User talk:Joy

Add new comments below.

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

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

Edit war in progress

Would you care to step in and halt the edit war at Vukovar (again)? I, of course, believe that the right state to freeze it in would be with the Serbian Cyrillic name in the lede. There was a discussion on this issue at WP:Croatia's talk page, and I believe the majority there was for some sort of inclusion of Cyrillic. Also, regardless of what WP:Croatia thinks, I think it is Just the Right Thing To Do for Wikipedia - if nationalists can keep minority languages out of the ledes and infoboxes of articles, they will, and they will point to articles like Vukovar and say, "Hey, they don't have it, this article doesn't need it either!" I'm getting that argument from Serbians about articles in Vojvodina in areas with Hungarian minorities. It's the principle of the thing. Brianyoumans (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Well, thanks for responding so quickly to my request for action. I'm hopeful that this will lead to some useful discussion. Brianyoumans (talk) 11:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• I must say though that I think blocking Timbouctou was a bit hasty. He had not, as far as I can see, violated 3RR, and had contributed thoughtful discussion both at the Vukovar talk page and at WP:Croatia. Perhaps you could reconsider? Brianyoumans (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Given that the last block awarded to Timbouctou was some long time ago, and was only for 24 hours, and given also that s/he made only two edits to Vukovar in the last ten days - both of them reverts, conceded - do you think a one month block is a little excessive?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Contested moves

Hi,

I contested your renaming at Template talk:Yugoslav factions in World War II and Template talk:People of the Yugoslav Front. Will you please be so kind to follow WP:RM/CM, revert your renaming and initiate RM procedure. Thank you and all the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I did not know about WP:MOR. Thanks for AGF and pointing to it. I think that in cases like this, editors who have admin. privileges should use them instead to expect some other administrator to do it, based on the request that another editor has to post at Wikipedia:Requested moves.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I thought I would not be able to rename it, just like in case of restoring the original name of Đeneral Janković which I requested at the AN (diff). Now I see at WP:MOR that it can be done if there was "just one line in the page history". I don't know if it was possible in case of Template:People of the Yugoslav Front (which was renamed to different name) but anyway, I will know how it works in future. Thanks again for pointing to WP:MOR.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

WikiLibrary

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

RfC on Dalmatia

Dear user, there is an ongoing RfC on Dalmatia. You might want to participate. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you have participated in. You are not required to participate, but you are invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Dalmatia".--Silvio1973 (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Đurđevdan uprising

Hello,

I noticed your edit at Đurđevdan uprising (diff) in which you misused article's talkpage to complain about my conduct although the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles.

You wrote: * Overall, it is you who appear to have entirely sidestepped the spirit of my good-faith criticism and instead posted what is essentially an ad hominem rant. I'm not sure you realize just how far off all this anger is from the decorum prescribed by WP:ARBMAC.

Please be so kind not to continue with this kind of behavior in future. Also, don't warn people with WP:ARBMAC, that's simply pointless threatening, and is unlikely to lead to collegiate or positive results. You try sincerely to work things out, and if that fails you seek help, via ANI or another appropriate venue, but you don't threaten people with WP:ARBMAC. That shows a battleground mentality and casts doubts on your desire to actually work things out, as it reads as "my way or I'm telling!" Although you possess administrators' privileges your behavior here has been less than exemplary. Be done with your hostile behavior, and try to AGF and work with your fellow editors.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC/U

Dear User as you know Director and Iexperience often difficulties in communication. For this reason I have filed a RfC/U to discuss about this problem. I must confess that I genuinely believe he deals with me with improper language (inaccaptable, regardeless of the difficulties of communication we experienced). I did not file an AN/I because I would like to have a large discussion about this issue. And may be I am the guilty one. If you want to partecipate to the dispute as a "User who tried and failed to resolve the dispute" or "Additional user endorsing this cause for concern") you can do at 1. To avoid the suspicion of canvassing I am contacting all the users involved in the previous and present dispute. If you think I forgote someone please tell me. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Use of very long blocks in a case in which you are involved

You may possibly remember that I recently declined an unblock request for a block you placed on Nado158. Following a request on my talk page to reconsider the request, I looked back at the case. The first thing that struck me was that the block was for a month, which seemed remarkably long under the circumstances. (Normally I check the block length when I assess an unblock request, and it was a mistake not to do so this time.) I decided to consult you, with a view to suggesting a shortening of the block. However, before doing so, I looked back at the discussions related to this issue, so that I would have a clearer view of the exact situation when I consulted you. I was astonished to see that you were one of the participants in the issue which led to the block, and indeed that you have a very extensive history of editing the article. Under the circumstances, you absolutely should not have been the one to place a block, as doing so was a clear violation of Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins, of Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Conflicts of interest, and of all generally understood standards: one does not act as judge and jury in a case to which one is a party. I looked again both at the history of the particular case and at the editor's history. There was absolutely no way that I could see an immediate block of a month as reasonable under the circumstances, which involved a tiny amount of edit warring. In view of the combination of the block being placed by an involved administrator and the grossly excessive length of the block, I have lifted the block. The editor was blocked for almost exactly two and a half days, which I regard as a much more appropriate length than a month. Next, I considered what to say to you about the matter. My inclination at first was to just post a message to you, pointing out that you should not have blocked an editor in a case in which you were involved. That would almost certainly have been what I would have done if the only issue had been the violation of WP:INVOLVED, but in view of the excessive length of the block as well, I thought I should check the relevant history further, to see if there was a need for further action. I found that you have recently blocked four editors for a month in connection with the same dispute in which you are involved. I also see that the appropriateness of at least one of those blocks has been questioned, and that the block length was reduced by another administrator, who made it quite clear in discussion that he thought the length had been inappropriate. You must therefore have been fully aware when you blocked Nado158 that the block was likely to be controversial.

