User talk:Joy

Add new comments below.

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

Archives

2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

Happy New Year, Joy!

Happy New Year!

Joy,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year 2024!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Joy: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request move comment

Hi, can you please make a comment so a consensus can be reached at: Talk:History of the Balkans#Requested move 27 December 2023 and Talk:Slavic migrations to the Balkans#Requested move 27 December 2023. Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"bad SMC, bad!"

I think you mean {{Strongbad}}. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish I forget to preview as well sometimes, too :) --Joy (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I even did, and simply didn't see it. Same with another typo someone caught after you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish I guess the best way to do it is to split the copyedit up into smaller chunks. --Joy (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Veliki Bukovec, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dubovica.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lukač, Croatia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Katinka.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Joy and “self control issues”. Thank you.Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 08:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, sort of

WP:ANI has more than the usual number of attacks by new or unregistered editors against established editors. Welcome to a strange club. Some of them have been blocked. Your enemy hasn't yet been blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:King Charles

Hi Joy, thanks for the update on Lord Cameron, which I'll be subscribing to. I was just wondering what you thought about the statistics for King Charles and whether another move request might be justified now or a little later down the line. All the best, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert thanks for the note. That's an interesting case as well, because it might be indicating that the current formatting might be causing about a thousand misclicks a month? :) We can't be sure, but sure looks like it. Either way, if we combine those two, it's still 4.62k out of 8.2k, which is ~56%, so ~44% of the readers either aren't looking for the current British monarch or couldn't identify him from that list. This is so still much reader traffic that it would probably be worth the effort to try to experiment a bit. Maybe putting him on top of that list might change this? Maybe extending his caption to indicate something like "former Prince of Wales" would be helpful? Maybe a common meanings section on top of it everything? --Joy (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. I've edited the disambiguation page, would this be OK? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would have done that Charlemagne change in a separate edit, but sure. Since we're now in the middle of February, the first month where we see the full impact of the change will be March, so let's check back in mid April after the stats regenerate. --Joy (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joy, it's mid-April now. Looking at the stats, I think there's a stronger case now for both King Charles and Lord Cameron. What do you make it? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert I actually followed up at Talk:Lord Cameron already - it actually subsided a bit from the initial spike. Given the downward trend, I'd track that one for a couple more months to make sure. I'll have a look at the other one. --Joy (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, wait for Lord Cameron, King Charles stays as is? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Neveselbert in each of those cases there were organized discussions, using the WP:RM system. They were both somewhat contentious, so regardless of what you and I observe now, if substantial changes were to be made, they should be made using the same organized discussion process anyway so that interested people are notified in a consistent manner, as a means of following the WP:CONS policy. --Joy (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's past mid-June now. What do you make of the latest stats for Lord Cameron? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamm

Thanks for sorting out most of the incoming links :) 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cremastra I actually only did a few, I think you should thank Onel5969 :) --Joy (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why a /28 block?

I must confess I never even knew Croatian kuna existed, much less had any thoughts of editing it, so it's not as if it'll really affect me. But all the same, why did you block the entire 2603:800* range from the article, when from looking at its history only a single /64 range (2603:8001:b202:3294:*) was the one editing the article? (For context, the /28 range includes 68 billion other /64 addresses (and thus devices) besides the one actually causing you problems.) 2603:8001:4542:28FB:13D:3E61:A292:EAAC (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC) (Send talk messages here)[reply]

Could you at least reduce the block from 1 year to 6 months instead? 2603:8001:B202:3294:A943:8193:E260:B3E6 (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My grandfather

Hello and dobry den , I am the granddaughter of Jan Smudek - thankyou for this Information - I’d love to know more and add some things ! jsem Katuš Young , vnučka Jana Smudka . Děkuji za přidání této informace. Rád bych k tomu někdy přidal další! A pokud o něm máte nějaké další informace, budu rád, když se o ně podělíte, Dekuji, Katuš Katuš young (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian kuna blocked user now vandalising Ryan Bang

Hi. You blocked this IP from Croatian kuna; they have now begun to vandalise Ryan Bang. Not sure if this is relevant to you, but thought I would highlight just in case. BobEret (he/him) (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"TAR" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect TAR has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 25 § TAR until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Sofronije Podgoričanin

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Sofronije Podgoričanin, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up on disruptive user

Just wanted to let you know 216.174.64.0/18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) or 216.8.128.0/18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is still at it, still with the same awful hagiographies, still doesn't communicate with anyone. So sadly, nothing has changed in that regard. Aleksamil (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aleksamil you're saying we need to restrict their edits to draft space again? --Joy (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy Oh, I thought they were banned back then from all namespaces. Idk what the course of action in cases like this should be, honestly. I haven't really seen this behavior before.

