoneyloop by adding coordaniets, but when I wrote the article I mistakenly put in the wrong coordaniets. I put in theLiscooley location. I do apologize for this error and I will fix it as soon as possible.
To answer your question: I created a separate category:Ustaše members. I thought the category:Ustaše was just for the party members, then I decided it is better to create a new category.Governor Sheng (talk)21:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good idea. The current category is to broad. All similar categories have tens of subcategories, like Category:Nazis for example.Governor Sheng (talk)21:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, at the same time, we don't have a parent category in this case likeCategory:Nazism. IOW the Ustaše category implicitly covers what we in Croatian would callustaštvo as a broad concept, even if it is called in a way that primarily means an organization. --Joy (talk)21:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joy, it appears the same editor has returned once again removing “ one of the four historical regions of Croatia, alongside Central Croatia, Slavonia, and Istria,” from the lead. It would appear they are also editing from multiple IP addresseslooking at the recent edit history. It comes across as if to imply Dalmatia had nothing to do with any Croatian state until the recent Republic of Croatia which is highly misleading. Would this call for possible admin intervention? I am doubtful the article talk page will get anywhere at this point given this seems like more than just some different formatting opinion.
@OyMosby can you give me links to diffs that specify the problem? Just saying "the same editor" is perhaps obvious to you, but not to me, because there's so many long-running issues out there, I don't know which one you're thinking of now :) --Joy (talk)21:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. The part that confuses me is the latest edit[7] that removes one mention of Montenegro. I think this is nuanced enough to not be treated as abuse. You should just bring it up on Talk. The lead section doesn't bury the information that it's in Croatia, but there's reasonable arguments to be made on how to format the sentence exactly. --Joy (talk)21:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know. The fact that their account chimed in a minute after the supposed independent IP that made an edit they themselves made before seems too coincidental. The Montenegro part could be a red herring they did to throw others off. Also they reverted and IP different from the two IPs I gave edit examples of. All other edit content seems to match across the board.
Is “ one of the four historical regions of Croatia, alongside Central Croatia, Slavonia, and Istria” not the more relevant version? They also seemed to try to bury the historical relevance of Croatia, only mentioning Roman, Venetian, and Astro-Hungarian relevance at the beginning.
I am cynical of the talk page helping much given in the past they stated “opening with "Dalmatia is a historical region of Croatia" is simply not reasonable, not to mention that it is also tremendously restrictive, especially for a region which (let's be real) was part of Croatia for a relatively short time in its long history. “.OyMosby (talk)21:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that extending Dalmatia into Montenegro today could be treated as a Croatian irredentist position, too. It can be a bit of a Russian doll of potential issues. --Joy (talk)21:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about Montenegro. If we are to talk about where Dalmatia the region is in terms of modern day countries, it would be Croatia AND Montenegro. Once again they make inflammatory edits. I’m going to add Montenegro back. Though I wouldn’t be surprised they reverted me.OyMosby (talk)21:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, they didn’t remove Montenegro from the first part of the intro where it states Dalmatia is in present day Montenegro. Which again tells me it was a red herring edit.OyMosby (talk)21:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, an administrator is needed on theStjepan Berislavić page and other related ones. The user NewsweN is avoiding rational conversation and is inserting their own content. Thank you in advance for your help.Shadow4ya(razgovor)08:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! When I moved Atomsko sklonište to Atomsko Sklonište I did make an attempt to move it using the "Move" tab. However, Atomsko Sklonište was already redirecting to Atomsko sklonište, so I used copy & paste move. Later, when I did the same thing with another page for the same reasons, someone undid my changes and pointed me to Requested moves page, and I've been using it since. Thank you!Ostalocutanje (talk)14:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize and $250 worth of prizes for architectural articles. If you are interested in winning something to help you buy books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for articles which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested.♦Dr. Blofeld16:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for contracting and clearing style...agree with all. I would just not nameSelak Raspudić as representative for any opposition, as she was running solo as independent.Zblace (talk)17:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zblace I thought it's just a natural juxtaposition, of incumbent vs opposition. Maybe "challenger" is a better word? I just didn't want it to say right-wing because I don't know that's the consensus of sources. I also didn't want to use the word independent because of the apparent controversy of using the term "independent list" in party name. I recall a TV panel discussion where analysts said those vote totals included various opposition to the incumbent, regardless of faction. --Joy (talk)17:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind taking a look atUser_talk:Beanieos54, e.g.[8]? I never know how to proceed when I run into what looks like a CIR issue. They've kept it to talk pages so far, but they are abusive toward other editors and very angry about something mostly pertaining to a medical device and a lawsuit against a specific community college. It's hard to tell what's going on, but WP is definitely not the place for it. Please advise if I should take some further action.