I have thought very carefully about this. I have no doubt that you are acting in good faith, in an attempt to deal with problems with the editing of the article. However, an administrator who imposes multiple blocks in a case in which he or she is involved, rather than requesting a review by an independent administrator, is acting outside the accepted standards. If the blocks that administrator places are considered questionable by several editors, including at least one administrator, and if the blocking administrator continues to do the same after he or she has been made fully aware that the blocks are controversial, then that administrator has gone beyond the stage of needing to be gently told that he or she might reconsider. I have therefore blocked this account for three days, for abuse of administrative power. Note that this is about a tenth of the length of blocks you have placed for what seem to me to be far less serious offences. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

User:JamesBWatson, have you read the discussions at Talk:Vukovar, and have you seen what this "content dispute" is about? More specifically, have you seen exactly how inane it is? They're basically extending 2013 Anti-Cyrillic protests in Croatia onto this Wikipedia page, and edit warring for months over three words in the article lead that are almost irrelevant to the vast majority of English Wikipedia readers. This whole dispute is an egregious violation of WP:ARBMAC. I have not been the judge and the jury here; I've been the only administrator willing to enforce both that specific arbitration decision and the general edit warring policy over there, for many months now.

I have worked diligently to avoid picking any particular side in that content dispute, and have never used admin tools to favor a side of that dispute. One of the recent complaints was in fact about how I left the "wrong" version in while blocking the user who made that edit. That was exactly the kind of missing-the-point that I was after - people who may think that it's fine to block people who make "wrong" edits, yet bad to block people who make "good" edits. With that block I already succinctly demonstrated that by applying that block I wasn't so much after the content of the edits, but the act of edit warring.

Indeed, I have not blocked only Nado158, Sokac121, Timbouctou, IvanOS about this issue - in September 2013 I also blocked the users Serb1914 and IvanOS for the exact same issue. Despite the fact WP:ARBMAC has existed since 2007, and that these people have all been made aware of it, they have all simply failed to get the message: do not use Wikipedia to further outside political conflicts, and do not violate other rules in the process (such as the edit warring policy). Each and every single one of those users has consistently failed to heed those rules in this case, by spending more time on making contentious edits than on working on an actual consensus through polite discussion on talk.

Yes, they all complained about getting blocked, and two other people specifically complained about Timbouctou's block, because he's generally the best editor of the bunch - something that I actually concur with, but just like the others, he's aware of the edit warring policy and has been blocked under it before, three times, and he's once been blocked for a week regarding another policy. My one-month block was amended to two weeks with my implicit assent, but either way, an escalation from 4 <=1-week blocks to a 4-week or a 2-week block is a fairly normal escalation. (He's also spent some time on polite discussion on Talk, but when GregorB suggested a proper solution on 26 April, he did not implement it, he just kept reverting a contentious page revision back in.)

All in all, in all six cases of my blocking, several different other admins including yourself had the right judgement to tell all of those people to go read the fine policy again.

Nado158 was previously blocked and topic-banned from this very topic area after I asked other editors at WP:AE to consider his behavior. In that case, I specifically saw myself as potentially involved and so I requested that others analyze his behaviour. And so they did, and they found policy violations even more egregious than those that I had found!

It is without question that I have made numerous edits to the Vukovar article. Yet, I have not made a single edit that has been objected to by any of these five people, or others, in the context of this dispute or otherwise. (At least I'm not aware of any.) That nobody even tried to invoke something like that as my transgression should have been a good indication to you that while I may have violated the letter of WP:INVOLVED, at no point does this community think that I violated its spirit.

To put it another way, various people have during the course of this dispute said that I was being heavy-handed, arbitrary, unhelpful, etc, but they never said that I was in any way biased and the wrong person to be making these administrative actions. Hence, they all considered my involvement to have been in a purely administrative role.

Most recently, after these blocks, I've delved in further and started editing to try to move this issue away from being such a pissing contest, by implementing that solution GregorB asked about. I specifically asked other users on the Talk page I think a week in advance that someone else does it. Nobody did, so I jumped it. Had I blocked anyone from that point onwards, I would have been in a much more clear violation of WP:INVOLVED, because I specifically touched that thing that they were edit-warring about. But I didn't do that, nor would have I. In any event, nobody has really complained about that edit of mine since; GregorB corrected my phrasing with an update on the status of the issue, and I made another edit as a correction.

I figure you think that stopping me from doing this administrative work, because I've escalated these sanctions, will ultimately have the effect of me becoming less draconian, and will make this situation move towards the amicable resolution of these disputes because I won't be in the way - I'm afraid you are mistaken. If it wasn't for my actions here, this situation would have just been worse. It still would have dragged along for years, it would have spilled over to WP:ANI and similar forums, and more people would have gotten involved, and the outcome would have been the same - more pointless edit wars, blocks on policy-violating editors, etc.