The articles they're churning out are usually egregiously violating WP:NPOV, and I think it's safe to say they're consciously refusing to communicate with the community. Aleksamil (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, the block was set to a year and it expired since. If there's been no apparent change in pattern, I'll just extend the blocks again. --Joy (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bludgeon?

FWIW, I don't agree with the charge (especially as the roles could easily have be reversed ). It seems perfectly reasonable to me for the proponent to offer rebuttal to points made against the motion – and conversely. To me, bludgeoning would be to just say the same thing over and over, no matter what points were made. I doubt that this will escalate but if it does, do please let me know as I will be very happy to lend my support. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JMF thank you for your kind words! I agree, we are merely having a polite disagreement, and the consensus-building process is not being disrupted, or rather there was little to explain an alternate interpretation of how the discussion is going. Certainly a volume of comments can be an indicator of a problem, and goodness knows I can be verbose, but still, I think this is still a quality discussion. In either case, I don't hold a single such charge against the commenter, I've seen people throw around potentially inflammatory wiki-lingo in various situations before :) --Joy (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dekimasu I don't know if you were closing this arbitrarily today, or with the explicit intent of preventing an escalation of a disruptive discussion, but either way, I would appreciate it if you could share with us a bit more about why Talk:Maus#Requested move 11 February 2024 was ready to be closed. --Joy (talk) 13:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought perhaps the most telling point made is that on the one hand we have a Pulitzer-winning novel and featured article; on the other we have a unit that never saw service. We don't count !votes but the majority is clear for no change. I struggle to understand why you would consider that Dekimasu might consider it likely that any substantive new point will be added at this stage. Why prolong the agony? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mainly worried about this impression is that we ended on a bit of a low note, with this accusation of impropriety, a couple of new !votes without much comment and the close without much explanation all coming in the same day. I don't know about the potential for new points to be raised, but it didn't strike me that anyone was really agonizing there. --Joy (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message on my talk, since I didn't receive the ping. This was my first visit to the page, and I arrived there directly from the backlog section of WP:RM. I read the full discussion and closed it normally. If I thought there were particular problems with the behavior of editors in the discussion, I would have mentioned that in the close. As far as the strength of individual arguments, less is usually more when writing a close; mentioning specific points often makes editors feel less heard rather than more. A "no consensus" close in this type of discussion is often awkward, since it is a place where our standard processes point to different solutions: "no consensus" usually retains the status quo, but "no consensus" that there is a primary topic means a disambiguation page would be better at the base title. In this case, I read the discussion as a consensus (though not unanimous) on the question of whether there was a primary topic with regard to significance, and a consensus (though a weaker one) on the question of whether there was a primary topic according to usage. It's possible that closers visiting the page earlier in the discussion may have thought more time was needed in order for a clear consensus to emerge and avoid the scenario mentioned above, but I saw a consensus in a backlogged discussion when I came to the page. I hope this explanation is sufficient. Best, Dekimasuよ! 04:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian wikipedia

Hello Joy, can this page be edited better, so many things are written incorrectly here, look at my edits of this page, but some users do not agree with it. They write that it says that it is the past tense, but it doesn't say that it is the same today, which confuses the readers. Thank you. I won't edit anymore if you can improve it.[[1]] 78.1.143.81 (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete block?

Please check

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2603:8001:B202:3294:A9C8:9E7E:475:AC44

He is still editing. How?--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1 they are only blocked from one particular page. If you think there is reason to block this IP address from other areas of Wikipedia, please start a thread at WP:ANI to explain why. --Joy (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could we end this block by December or January? Besides, Bulgaria is scheduled to replace the Bulgarian lev and adopt the euro in 2025 (originally planned for 2024). 2603:8001:B202:3294:5C30:C30C:67BE:C42F (talk) 05:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear anonymous user from 2603:8001:B202:3294::/64, do you understand why you were blocked? Please also see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. --Joy (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please reduce the block or at least try to give me another chance to edit the article? I'll promise that I won't do any vandalism. 2603:8001:B202:3294:1E9:2C20:D1BF:CD23 (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Croat-Bosniak War result dispute

Ok so, I messaged you about this since I figured you would know, you do work with these types of pages (im assuming), so here is this question:

How did the Croat–Bosniak War end? Was it because of a Bosnian victory or because it ended by the Washington Agreement? I am saying this because two users are disputing about how the war ended (I'm not naming). I personally think the agreement ended the war, but one person says it is a Bosnian victory, while another says the agreement ended it.