The thing that most resembles a policy violation there right now is the second response to @Doomhope, but it's also less than coherent, so I don't know if it should be understood that way.
I'd say let's first see if this fizzles out. The latest comment was not obviously beyond the pale. Obviously, do let me know if it escalates. --Joy (talk)14:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's reasonable. I did a web search to see if I could figure out the context, but all I found was similar messages, equally incoherent, posted elsewhere on the Internet and in public comment to the Oregon State Legislature[9](!). In the meanwhile, I'll leave a brief message on their talk. Thanks for the quick response! Cheers,
The issue is that it had been redirected for a while now, and then this other editor recently resurrected it. If you're commenting on the new state, it makes more sense to address the person responsible for that. --Joy (talk)05:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I need to movethis to the mainspace. The organisation's common name is theProgressive Youth and there appear to be similarly named pages, although no exact matches. Would you please take a look and advise on potential disambiguation? Thanks!Tomobe03 (talk)21:28, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomobe03, I see, there's a lot of them with "Organization" and "Association" suffixes. Even if there is no such suffix in the original in this case, it's a literal translation, so it's plausible that a less literal one would include one of those monikers, too. Something simple likeProgressive Youth (Croatia) would probably be fine. --Joy (talk)22:12, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for moving Serdika (as a Roman history topic) to Serdica
I was preparing to leave a message suggesting this move based on the historical name—and an ngram showing that it was still in widespread use, along withSardica, at least for purposes other than the modern neighborhood of Sofia—only to discover that you had already done that. I would have moved it a couple of days ago, but was blocked by the redirect, and could not find the patience to write out a move request. So I was pleased to discover that you had already done it! Thank you. It's been a while since I gave anyone a barnstar, so here!P Aculeius (talk)11:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as an admin, can you check theCroatian nationalism article? The lead section was completely overhauled by an editor recently[10]
some of the reorganization looks fine but they added new book citations without providing a page number or quote to verify the information they added. I looked up the references and couldn't verify. A lot of it looks unsourced and original research. I tried cutting it down and improving it and they reverted me. Now I just tagged the unsourced passages and tagged for page numbers.2605:8D80:6C25:EF44:691B:35CD:841E:1453 (talk)11:58, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You movedKatherine S. Layton to draft space. The creator did a very small amount of work but didn't really address the notability issues, and has now moved it back into article space without discussion. Someone has nominated it for deletion, but t.b.h. I think that's just a waste of people's time. Would it be appropriate for you to move it back to draft and give the editor a wiki-slap for bad behaviour?10mmsocket (talk)12:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Joy: Thank you for the additions/modifications toHedgehog Son. I used as major reference Monika Kropej'sSlovene Index, which lists most of the variants found in Slovenia and environs. Another major reference was Uther's 2011 edition of his 2004 revision, which makes reference to Byhan and Bolhar. I think the problem with the location of the collection was that most of the variants were collected in the mid-19th century, so there is only mention of "collected in place X", without any indication of source.KHR FolkMyth (talk)10:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KHR FolkMyth agreed, and nearby Slovene dialects and Kajkavian dialects are probably similar enough that it's fairly clear that this is common heritage. Still, for a modern-day viewer, it makes some sense to not silently lump Kajkavian references under Slovenia, because it's incoherent with geography. I hope my edits still make it clear that most of the sources are from Slovenian areas, and Kajkavian are a minority. --Joy (talk)12:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Joy: There's no problem at all! I was not aware of the implication of... well, "silencing" a linguistic minority in this way. It was not my intention. Whenever I deal with editing a fairy tale or folktale, I try to provide the most complete information possible.KHR FolkMyth (talk)12:13, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, if the en dash broke syntax, the template is faulty. On en. WP an en dash ismandatory for to/from compounds. Can you fix the template?Tony(talk)00:42, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony1 As you can see in the article now, the template output isCopenhagen–Gothenburg Øresundståg, it has an ndash. Using hyphens as part of template parameters is not a problem per se. --Joy (talk)01:14, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it make the infobox look cluttered right now, but I like the idea of including a map. I think maybe add a new section like how the occurrence type and aircraft type are mentioned. We could put it at the bottom of the infobox or below the infobox to make it fit better. How about this?Zaptain United (talk)01:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editors have largely agreed to include these terms on the Template for Infobox aircraft occurrence, but it hasn't been changing yet. I was wondering if you could add them. The general agreement was to change the instructions for the occurrence type to: "Accident", "Bombing", "Hijacking", "Occurrence" or "Shootdown". Few notable occurrences are classified as "incidents"; see Aviation accidents and incidents. "Occurrence" should be the default unless definitively confirmed as one of the other types by reliable sources. I was wondering if you could enact this agree upon change?Zaptain United (talk)01:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Joy. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.
Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have atemporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with thetemporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.
How do temporary accounts work?
Editing from a temporary account
When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern:~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with thetemporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.
Temporary account IP viewer user right
How to enable IP Reveal
Administrators may grant thetemporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet thecriteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. atWP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators arenot permitted to assign the right without a request.
It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects theautoblock option.
It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. OnSpecial:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should useSpecial:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).
Rules about IP information disclosure
Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access isgenerally not allowed (e.g.~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g.~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward3RR, but notHey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
Starlet147 has given you somecookies! Cookies promoteWikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Hello Joy, Thanks again for your feedback on the articleMojsej Ignjatović. I've completed the changes you suggested, including sourcing and clarifying the bibliographic entries. If you have a moment, I'd really appreciate it if you could take another look. Best regards,Vodnir (talk)23:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That gymnasium history article just has a mention of Ignjatović's name in the laundry list ofMany students and teachers of this Gymnasium remained famous for their service to the people. That can barely be a source for mentioning the name atJovan Jovanović Zmaj Gymnasium.
It can not be a reference for for the sentencesUpon graduating in 1802, Ignjatović was employed at the Third Public School inNovi Sad and remained at the post for the next 33 years. During which time he translatedKarl von Eckartshausen's work "Artello court prank", a theatrical play in three acts in 1813.
That linguistic history article mentions the topic at page 547, where it mentions one of three books being:
1813. Pervoe nastavlenїe kъ blagonravїju u šestь razgovorôvъ meždu materomъ i kćerїju. K. Kaulicij. Novi Sad.
This text can't verify the sentenceАртелло придворный шальивчина: позориштна игра у три дѣйствія — Serbian translation of a theatrical play in three acts byKarl von Eckartshausen (1752–1803), titledArtello, the Court Prankster, translated by Mojsej Ignjatović in 1813.
Thank you very much for taking the time to review the article and provide such detailed feedback. I really appreciate your guidance and the clarifications regarding the sources. I’ll work on improving the references accordingly to ensure they meet Wikipedia’s verifiability standards.
HelloJoy, I hope you had a great weekend and are doing well.
I wanted to sincerely thank you for the insights you shared regarding the articleMojsej Ignjatović. Your thoughtful and policy-based approach genuinely helped me revisit and deepen my understanding of Wikipedia’s core guidelines. I truly appreciate the clarity and experience you bring as a long-time administrator.
After learning from your example, I spent time researching the topic further and also began reviewing drafts in the AfC queue. I’ve been working carefully with policies such asWP:BLP,WP:COI,WP:NPOV,WP:LLM, andWP:N, and I’ve tried to apply them responsibly when tagging problematic content.
When I encountered drafts with promotional tone or non-independent/notable sources, I nominated them underWP:G11 with full policy rationale. Some of these were accepted byBusterD, whose judgment I respect.
However, in the past two days, I’ve become a bit confused. A few of my G11 nominations were declined, even though the same drafts were later resubmitted to AfC — and then declined there for reasons that aligned with my initial concerns. For example:
Because of these inconsistencies, I’m not sure how to proceed in similar cases, especially when drafts are created by single-purpose or inexperienced accounts and rely heavily on promotional wording or non-independent sources.