So, please unblock me, because I was acting in the general best interest of Wikipedia, as opposed to any interest of my own. I hope I have demonstrated that I do not have any conflict of interest regarding this issue, nor do I have strong feelings about it (other than I feel strongly that we need to enforce Wikipedia policies), and I do not have any arbitrary conflicts with the blocked editors that would have made me the wrong person to apply the blocking policy.

If you need me to provide any diffs or links for anything that I've mentioned, just let me know. Thanks for your time, I realize this is another wall of text... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I do understand everything you say. My message above was rather long, and to prevent it from becoming even longer I did not mention everything I had seen that seemed relevant, but yes, I had looked at the discussion, and I made a deliberate point of acknowledging that you were acting in good faith, in an attempt to deal with problems with the editing of the article. However, after you have made these edits [1] [2] [3], to then block an editor for making these edits [4] [5] [6] [7] is indubitably to act as an administrator in a case where you are involved. I am aware of this edit, which fits in with your no doubt sincere view that you were not favouring one side or the other. However, the fact remains that you applied blocks against editors for repeated reverts in a dispute, in which you had repeatedly reverted in the other direction, and in which at the time of the blocks your editing of the article had been 100% support for one side of the dispute, whatever your intentions, and whatever the motivation behind that editing. No matter how sincerely you see your own editing as right and impartial, and no matter how sincerely you see your role as purely administrative, the fact remains that you were using your administrative powers in a way which protected the side you had taken part in in an edit war.

— JamesBWatson — continues after insertion below

The key point here that I have to raise here is that those three rollbacks were reverting anonymous edits with no edit summary and no attempt to communicate whatsoever other than to push this particular talking point. This was on 10 February, in April and in June last year. We have had a discussion at Talk:Vukovar about this issue since 9 February 2013. I actually participated in the discussion on the Talk page that very first day, and I clearly advocated an adherence to the basic tenets of Wikipedia policies. I asked several relevant, honest questions of the contributors who advocated an inclusion of those magic three words, and those questions weren't answered, so there can't have been any assumption of a consensus in favor of that position.

Those 1-3 people whose edits I have rolled back at those three points in time were not in any way legitimate parties to the discussion, and I don't think anyone would actually advocate that they were, other than in this kind of a context where I have come under extra scrutiny after all these blocks. These were one-time, drive-by, throwaway IP addresses used to make edits - they were simply WP:NOTHERE. Only a single one of them had a single Talk page edit, and in that one they posted a rant, so it's clear that they had an axe to grind. I have no doubt in my mind that the assumption of good faith was null and void in all three of those cases. Therefore, the rollbacks were made in a purely administrative capacity, and were not a sign of involvedness as such.

Putting that aside, I do agree that you can technically make a general argument of involvedness there - very broadly construed, I was involved there because I did talk about that thing that I later blocked people for. But that would be well above and beyond the usual standard of involvedness that I have witnessed in my last ten years here. I have not made those 6 blocks to "protect" the revision that one may claim I was "protecting" with those 3 rollbacks. I blocked IvanOSx2 and Sokac121 who were "protecting" that revision, and Serb1914, Timbouctou and Nado158 who were "protecting" the other revision. I had no real conflict of interest, and that is the cornerstone of the policy against involved administrators. It's possible for someone to claim that my actions demonstrated a conflict of interest, but I don't see how that claim would actually be valid. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That is not the way to deal with such problems. In such a case you should request an independent review by an uninvolved administrator, whether by going to AN/I or AN/EW or by contacting an individual administrator. There are other problems with what you have said above, such as the fact that your statement "various people have during the course of this dispute said that I was being heavy-handed, arbitrary, unhelpful, etc, but they never said that I was in any way biased and the wrong person to be making these administrative actions" (your emphasis) is factually incorrect. At Talk:Vukovar, Antidiskriminator asked you if you thought you were an involved administrator. You contemptuously dismissed the question without any attempt to address the editor's concerns.

— JamesBWatson — continues after insertion below

Antidiskriminator is an editor who has basically made it into a habit to taunt me over my editing and my use of admin powers, in that he makes various tendentious accusations of misconduct against me, and never follows up on them by actually asking someone to look into it - he just likes to groundlessly accuse me of being a villain (because I call out his policy violations). Please see e.g. User talk:Antidiskriminator/Archive 8. When you've been around for as long as I have been, and editing in a topic area that is rife with various people with axes to grind, there's going to be these kinds of problems. Not every complaint against something is legitimate, you can't take all of them at face value. Yes, it's true that I have been showing contempt towards these complaints as opposed to my usual level of level-headedness - that's specific to that particular user who treats me like crap. The same user has previously treated other users like crap to such an extent that he was topic-banned from a particular Balkan-related talk page at WP:AE. Their "questions" about my admin actions merely sound innocuous, but they're really not. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I reiterate that I have no doubt that you are acting in good faith, and I am sure that you sincerely see what you are doing as impartial administration, but you seem to me to fail to clearly see the nature of your own actions. The fact that you are convinced that what you were doing was right, and was in the best interests of the encyclopaedia, is completely missing the point: the point is that you were not the right person to make that judgement: you should have asked for an independent administrator to assess the case. If he or she agreed with you, then the same result would have been achieved, but with a more visibly impartial basis, while if he or she disagreed with you then an independent outsider's view of the matter would have stood a good chance of being the more impartial and balanced one. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I cannot argue with the fact that I should have asked for help, you are absolutely right about that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• I will ask another administrator to look at this case, and offer an independent opinion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Joy. JamesBWatson asked me to take a look at this block and the circumstances leading up to it. Having spent the last 20 minutes or so reading the background of the case, I now find myself too short of time to adequately explain my assessment, so I would recommend that you post an {{unblock}} template here in order to get another administrator's attention. For what it's worth, here's a hurried synopsis of my thoughts:

• Are you involved with the editors you blocked? You've definitely made edits to the article and comments on the talkpage in the past that would tend to indicate a preference for one side of the dispute.
• Were the blocks you made appropriate? As an uninvolved administrator, the actions I would have taken with regards to this article are fairly similar to your own. However, whilst your actions may have been appropriate, you were probably not the appropriate person to take them.
• Is blocking you the right response to this incident? Ultimately, administrators who make use of the tools whilst involved are as harmful to the encyclopedia as edit-warriors themselves. Blocking as a preventative measure - to stop further tool use - seems to me an unusual but not untoward response.
• If unblocked, what will you do differently? This one's the kicker - you've pretty much said, above, that you intend to continue acting in an administrative capacity with regards to the article. I for one would not be happy unblocking you at this point without some sort of alternative process being put in place, whether that be an agreement on your part to make reports when admin action needs to be taken or another administrator volunteering to monitor (but not edit) the article.

That's a very rushed and nuance-free abstract of my current position. I regret that I don't have time to post more fully. Regards, Yunshui ^雲_水 14:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Er, no, I actually said [8] that because I've most recently made specific edits in that specific content dispute area of the article, that I myself think that this has made me clearly involved, so I have already said that I would not continue acting in an administrative manner in that article... did you not see that, or do you somehow don't believe me, or do you think I don't actually understand that policy? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I misinterpreted what you'd said (it was the subsequent paragraph that gave me pause), and didn't understand it to be a statement that you wouldn't be using the tools with respect to this issue in the future. That's my error, and I apologise. If you aren't planning to use your admin tools on the article, then I see no reason to maintain this block, as it's not preventing anything anymore. Consequently I'm going to IAR and remove it. Pinging User:JamesBWatson to let him know. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I had been thinking of this again, and was seriously considering removing the block myself, not because I don't think the block was justified, but because it has probably served any purpose it may be going to serve, and nothing would be achieved by leaving it to run for its three days. I am therefore totally in agreement with Yunshui's decision. (In any case, even if I hadn't agreed, I would have accepted it: you don't ask a third party to adjudicate and then reject their decision because you don't agree with it.) Joy, to make sure there is no misunderstanding, I do not disagree with your view that the editors should be blocked: indeed, as you probably remember, my first contact with this case was assessing an unblock request from one of them, and I declined the request. However, I am still convinced that you should not have been the one to place the blocks: you should have asked for an impartial assessment from another administrator. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

No argument there, I could and should have done that, in retrospect. Ultimately, I felt I was being consistent and assumed that this was a sufficient measure of fairness; as usual, it's best not to assume.

I would have preferred if you hadn't added anything to my previously sparkling clean block log, when you could have just given me a final warning - had anyone told me they were honestly concerned that I was improperly involved in this case, I certainly would have ceased any further actions and started this kind of a discussion instead.

But I guess that's just nitpicking at this point, the block log can't be revised, right? If I have to have a block log for any reason, having it because I enforced policies overzealously is as good a consolation as any.

Thanks, to both of you. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad this has been resolved; Joy, I can only apologise again for misreading your earlier comments (had I not done so, I would probably have unblocked you yesterday afternoon). Yunshui ^雲_水 11:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

My queries about your Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions

Hello,

Your replies in the above section made me very concerned. I think you did not fully acknowledge the issues with your actions. I am particularly concerned because you complained (diff) because I expressed my concerns (proven to be justified) about your Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions. Instead to address my concerns per WP:ADMINACCT you accused me for making "tendentious accusations of misconduct" against you (diff). In the same section where your block was discussed. Now you wrote "had anyone told me they were honestly concerned that I was improperly involved in this case, I certainly would have ceased any further actions" (diff) and again directly dismissed my concerns (diff) about your involvement.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that in two discussions that involved me you referred to some people as "bastards" (diff) and "jerks" (diff). Will you please be so kind to respect Wikipedia:Civility policy? All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello. In your first edit after the unblock (diff) you:

1. tried to punish me for expressing my concerns about your Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions (proven to be justified).
2. violated WP:TALKNEW guideline which says: "Don't address other users in a heading: Headings invite all users to comment. Headings may be about specific edits but not specifically about the user. (Some exceptions are made at administrative noticeboards, where reporting problems by name is normal.)"
3. presented my, proven to be justified, concerns about your Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions as "taunting at Talk:Vukovar"
4. violated Wikipedia:Civility policy by referring to people as "jerks"
5. canvassed another editor (Peacemaker67)
6. tried to mislead administrator that you two are "two unrelated people from different continents" although you two frequently interact (link to result of your interaction analysis), very often at talkpages of articles I recently created to repeatedly confront or inhibit my work.
7. Instead to follow advice given to you by administrator (diff) and initiate WP:RM discussion at Talk:Đurđevdan uprising you decided to ask people "who read history books about WWII in Yugoslavia" if they "remember hearing" about this event(!?) which is disruptive Argument from ignorance

Many of other edits that followed are similar disruptive violations of wikipedia policies and guidelines. Take for example your comment where you referred to other people as "bastards" (diff).

