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)

Notability questionEdit

Hey Joy. Long time no Wikipedia interaction! I was just trying to assess the notability of Zehra Bajraktarević and thought of you as someone who might be able to help assess the local-language sources. Would you be able to give me your view on whether she meets WP:GNG when you get a chance? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi there :) I googled her, looks like a minor singer, but I couldn't find a single e.g. interview in a notable paper or something like that. I tagged the article because I couldn't confirm it meets WP:SINGER. If nobody provides some actual encyclopedic references, it looks like a candidate for deletion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

https://expresstabloid.ba/izdvojeno/180682/mujo-isanovic-da-sam-bio-zaljubljen-u-zehru-bajraktarevic-ozenio-bih-je/

https://www.ekskluziva.ba/zehra-bajraktarevic-priredila-sjajan-dernek-u-deluxu/281912

https://www.ekskluziva.ba/zehra-bajraktarevic-se-vraca-na-velika-vrata/107668 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvrtko Kotromanic (talkcontribs) 18:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Tvrtko Kotromanic: Thanks for the links, but they seem to be fairly trivial mentions. Please review the WP:SIGCOV policy to understand better what we mean. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Joy. I'll consider what's best to do in light of this. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

"Communications in Serbia and Montenegro" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Communications in Serbia and Montenegro. Since you had some involvement with the Communications in Serbia and Montenegro redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

RequestEdit

I request your opinion in Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito#Reliable_sources_and_unreliable_sources. Regards--Forza bruta (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

You've got mailEdit

 
Hello, Joy. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Forza bruta (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 20Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Lubomir (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Luba and Borek
Lyubov (name) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ljuba
Vitomir (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Miro

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ANI threadEdit

Hi. The reality is that probably almost all of the really active discretionary sanctions out there are unlikely to find much traction at AN or ANI (with the possible exception of American politics). Those threads often get very busy very fast, but overwhelmingly with those participants already-involved. The pace with which walls of text follow and general chaos ensues soon renders much of the discussion effectively inaccessible to anybody else. Unproductive discourse that leads to needless escalations. That is why WP:AE is better. There's a word limit; there is an expectation that an evidentiary basis is to be provided in the form of diffs (at least from the complainant); it's sectioned. Just, overall, more orderly and therefore probably best for everyone. Regards, El_C 04:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Listen, Joy, I don't want to give you too hard a time about it, but breaking an existing comment into fragments and inserting your own responses in between is not an appropriate way to communicate on the project. I'm actually a bit surprised that I even need to explain that to someone with advanced permissions. Anyway, very briefly, I encourage you to work toward finding whatever "middle ground" or less "bureaucratic" way that you think makes sense in addressing these problems. By all means, please feel free to do so. I'd still reiterate, however, that while the sort of diff-less ANI post you made might be the easiest route, it is also the most problematic and least likely to bring about a positive outcome. Best, El_C 23:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I am vaguely aware that some people considered that annoying, although I wasn't aware anyone actually thought it was inappropriate per se. I didn't expect you would mind because you already nicely formatted your statement into paragraphs, so I simply replied to each coherent thought with another coherent thought, just like we would do so in email (not top-posted, but inline). Obviously you're the owner of your Talk page and I'll go reformat as it seems to bother you. In general, thanks for the chat. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
No, it's not just "annoying," it's pretty much prohibited. WP:TPO is rather clear on the matter: Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points. This confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent. Simply put, it isn't up to the responding editor to edit another editor's comment, including breaking it up into fragments. So, please do not make it a habit. Thanks again. El_C 17:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a relatively recent development, I found it started with this edit in 2015, which came out of Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines/Archive 11#Posting within another editor's post, and even there people already indicated that this was normal in email and interleaving wasn't all bad-faith. I'm guessing someone abused it and there was a backlash, one of those "this is why we can't have nice things" situations... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, if we view half a decade as being "relatively recent"... Regardless, my own recollection (which, granted, may be off) is that this has pretty much has always been the prevailing practice, irrespective of when it was finally codified into the guidelines. Of course, email communication is different since each email sent constitutes its own distinct message (timestamp and all); but also, email formatting isn't really subject to project-wide policy (though maybe on mailing lists...?). El_C 18:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
My perspective is slanted, I've been here since 2003 :) It's peculiar to me because, despite the fact top-posting in email is prevalent these days, if you actually do interleave in a reply to a long email today, it's unlikely to produce a complaint (at least I've never seen one). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, I've been here since 2004 (becoming an admin in 2005) myself, so who knows. But I wouldn't really trust my own memory in this regard, to be honest. It's more of a general impression. El_C 18:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4Edit

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

Ljudevit (Lower Pannonia)
added a link pointing to Pannonian Croatia
Ratimir, Duke of Lower Pannonia
added a link pointing to Pannonian Croatia

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

History of CroatiaEdit

Hi! I see that you have edited this page before, and that you are a member WikiProject Croatia. Well, there are a lot of changes from Cemsentin1 who says that there was some "Ottoman Croatia" at that time. As far as I know from history, there is no such name, because the Croats were not vassals of the Ottoman Empire, but fought against that Ottoman Empire.No one Croatian ruler accepted Ottoman rule to call it "Ottoman Croatia". So check it out. These are changes [[1]]Thank you93.136.36.165 (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheldoniumEdit

Hi. I didn't want to clutter up the SPI with a side conversation, so responding here. We seem to have gotten off on a tangent that I didn't expect. I apply a very conservative interpretation of WP:INVOLVED to my own administrative actions: I'll generally not close any discussion I've started. I recognize that there's a range of legitimate interpretations to INVOLVED, and don't expect everybody to adopt my personal strict interpretation of it.

The short version is, I'm neither sure enough of socking to block, nor sure enough of not socking to close the case. Given that, I left it for somebody else to pick up, and I have no objection to you being that person. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1Edit

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Administrative divisions of the Banovina of Croatia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jovanovac.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

HelloEdit

Hello, see these changes from this user [[2]] who writes without a source on this page and no one deletes that [[3]] it must be a suckpuppet [[4]][[5]].89.172.58.27 (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

No worriesEdit

I was able to find someone to translate the book pages. Cheers OyMosby (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

SorryEdit

Sorry for ping because my answer is copy&paste from WP:AE to remain recorded. Unfortunately I have come here to improve wikipedia with what I know(also spending my free and not free time and money), and not to improve wikipedia with what I don’t know, so I don’t see the logic of editing in some other area of interest, and this is my end. We know what volunteer administrators initially decided when I was reported by editor Sadko. They decided in that way because they didn't even check that report. But I understand that because they are volunteers who have a private life, job etc, and they probably don't have the time or the will to read the whole report although this is theirs "area of interest". But I can contribute to a better wikipedia in what I know and in my "area of interest" in which I am concentrated to articles and in which I can make a quality contribution. If I were an administrator, I would read and check every report from beginning to end just like I edited articles as an editor(that's my way of working). I don’t know if I can answer here, probably not so you can delete my answer. Once again my apologies to you and others. Mikola22 (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27Edit

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello JoyEdit

Here they want to put Bosnia and Herzegovina and other things that have never been Serbian countries, please pay attention to this page and further possible edits [[6]]. Thank you.89.172.66.209 (talk) 05:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)