If you have a moment, I would be truly grateful if you could take a look at my talk page — particularly the sections titled “Speedy deletion declined: Draft:GLDN” and “Maintenance tags”:User talk:Vodnir
Your guidance would mean a great deal to me. Thank you again for everything you’ve taught me.
Hey there. I have to say that your style of writing is curiously outside what I generally encounter, and even makes me think you were using an LLM assistant. A little bit less verbosity might be helpful :)
I had a look at those issues and it sounds to me like this sort of an inconsistency is all within reason. For example, the GLDN draft article still had a Reception section, so even if it was mostly puffery, there might still be a chance to rewrite the rest of the article. It doesn't cost us much to let it go through the draft process, giving any interested people time to react.
Speedy deletion is a comparatively severe mechanism, so it's more likely people will want to make sure it is applied in clear-cut cases only.
In general, just like people are giving these anonymous editors some benefit of the doubt, it's fair to expect that you'll be given the same kind of leeway. Try not to be discouraged by these experiences even if it feels like you're being pushed in various directions. It's all part of the normal learning process, and as long as you keep acting in good faith there's nothing to worry about. --Joy (talk)18:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I always try to be polite when I write, maybe sometimes that comes across as too formal, but it’s just my way of showing respect.
Even yesterday, I ran into the same issue again. I’ve been focusing on improving draft quality, and whenever I’ve used G11, most admins accepted it. But in this particular case, it keeps getting declined. Here’s another example:
Yeah, I can see how this would happen - if you look at the history, users QuicoleJR, Qcne and Fade258 all made comments on that draft over a period of several months. The fact that none of them bothered to classify it as unambiguous promotion is indicative of it not being a pressing issue. There's several references to mainstream news sources like interviews withThe Hindu, which might not be significant in coverage, but are reasonably independent and reliable, and demonstrate a hint ofWP:POTENTIAL. --Joy (talk)12:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I was wondering if you could help me out with something. The disambiguation pageGoldeneye (disambiguation) was very recently (as in within the last week) moved fromGoldeneye, which messed up WikiNav data, so I can't see clicks coming from there. If you could please pull the clickstream data from there within the last couple of months, I'd really appreciate it.Ladtrack (talk)17:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, here it is:
clickstream-enwiki-2025-05.tsv:
Goldeneye GoldenEye link 803
Goldeneye GoldenEye_007_(1997_video_game) link 201
Goldeneye Goldeneye_(1989_film) link 125
Goldeneye Goldeneye_(estate) link 57
Goldeneye GoldenEye_007_(2010_video_game) link 47
Goldeneye Goldeneye_(duck) link 43
Goldeneye GoldenEye_(song) link 24
Goldeneye GoldenEye:_Rogue_Agent link 24
Goldeneye GoldenEye:_Source link 17
Goldeneye Common_goldeneye link 16
Goldeneye GoldenEye_(soundtrack) link 10
total: 1367 to 11 identified destinations
clickstream-enwiki-2025-06.tsv:
Goldeneye GoldenEye link 839
Goldeneye Goldeneye_(1989_film) link 182
Goldeneye GoldenEye_007_(1997_video_game) link 175
Goldeneye Goldeneye_(estate) link 71
Goldeneye Goldeneye_(duck) link 52
Goldeneye GoldenEye_007_(2010_video_game) link 49
Goldeneye GoldenEye_(song) link 48
Goldeneye GoldenEye:_Rogue_Agent link 33
Goldeneye Operation_Goldeneye link 18
Goldeneye GoldenEye:_Source link 16
Goldeneye Common_goldeneye link 14
Goldeneye The_Golden_Eye link 12
total: 1509 to 12 identified destinations
clickstream-enwiki-2025-07.tsv:
Goldeneye GoldenEye link 795
Goldeneye GoldenEye_007_(1997_video_game) link 152
Goldeneye Goldeneye_(1989_film) link 104
Goldeneye Goldeneye_(estate) link 63
Goldeneye GoldenEye_007_(2010_video_game) link 59
Goldeneye Goldeneye_(duck) link 35
Goldeneye GoldenEye_(song) link 34
Goldeneye GoldenEye:_Rogue_Agent link 34