Before all those recent disruptions of your I have already politely asked you to quit "with your hostile behavior, and try to AGF and work with your fellow editors" (diff), but you decided to continue with it.

I am afraid that my concerns regarding your replies during your unblock request were indeed justified. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

You promised that "you wouldn't be using the tools with respect to this issue in the future" and now you say (diff) that you actually acted "in an administrative manner" in with respect to Talk:Vukovar in your first edit after the unblock (diff) when you accused me for "taunting at Talk:Vukovar". I think that more you try to present your block as some kind of mistake the more you prove that it was actually the unblock which was mistake. Anyway, I think I gave fairly clear explanation about my position regarding your Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and I don't have anything to add to it now. You are, of course, free to disagree with me. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

"Another hodgepodge created by trawling Google search results"

Hello,

I noticed that you posted your comments on another article I recently created. It is Đurđevdan uprising. You accused (diff) me there for creating "another hodgepodge" by "trawling Google search results". That is not true. Most of the sources I used are actually completely available online. Take for example:

1. Petranović, Branko (1992). Srbija u drugom svetskom ratu: 1939-1945. Vojnoizdavaćki i Novinski Centar. p. 178. which is available online here (link)
2. Dodik, Petar (2011). Šušnjar 1941. : proceedings - papers, testemonies and documents. Opština Oštra Luka. p. 58. ISBN 978-99938-41-08-1. which is available online (link)
3. Lukač, Dušan (1967). Ustanak u Bosanskoj krajini. Vojnoizdavački Zavod. p. 60. which is available online (link)
4. etc.

The reference shows GB snippet because I use Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books recommended at WP:CITE to make references faster and easier. That is why your "another hodgepodge" by "trawling Google search results" accusation is unjustified. I would appreciate if you could take this in consideration in our future interactions. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Your email

For personal reasons that I won't bore you with, I quite often don't check my email for a day or two, with the result that I have only just read the email you sent me two days ago. I do see what you mean, but you did say "So, feel free to..." which could have been read as a go-ahead. Of course, the irony in the rest of the sentence is unmistakable, but I still think it would be perfectly possible to read it as saying "I have misgivings about this, but nevertheless I am willing to let you go ahead with it." If the administrator in question read it in that way, then there was no reason why he shouldn't just go ahead, and no reason why he should consult you any further. It is probably better to avoid irony when (a) communicating in a medium that doesn't convey tone of voice, facial expression, etc, and (b) communicating with someone you don't personally know, so there is a risk that he will not pick up your meaning. It is probably better to say exactly what you mean in the most straightforward way possible. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I believe I was understood, but because I (intentionally) didn't say it in a strict, definitive way, they chose the more lenient route. I'm not actually unhappy with that - I generally give people numerous chances, too, so it's not an illogical course of action IMO. But at some point, we will have to put our heads together, and finally call a spade a spade. Patterns that persist for years are never really undone. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, you are probably right. However, you did give the other person an easy opportunity to take it the "wrong" way if he chose to, which you might not have done. Also, it is possible that the other person just thought you were being sarcastic and uncooperative, and decided not to bother with you any more. Of course, all this is speculation, and neither you nor I can really know what he thought. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Overarching categories for Yugoslavia (WWII)

Appropo the categorization discussion, I've been thinking about the overarching categories for Yugoslavia and WWII, and think that Category:Yugoslavia in World War II should be the main category with Category:World War II in Yugoslavia as a sub-category for things that happened in the territory of Yugoslavia during WWII. Obviously things like the government-in-exile would stay in the parent category, but most articles would be in the child category. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Diviziski General

G'day Joy, thanks for the spelling correction on Armijski đeneral. Can you confirm the correct spelling of Diviziski đeneral? Is there a j missing there too? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Peacemaker67, the ⟨j⟩ before ⟨ski⟩ (for adjectives stemming from noun suffix ⟨-ija⟩) was introduced in the first common S-C 1964 Orthography revision or thereabout. According to then-actual orthography by Aleksandar Belić, it was not written. I'm inclined to keep those titles according to the old orthography (as đeneral is also archaic), but that's mostly a stylistic nitpick. Regards. No such user (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If Armijski and đeneral are inconsistent with each other, I'd rather change it back to Armiski. I remember having a (slightly) similar discussion nearly 20 years ago with an former Partisan in Mrkonjić Grad who had strong views about the spelling of policia/policija (or something, I was using an interpreter at the time). Let me know? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. (AFAIK policia spelling has never been correct, but who's to argue with former Partisans? ;) ) No such user (talk) 11:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

So, all in all, like I said, this is peculiar, and neither English nor Croatian readers will particularly care for it. Why not use a simple rank translation and move the exact foreign terms to footnotes? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Footnotes would be a good idea - I agree with Joy. bobrayner (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The reason why English translations wouldn't be a good idea is that Armijski đeneral literally translates as Army General, which would be a "four star" general, but the VKJ "armies" were really corps-sized (two or three divisions at most), and the rank (and command) is generally equivalent to a three-star (ie US LTG in WII). I've already had quite a bit of to-ing and fro-ing about this with one editor with a loose grip on WP:RS, and I don't want to encourage any more. I think I'll just stick to the archaic version and a footnote with the equivalent. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

