User talk:GregorB/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Thank you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey dude

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

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

+1 and Thank you

– SJ + 21:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Invitation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barnstar template

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

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

Miyazawa Sae

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

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

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

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

JK discussion

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

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

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

Re: Dugi otok

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

Leftist errors

Hi,

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

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

Curiosity

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some baklava for you!

ona prava bosanska baklava :D :D WikiLite91 (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Croatia-Serbia border dispute

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

Re: Improper or not?

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

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

Whats new

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

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

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 in Croatia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mirko Kovač (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

WP Croatia Conversation-Minority Languages

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

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

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

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)

User talk:Timbouctou

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

Orphaned non-free image File:Sanja RTL Televizija.jpg

⚠

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

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

DYKs

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

Category:Specific-source templates by country

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

DYK for Savo Zlatić

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

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Great job promoting Savo Zlatić to the Main Page. The hook you proposed was great. Keep up the good work! ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 03:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

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

I liked your comments on the Shiatsu article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nomination of Nenad Bach for deletion

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

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

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

Talk:Sportsperson#Requested_move

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

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

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

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

Paškal Jukić

Hi GregorB.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Milan Bandić

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

Contact

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

DYK for Il Regio Dalmata – Kraglski Dalmatin

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

Nomination for deletion of Template:Croatia Yearbook 2011

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

Disambiguation link notification for November 18

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

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

Agh

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

Sigma II-65 war game

Hello,

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

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

---

Hi,

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

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

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

DYK for The Living Truth

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

Merry Merry

To you and yours

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

A barnstar for you

		The Editor's Barnstar
		In appreciation for your contribution to the George Kline article LoveMonkey 17:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey dude

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