If you could message me back and tell me your opinion, that'd be great. If a talk page discussion should be added, let me know.

Tvoj zločinac iz Srbije, Overthrow-dictator (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Overthrow-dictator please feel free to use standard WP:Content dispute mechanisms to deal with this matter. --Joy (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Piped links and WP:NOTBROKEN

Hi. Piped links through redirects is not the same thing as redirect links. WP:NOTBROKEN does not apply to links that are already justifiably piped; in piped links, the linked name should always be the exact name of the target so the reader is led to the page not through a redirect but directly. This is because piping through a redirect complicates things unnecessarily for the reader who then gets a message that they were led to the article from a term that they did not even see because it was hidden in the pipe. Otherwise, for the reader, the difference is imperceptible, and the markup is technically equivalent insofar as piping is used in both cases. NOTBROKEN is about avoiding unnecessary piping. It's either-or: Redirect link or piped link, but not piping through a redirect. —Alalch E. 10:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bajamonti "last Italian mayor"

Yes, sorry, you're right, it was my mistake. Hi, --LukeWiller (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Category:Legacy of Austria-Hungary has been nominated for merging

Category:Legacy of Austria-Hungary has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. Mason (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Murcia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Río Segura.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Nikola_Tesla Endy Angello (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Joy. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Doug Weller talk 17:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Blagaj, Mostar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tekija.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your warning

I don't understand the "final warning" you are stating in this post [2].

Can you please explain in detail. Thank you. I do mean it sincerely. I will try to correct if something is not according to Wiki guidelines.

Bilseric (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to post these kinds of messages that show a failure to follow Wikipedia policies, you will be restricted from editing, plain and simple. --Joy (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I really still don't understand. Could you please help me by naming the policies and my messages which are agains those polices? Thank you.

I see you provided some link on the talk page, but it takes me to something I really can't make a sense of. Bilseric (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think that I see now. You are referring to "Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited."

I feel this is really out of scope. I am posting and discussing a source on the appropriate talk page. This isn't even the article's talk page, but a separate talk page created exactly for this purpose. I'm not using the site for any other purpose but to edit the article to which this talk page belongs. The fact that I haven't made any requests, for now, is that I'm following Wiki guidelines on SYNTH. I have noted in my post that I have been using SYNTH, as it's allowed on the talk page. This doesn't mean I won't keep working on the subject matter in the future and research for other sources. This has been a contested topic (though not so much in the last few years), but I cannot agree that any discussion on a contested topic is falling under the "other uses" as mentioned by ARBMAC. There has to be a way to have a discussion on a contestec topic that doesn't fall under prohibited use as stated by ARBMAC. And, if the topic is contested ,it's to be expected that some would have strong opinions and even claim that someting opposite to their opinion constitutes "advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle" of the other side. Bilseric (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you've kept posting about this without backing it up with evidence that you understand these policies, and it's been going on for years now. At some point, you need to give it a rest. --Joy (talk) 07:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how any of this would relate to your final warning about violating ARBRAMC, but I will try to briefly answer. I feel that "keep posting" and "going of for years" are really unfair negative labels. I feel sorry that you have such an opinion instead of a more positive one. I don't feel that my recent posts to that topic would warrant such a negative opinion. Especially after you yourself had called one of the sources that I have posted "interesting", in your most recent post [3]. You do realize that you yourself have been involved much more that I? I don't really have that much edits there. I have participated only in handful of discussions and posted only a small number of other edits, over many years. Bilseric (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The basic idea of editing Wikipedia is that we make substantive contributions to articles supported by quality sources and consensus-building discussions. If your contribution appears to boil down to an egregiously flawed reading of sources and a huge amount of misguided messages to talk pages, do not be surprised that others are not interested in engaging further. --Joy (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel sorry that you have such opinion. If you could share what would change your opinion, I would like to try and work on that in the future. Can we at least find common ground and put WP:ARBMAC issue to the rest? You haven't touched on in your last 2 posts and I would really feel much better if we could agree at least on this. Bilseric (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Debian Free Software Guidelines for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Debian Free Software Guidelines 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/Debian Free Software Guidelines (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

(t · c) buidhe 22:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some bubble tea for you!

For your tireless work in fixing the incoming links to Roberta after the name dab was moved there. Many thanks! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incoming...