That's why I said a simple translation, but not a literal one :) Just say something normal like Yugoslav general[note 1]. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Moving

Joy, I'm moving them incrementally, so as not to screw up the GA noms. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Croatian National Resistance may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''Croatian National Resistance''' ({{lang-hr|Hrvatski narodni odpor/otpor, HNO}}, also referred to as '''Otpor''', was a [[terrorist]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• the curtain. Barešić who has seen the chaos outside picked up a framed photo of Josip Broz Tito]] from the wall and threw it out, smashing it to the ground. They both heard the police moving in on

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Mention federal republic

Hello Joy. There has been a consensus at WP:FOOTY to add only city and country at infoboxes. You added an intermediate administrative unit. For me personally it is the same, I just follow consensus. Should we make a new discussion in order to see if intermediate administrative units should be included or not, or would you mind if I remove, as per previous consensus, the intermediate administrative unit you added in this edit? FkpCascais (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

PS: I really don´t mind if we agree to add the republics in between. Basically the opposiition that many users made was the lenght of SR Bosnia and Herzegovina which would make the display unesthetic, which per se is not a major argument. That is why 99% of footballers born in Yugoslavia have only city+Yugoslavi in infobx, and then the mention of the republic in the first line of the career section. FkpCascais (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, Joy, you always do good when i am in questions with other users. You are good editor, i will call you when i have problems with some strange persons. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 22:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Israel stamps

Thanks for the hard work on centralizing the Israeli stamp issue but keep in mind that there is one issue that was brought to my attention earlier - Iran is not part of the Arab League so it can't be stacked together with it but it also has the same policy on Israeli stamps.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Also we need to re-check the Arab_League_boycott_of_Israel#Passport_restrictions. Some of those countries changed their policy I think. The references are not properly done anyway.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Đurđevdan uprising II

Hello,

Will you please be so kind to remove unjustified tag (Template:Cleanup-articletitle) you added (diff) to the Đurđevdan uprising? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi.

• Is there any particular reason for such harsh comment you left on my talkpage?
• You misinterpreted a comment of another editor who did not state his opinion about the title but asked "Are there other alternative names that could be considered as a title or redirect?" There is a question mark at the end of this sentence.
• Will you please be so kind to remove unjustified tag (Template:Cleanup-articletitle) you added (diff) to the Đurđevdan uprising?

If you believe there is more appropriate title for this article please follow the instructions to initiate regular RM discussion ( given to you twice: diff and diff). Until your RM proposal gains consensus please be so kind to remove unjustified tag you added. All the best! --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize if I did not understand your comment. Will you please be so kind to explain if there is any particular reason for such harsh comment you left on my talkpage and what is it? Is there any particular reason for you to refuse to remove unjustified tag (Template:Cleanup-articletitle) you added (diff) to the Đurđevdan uprising and what is it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Well..

I hope you realize you've managed, through a convoluted series of events, to remove from Wikipedia a dedicated article on the NOB and the Partisan war. I can only guess at your motivation, but personally I'm not even sure that's what you want. Is that really what you were after? If so, for goodness sake man - why?? How does it make military history sense? -- Director (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Rakia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rakia 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/Rakia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Since you asked

[9] Paradoctor (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

e-mail

Hello. I prefer to talk about these things on wiki as opposed to e-mail.

The user has said that they recognize that it was an error and agrees to not continue such behavior. I made sure the user understood this prior to the block being removed. Given that this user has been on the wiki for a long time I think I can take their word.

I am sorry if you are insulted, they way you were spoken to was clearly innapropriate.

If there are any further examples of personal attacks from this user then I would think that a longer block would be appropriate. If there are no further examples then we can all just move on. Chillum 05:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Passport type

Have you maybe figured out the Timatic parameter for passport type? I think it would be useful for those articles where the editors insist on keeping the information on special and diplomatic passport information.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Well there always is a distinction, Governments differentiate between regulard (P) passports and diplomatic (PD) passports. As for the articles that really insist on it, for an example Visa requirements for Azerbaijani citizens or Visa requirements for Turkish citizens. I would say it really depends on how wide-spread these passports are in a certain country. In some countries only a few top officials are granted special passports while in some countries like Turkey they might be given to hundreds of thousands of public servants.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

The three edits that you're addressing were made before I read and understood Wiki's main policies, including means of creation of an article and handling of sources. And as you can see (if you care to spend the time) I've disputed the claim on the talk page ever since, and spent considerable time on explaining my points. I think you got a misunderstanding of the debate due to the last edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyBroole (talk • contribs) 23:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