Goldeneye The_Golden_Eye link 17
Goldeneye Operation_Goldeneye link 14
Goldeneye GoldenEye:_Source link 14
total: 1321 to 11 identified destinations
clickstream-enwiki-2025-08.tsv:
Goldeneye GoldenEye link 1017
Goldeneye GoldenEye_007_(1997_video_game) link 182
Goldeneye Goldeneye_(1989_film) link 150
Goldeneye Goldeneye_(estate) link 60
Goldeneye Goldeneye_(duck) link 42
Goldeneye GoldenEye_007_(2010_video_game) link 38
Goldeneye GoldenEye_(song) link 32
Goldeneye GoldenEye:_Rogue_Agent link 31
Goldeneye Operation_Goldeneye link 21
Goldeneye GoldenEye:_Source link 21
Goldeneye The_Golden_Eye link 11
Goldeneye Common_goldeneye link 10
total: 1615 to 12 identified destinations
clickstream-enwiki-2025-09.tsv:
Goldeneye GoldenEye link 834
Goldeneye GoldenEye_007_(1997_video_game) link 201
Goldeneye Goldeneye_(1989_film) link 114
Goldeneye Goldeneye_(estate) link 67
Goldeneye GoldenEye_007_(2010_video_game) link 53
Goldeneye Goldeneye_(duck) link 41
Goldeneye GoldenEye:_Rogue_Agent link 32
Goldeneye GoldenEye_(song) link 29
Goldeneye Operation_Goldeneye link 12
Goldeneye List_of_cancelled_Virtual_Boy_games link 11
Goldeneye GoldenEye:_Source link 11
Goldeneye Common_goldeneye link 10
total: 1415 to 12 identified destinations
clickstream-enwiki-2025-10.tsv:
Goldeneye GoldenEye link 1301
Goldeneye Goldeneye_(1989_film) link 173
Goldeneye GoldenEye_007_(1997_video_game) link 166
Goldeneye Goldeneye_(estate) link 101
Goldeneye GoldenEye_007_(2010_video_game) link 60
Goldeneye Goldeneye_(duck) link 52
Goldeneye GoldenEye_(song) link 35
Goldeneye GoldenEye:_Rogue_Agent link 35
Goldeneye Operation_Goldeneye link 26
Goldeneye Common_goldeneye link 18
Goldeneye GoldenEye:_Source link 17
Goldeneye The_Golden_Eye link 13
total: 1997 to 12 identified destinations
For the most recent one, here's the sources:
clickstream-enwiki-2025-10.tsv:
other-empty Goldeneye external 698
other-internal Goldeneye external 258
Main_Page Goldeneye other 194
GoldenEye Goldeneye link 188
Goldeneye_(estate) Goldeneye link 54
GoldenEye_007_(2010_video_game) Goldeneye link 42
Operation_Goldeneye Goldeneye link 30
other-search Goldeneye external 26
The_World_Is_Not_Enough Goldeneye other 12
other-external Goldeneye external 11
total: 1513 from 10 identified sources
We can't figure out filtered clickstreams easily sincepageviews say 1495 for the same month. There must have been some incoming redirects there which now point elsewhere. I guess it's those at[11]. You'd have to sum up all of their October traffic in pageviews and then subtract those 1513 to get the number of filtered clickstreams. --Joy (talk)17:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I had to respond to this because your argument is absurd and I don't know where you got it from. Venetian Dalmatia was in fact a province and an administrative unit of the Venetian Republic. It had a capital city, state buildings, officials in every city, town, and island, its own special military units, a defined territory, and Venetian law applied everywhere. Your argument that it wasn't so is entirely wrong and I don't know what 'source' you got it from. I would therefore suggest you stop editing that page because you're just harming the reader with baseless information. I would also suggest a little educational trip to Zadar – the Providur's and Rector's Palace are marvellous buildings; I wander what region they were used to administer... Oh yes – Venetian Dalmatia.MariCro2019 (talk)23:38, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You were supposed to carry this conversation on Talk page of the article, not here.
Also you could actually read published sources, the ones I used as a reference for the part of the article that you are constantly reverting.
The redirectAnna Pavlova (linked from dessert article lead) has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 1 § Anna Pavlova (linked from dessert article lead) until a consensus is reached.Steel1943 (talk)18:55, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread isAdmin acting up.45dogs (they/them)(talk page)20:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Enable theuser info card
Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)00:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