Hello, Joy. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Joyous! Noise! 04:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Horvat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hrvat.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Srebrenica massacre redirect

You previously indirectly intervened in an element of the ongoing conversation regarding the request to move Srebrenica massacre to Srebrenica genocide. I wonder if you might have an opportunity to take a look at the current state of the talk page and that conversation. I believe some editors are intentionally looking for opportunities to derail the conversation – perhaps with the motive of creating an impression that a consensus cannot be reached, and allow the current article name to persevere despite the fact a good case can be made that Wikipedia policy would support the move. I probably do not have enough evidence to make that claim with confidence, but several recent comments work only to derail the conversation nonetheless. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Duchy of Herzegovina" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Duchy of Herzegovina has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 28 § Duchy of Herzegovina until a consensus is reached. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor experience invitation

Hi Joy :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of armed conflicts between Bosnia and Serbia

In a hidden comment on the draft, you said This is improper synthesis, these were wars fought between vastly different entities across different time periods, political systems, etc. I don't know if it can be rewritten to be actually fine, either way, if it doesn't, it should be rejected at AfC (because if it doesn't, it will be immediately taken to AfD). I've accepted it through AfC, since in principle it's a normal list and that kind of discussion should indeed happen at AfD. If you want to start one, please do. (By the way, if you want to make comments on a draft at AfC in the future, please use the AfC comment template, so your comment is visible to other editors!) -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some info on Humska dilema

G'day, you asked about this confusion about Hum-Zahumlje, so I wanted to post some links with accessible info for better insight into the matter: Ančić (scroll down to page 141 or chapter Humsko kneštvo (it's fairly short readings, maybe less than 50 p. but most is explained already in the first several; and also take a notice of footnotes too), and usual: Hum at encyclopedias HE and Proleksis (lzmk.hr). There are some discrepancies, you will notice, between encyclopedia and Ančić, which he actually tries to clarify in this chapter of his book. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiNav

Hi there. Some interesting points you bring up at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation § WikiNav considered harmful. A quick side question on WikiNav. Do you know where the traffic from Wikipedia's search box (or its results page) is tracked in the data? —Bagumba (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba I don't think it is, it's not documented. I see that Special:Search tags its requests even from the dropdown, so they should all be detectable in the logs, but nothing in this context seems to talk about it. --Joy (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I didn't see anything explicit either. If I'm curious enough, I'll drop a line at Meta-Wiki at some point. Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Four accounts, one user

Greeting! I need to report this problem to an administrator. Four accounts were created and I think it is one person because he deals with the same topics and makes new pages from those accounts. Please check it out. 1 account [[4]] 2 account [[5]] 3 account [[6]] and 4 account [[7]]. There may be more accounts. In most cases, everyone together edits a newly created page.78.0.209.229 (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another account [[8]]. They are changing the results of the battles, I hope someone will fix it.78.0.209.229 (talk) 21:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of proofs, that they work together or one that has more accounts [[9]] There are as many such examples as you want, I hope they will report them.78.0.209.229 (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Wikinav-toolforge obscure categories

Good morning Joy. I came across your useful contribution on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Model, where you used Wikinav-toolforge to quantify clickstreams for the Model article. Looking at the breakdown of numbers, most clicks come from four categories "other-empty", "other-search", "other-internal", and "other-external". But there is no explanation what these categories mean. For example, do any of these refer to Google searches? Can you illuminate me? Thank you. 86.172.175.183 (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are explained at meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream, or indeed at https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Model#Sources-of-Traffic in the right-hand side box.

Google searches are sorted in the other-search category. --Joy (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks. One question left nonetheless: what is an "empty referrer"? 86.172.175.183 (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This refers to the HTTP referer field being empty. This is somewhat odd, because it's not likely that people start their browsing from any individual Wikipedia article other than e.g. Main Page, but apparently a fact of life these days. --Joy (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 86.172.175.183 (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you create an account, it makes it easier to follow these discussions (I can @ you and you get a notification). --Joy (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Klisa, Osijek-Baranja County, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bijelo Brdo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Tribute of Ston

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Tribute of Ston, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alex Grossmann, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Geneve.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Nikšić

added links pointing to Bare, Carine, Bastaji, Cerovo, Duga, Dolovi and Bjeloševina

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Franjo Tudjman

Hello. I saw this edit adding a topic of "Croatian Holocaust Deniers" though looking at the sources and article, where does it say the subject outright denied the Holocaust had happened? He appeared to at first stat lower numbers but later retracted an apologized for it. Or that he outright denied Ustashe crimes which was added by the same editor? It states he had lower figures than the million claimed by Yugoslavia, but not a full denial. Perhaps downplaying would be at most the attribution. Though his figures were closer to the Holocaust museum than Yugoslavia;'s by a large margin. It seems pov and misleading to claim he denied it all. Could you take a look? Thank you. 161.11.160.128 (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to use Talk:Franjo Tuđman to request any sort of changes to that article. --Joy (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll try to post on the talk page there. But while here, what is your opinion on the categories? Did this person hold denial of both criminal events happening during WWII? 161.11.160.128 (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plavi Orkestar move