First, as far as I know 3 edits made over a period of month that involve the removal (that is, not a contribution to the article) of a sentence and they're not acts of vandalism, aside from not improving the article, don't qualify for major rules infraction nor for sanctions. So, that said, and after acknowledging the said initial errors, I invite to participate in the discussion in a productive way and relevant to the subject, if you wish to do so of course. --JimmyBroole (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jovan Nenad may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '' ({{lang-sr-cyr|Јован Ненад}}), known as '''''the Black'''''{{Cref2|a|1}}; c. 1492 – 26 July 1527) was a [[Serbs|Serb]] military commander in the service of the [[Kingdom of Hungary]] who took
• ''Jovan the Black''' {{lang|sr|Јован Црни}}, [[French language|French translit.]] ''Iovan Tcherni'') or '''Emperor Jovan'''.}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

template:lang-de-AT

This template is used in only Austrian Empire. If you want this template useful, perhaps we should find Austria-related topics and then use this template. Like 100 pages or 200? --George Ho (talk) 08:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

If you don't respond within 24 hours after this message, I will revert it back to simple formatting that I made. --George Ho (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Ray Dassen

According to Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians#User:Ray_Dassen, there is not enough evidence that User:Ray Dassen was actually J.H.M. Dassen. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

final warning

I will ask you again..How is it sourced i don't get it?I can find multiple sources that says Boroevic was Croatian(As it is stated in Oigin section).Yes i know some sources says that he was a Serb and i don't deny that..But it is clear that some sources say he was Croatian..So how is it correct to put "Croatian Serb" when there are multiple sources say he was Croatian and he alone stated that he was Croat?What is a good source to you?I can find another source and put that source instead of this but i didn't. Scrosby85 (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you please answer my question?I don't want to repeat myself.I didn't touch anything in "Origin section" because there are claims about his Serbian and Croatian origin..I don't have a problem with that.I have a problem with "Croatian Serb" origin.I will ask you again how is it normal to put "Croatian Serb" when it is unclear whether he is of Croatian or Serbian ethnicity?And what makes credible source about his "Croatian Serb" origin when i can put the source from books which makes him just Croatian for instance? Scrosby85 (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Irony

See what happens when I try to be nice? :P No such user (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't intend it to be an alert, but more like a sour joke. No such user (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, slapping a template on one's talk page is proven to be an efficient way to de-escalate conflicts. (Here's something "cynical & witty" for you). No such user (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Freedom

Greetings! You asked for a draft of this proposed broad concept article, and Draft:Freedom here it is! Please feel free to improve in any way you can. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

re: battleground behavior

I accept your crtics, (critics which came by request of user who was involved in conflict). Generally, now I see that I've done some bad talk in discussion and later on talk page of the user I mentioned. I could have constested some parts of your alert-information such as attacking other users and giving comments on other contributor opinions.

For the sake of discussion I won't prolong this and I'll revise my talk in order to keep it neutral, mostly because in current form it can be seen as disturbing for some users.. Thanks for giving your opinion.--AirWolf ^talk 13:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Re:Talk page comments

Thanks for bringing the edit to my attention. I must have made the change to the image caption and neglected to mention it in the summary because I took it to be an uncontroversial change. I can understand any irritation, given that the incorrect fact went unnoticed for weeks due to my non-inclusion of it in the edit summary. So I apologise. I'm sure you appreciate that mistakes happen occasionally, even by relatively experienced users; this was pure sloppiness on my part! I will of course be double-checking my edit summaries in future. -- Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 15:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:SERBIANNAMES

Oppose - are we still having to suffer through these anti-diacritics crusades? In 2014? Seriously? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. It's just overspill from an editor who apparently disagrees with WP:Naming conventions (China). But it is a reminder that unlike WP:FRMOS WP:SERBIANNAMES etc. is still a draft never confirmed by RFC. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Croatian abuse of admin privileges

As an admin from Croatia, please refrain from your nationalistic bullying and leave your "policing" to the admins that do not have such blatant conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.221.171 (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC) c

Ambiguity is at the heart of literature (see William Empson's seminal work on this topic), but you have a little too much of it here; so much so that your meaning is not clear. Do you mean that you, 213.198.221.171, are an administrator from Croatia, and in that capacity, are making a request to Joy? Or do you mean that administrators from Croatia should refrain from nationalistic bullying, while administrators from other countries should not, and including Joy in the former category? Or do you mean something else? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI

A wonderful encyclopedia-building endeavor is happening over at Talk:Social Democratic Party of Croatia. True gems of philanthropic etiquette such as " I almost feel like telling you to "fuck off" just to fill the empty air" (almost but not quite, it seems) or "You can go and choke in your own hate, together with the illiterate president of your party" are not to be missed. YOLO! Timbouctou (talk) 01:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Madonna Talk

Dear Joy, I have initiated a new discussion on the Madonna Talk page. I need editors to weigh in and decide if Madonna's article should follow guidelines usually followed by articles on artists known mononymously. Some discussions tend to be overlooked; this is why I'm telling you about it. Thx! Israell (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Milan Bandić

Not surprisingly, there are repeated incidents of WP:BLP-violating IP vandalism directed at this article now, so you might want to see if semi-protection would be warranted. GregorB (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, could not remember where to go with the request. Wasn't that urgent and got handled anyway. GregorB (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Contact

Can you please contact me at tomogrigor@gmail.com? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrwilhelm (talk • contribs) 10:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Admin attention is needed

At Yugoslav First Basketball League. Also, User:Djidash is back. Thanks. Timbouctou (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

An admin eye is needed

At Talk:Magnum Crimen and Talk:Air transport in Yugoslavia. Cheers! Timbouctou (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: complaints

You left a message on my user page in which you wrote, "First and foremost, I noticed that you failed to assume good faith in several of these interactions with other users. This has compounded all other apparent errors.". I do not understand which way I failed to assume good faith and what are the "interactions" and "all other apparent errors"?