Hello! The page has been moved, thank you for offering help! Ostalocutanje (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Declaring POV and subjectivity

Listen, somebody who clearly is personally vested in promoting a false narrative of Croatia and its crimes, considering all of your edit history and the reason why you joined Wikipedia should not be leaving comments on my page about neutrality and contentiousness with respect to a concentration camp where people were murdered. I have no horse in this race. You clearly do. Historiaantiqua (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Infobox mapframe now supports all zoom dimensions

Hi, Joy. Thanks for adding mapframes to so many infoboxes! I modified Module:Infobox mapframe so that it accepts any object dimension that Module:Infobox dim does. Now you can feed all sorts of dimensions from the infobox to the mapframe, and the zoom will be set correctly. For example, see what I did here at Infobox landform.

If you'd like, you can go back and add this to other infoboxes. — hike395 (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:My

Template:My has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sisak, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Komarevo and Odra.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Census

https://web.dzs.hr/Hrv/censuses/census2021/results/censusnames.htm Here is the database if you are interested in cleaning up all the Croatian surnames. I don't do wiki much. Chihunglu83 (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chihunglu83 yes, I'm aware of that, I'm just saying we can't reference the text to Acta Croatica and then use data from the census, that's not verifiable when we don't post both references. And they don't even match in this case - the former says About 280 people with faimily name Čanić live in Croatia today, in 120 households. while the census names lookup just says Broj osoba s prezimenom ČANIĆ: 282. --Joy (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ragusa

Sorry, I was not aware of MOS:DABREDIR.-- Carnby (talk) 12:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balkans

Hey, regarding my addition about the Balkan conflicts, just wanted to say that I didn't intend to imply anything from the tone. The term resist felt appropriate to me, but I agree that 'oppose' is more neutral since 'resist' can be associated with positively regarded concepts. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgio Dalmata

Juraj Ćulinović was known as Giorgio Schiavone or Giorgio Dalmata in his lifetime. You said there was no reference for this but the literal wiki article mentions it at the very beginning, plus the very picture used for the article on him is signed by him Georgius Dalmaticus (he called himself Giorgio Dalmata or George the Dalmatian in english). You probably don't read latin nor italian, yet you're confidently removing information. The other Giorgio is known as Giorgio Orsini or Giorgio da Sebenico and is mostly known as Juraj Dalmatinac in croatian. 62.4.55.104 (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kuta

Is this title transfer necessary? The article title "Kuta" is clear and unambiguous to the general reader, as Kuta in Bali is the most internationally known place compared to other locations with similar names. Changing it to "Kuta, Bali" actually decreases readability and violates the main principle of prioritizing the most commonly used name. Ariankntl (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation Articles The "Kuta (disambiguation)" article already covers all other locations named Kuta, so there is no need to move "Kuta" to a new disambiguation page. This complicates navigation and shows a lack of respect for the existing structure. Ariankntl (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modern images of medieval rulers in infobox

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 User Cruz.croce in many article of Croatian rulers, or Višeslav 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 by Oton Iveković), but otherwise there's none. What do you think about it? Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Miki Filigranski It's probably a matter of MOS:INFOBOXIMAGE. The most odd part about those recent images is that we don't even see an author listed. Probably best to ask at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes which has dozens of watchers. --Joy (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, asked there.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Messed up Wikidata

Hi! Could you please help with untangling Wikidata? It appears that there are two different WD pages for Jadranska straža and sr:Јадранска стража which cover the same topic, and I have no idea how to fix that... Best wishes for 2025! Tomobe03 (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Srb (surname)

Discussion moved to Talk:Srb (surname), because it evolved way beyound personal. --Altenmann >talk 17:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu

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 is noteworthy that prior to the OS being moved to simply Ubuntu, that at that time[10] it was commanding a much higher page views than the philosophy, demonstrating that the OS numbers were not impacted by the base 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. Indeed Google 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[11]. 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 with both 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 to Talk:Ubuntu. --Joy (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nikodim Milaš

Two editors (Eimaivault and Sadko), under the pretext of neutral wording, removed at Nikodim 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]

Sounds like something you need to start explaining at Talk:Nikodim Milaš, not here. --Joy (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S. Bačić's review of Milaš's influential work Pravoslavna Dalmacija is available at internet 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]

Nowhere I said that you've removed sources, but reliably sourced information.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RM !vote location

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]

@Tiggerjay WP:CONS policy says we need to have structured discussions rather than voting. Our general convention of bolding the vote part first and then maybe 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]