Please, clarify and substantiate these accusations.--Milos zankov (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Magnum Crimen, again

Hi Joy. User:Milos zankov seems to be engaged in edit-warring on Magnum Crimen. The editor insists on keeping verbatim text as published on http://magnumcrimen.org/, a website that seems to have been set up in order to promote the English language edition of the book, which in turn has hyperlinks pointing to English Wikipedia. He claims that the entire text over there is a quote (which is nowhere stated and is not attributed to anyone on the actual website) which, in his opinion, prevents it from being paraphrased. His position amounts to interpreting plagiarism as a valid article editing method. Now, it may be that magnumcrimen.org had copied the text first from Wikipedia, since it seems that the summary and other sections of our article had been added years ago by another editor who has since been blocked (and the content had not been attributed to any credible source back then either). However, the website says at the bottom that its entire content is copyrighted to "Magnum Crimen, 2015". This is of course just one of the numerous issues the article had and continues to have, but attempts to discuss this on article's talk page have produced very little headway. After one editor already gave up from having anything to do with it, Milos_zankov continued to display a fair amount of ignorance as to the way discussions are led on Wikipedia, so he edits and re-edits his own past comments and feels free to move around other editors' comments as he sees fit. The only way to solve the issues with the article is to discuss them point by point, but this seems to be impossible, as Milos_zankov simply keeps reverting to the version lifted verbatim from the website, with the usual lack of assumption of good faith on the part of pretty much everyone else involved. So is this a case of WP:PLAGIARISM, WP:COPYOTHERS, WP:AGF, WP:OWN, WP:DISRUPT, WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:NOTMIRROR all rolled into one, plus possibly WP:CONFLICT since I think we can safely assume that the editor, who btw registered an account as recently as December 2014, is here mainly to censor edits to specific Wikipedia articles because they are hyperlinked from the website used to promote the book. The fact that the book itself is somewhat controversial and has a reputation of being closely connected to groups known for having axes to grind certainly doesn't help the situation. Timbouctou (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Support, oppose or other?

Hi Joy, Thank you for weighing in at Talk:Most religious US states#Requested move 26 January 2015. While the tenor of your comment suggests that you support a change of title, you didn't write "Support" or "Oppose". Note that Religion in the United States is taken. Adding "...by state" might suggest describing the mix of religions in each, rather than the degree of religiosity that the article seems to be about. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 00:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Blieberg

Hi Joy, I have put an explanation of my edit on the talk page. All things considered I have reinstated the changes I made with some slight improvements. Do feel free to revert and discuss if you think it appropriate, or simply discuss, or do nothing... Note that another editor has suggested that these events are not relevant to the Blieberg page at all.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC).

AfD request to fix consensus reading

Hi there. With regard to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Split, how did you come to the conclusion that merge is the consensus option? It's certain that some number of people suggested that option, but other people said explicitly that a merge is not the most appropriate course of action, which went unopposed. In general, there was very little elaboration of what exactly is the standard of notability that we're talking about here, mostly just statements (not a dialogue). A simple head count wasn't quite conclusive - 1 delete because of copyvio, 3 deletes because of notability, 3 merges because of notability, 2 keeps because of notability, 1 keep because of a bad merge target, 2 general keeps. I don't see that any consensus arose in that discussion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hi there. Deletion discussions, which are not judged on headcount, can end in one of two broad results, which are delete or not-delete. The variations on not-delete, including merge, redirect, etc., are not especially important and it is within the gift of users to discuss them further via normal consensus-building such as on the talk page. Additionally, I gave less weight to new users with no other contributions. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I would generally agree with your premise, but I think it would be important to avoid the impression that anyone is preventing the implementation of a consensus decision. Either we actually have consensus or we do not - that is as much a binary choice as delete or not-delete. The way this is phrased now and the way the subsequent templates are phrased, it would appear rather inappropriate if we were to rely on further talk page discussion. It's not a topic of high interest and I doubt that a talk page discussion would gather more than a dozen participants, meaning it would be easy to say that the spirit of that discussion is contrary to AfD rules. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I've posted a further note on the AFD page to state that further discussion or application of WP:BB may result in the article remaining separate and that the AFD outcome should not be deemed to be a bar to either. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a drive by acknowledgment...

Great image on your user page. My 90 yr. old mother, and 92 yr. old father (both of whom drive themselves to work 5 days/wk) will wholeheartedly endorse that sentiment. As we've heard, you are what you eat. It's shameful that big pharma doesn't agree, but more people are beginning to understand why. Atsme☯^Consult 16:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

File name

Hi Joy, I have noticed something [10] about a file name [11] which doesn't reflect the description on source page [12]. I don't know what was written at the source page back in 2007 when it was added but now it is different than the file name as the name Srbosjek is not used there to name the knife. Should it be changed to reflect the description on source's webpage?--Rovoobo Talk 10:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, redirected article has been restored [13] by user Wangleetodd, [14]--Rovoobo Talk 12:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Joy, have you had time to look into the up noticed file name and those changes made by the above user?--Rovoobo Talk 07:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)