User talk:Santasa99/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

sorry for the delay

Just saw this. If you ever are feeling a bit nervous about bringing a concern to XRV or another noticeboard, ping here or go to the user talk of any admin/other experienced user you are friendly with and ask for a reality check. Most editors experienced at noticeboards will be happy to take a look. Alternatively, ask at WP:Teahouse, it's not just for beginners but also for anyone who is doing something they haven't done before. Best to you, Valereee (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee I don't mind a delay a one bit because these are very useful suggestions, so I really appreciate it. (Yes, it is a matter of anxiety, raising a tension, especially for less noticeboard-experianced editor. I had a situation which I am trying to bury but it surfaces from time to time in my mind since I am quite convinced it was a foul-play.) Anyway, thank you for these suggestions. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Bosnia in the Middle Ages

Hello, Santasa99. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Bosnia in the Middle Ages".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Liz, I really appreciate it (I was unaware that this was a Template, but now I remember... .- ) ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: .  Aoidh (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The page protection was an attempt to resolve the edit warring in lieu of blocking, since there has been no discussion. Instead of discussion both you (here and here) and the IP (here) have complained about the page protection as being an inadequate way of resolving the dispute and have demonstrated no attempt to discuss the content itself. Because neither of you have made an attempt to discuss the content on the talk page I have blocked you both for edit warring. You have been blocked for one week given your block log and history of edit warring. - Aoidh (talk) 04:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Are you serious? On what ground have you issue this block, for not being willing to discuss on TP with some other editor, is that your rational? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 06:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Because you were engaged in edit warring on both Dračevica (župa) and Ljubuški Fortress. Even if your view that this, for example does not meet WP:DUE, there are few exceptions to what is considered edit warring and reverting because you feel that the elaboration on the individual is WP:UNDUE is not one of those exceptions and is still edit warring. It is correct to say that neither of you violated 3RR on either of those articles, but you very specifically stopped at 3 reverts, just short of 3RR, and the policy on edit warring notes that The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.WP:3RR further elaborates that Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. This edit warring is only exacerbated by the fact that at no point did you make any attempt to discuss the content on either article talk page or at the IP's talk page. In your ANEW report, ignoring the fact that the IP was neither warned of edit warring beforehand nor apparently notified of the ANEW report, there is a spot in the report where you should provide a Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page which you did not provide because no such attempt was made. When filling out a new ANEW report there is a comment on that same line that says You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too. I have tried to be as detailed as possible in explaining this and I hope that answers your question. - Aoidh (talk) 07:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

This is utterly arbitrary, and you didn't answer much, you did reiterate many familiar quotes though. From the start you started shifting the burden of this whole problem (discussion or not) and blame at me. I contested IP's edits on both articles as unconstructive (but ultimately nationalistic nonsense) and reverted their contribution on the pretext of several violations, which I mentioned many times in interaction with IP and you (WP:Consensus policy, WP:EGG, UNDUE, content forking) not to mention bold-revert-discuss and the fact that discussion, after being contested and reverted, falls at IP to engage in and explain their stance - I made my stance initially clear at the very beginning in the edit-summaries; I tried to get Semi protection but that was denied; then, I tried to show that IP is edit-warring in prolonged manner - you protected one page with satisfactory Semi, but you left out other page; I asked you to act on the other page and you applied full protection on the pretense that I may disrupt the page, there is no reason to believe that IP would go on and revert themselves, IP already had its way and they had no reason to do anything further; I complained against Full protection knowing that any uninvolved third party would fix the problem just like happened at the first page, and you came with this mindboggling solution to preemptively block me if you are to remove Full protection. Sorry, that doesn't make any sense. Instead of protecting viable contribution to those articles, by senior experienced editor with rather decent history, you started shifting the burden of this whole problem (and blame) at me. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that it was arbitrary, but I assure you it was not. You were edit warring, and have been blocked for edit warring, since both you and the other party have made quite an extensive list of reasons why protecting the pages was inadequate. Given that page protection was done in lieu of blocking the editors involved in edit warring, I addressed both of your concerns and removed those protections and applied the blocks instead so that other editors may edit the article, which as you mention above was a concern of yours. Being a senior experienced editor does not mean you will not be blocked for edit warring when making the same amount of reverts at the same pace as the IP that you describe as edit warring (I expected sanctions against IP's prolonged edit-warring); if they are edit warring, how are you with the same amount of reverts not? Believing that you are enforcing policy (the MOS is not policy) or that you are the one in the right does not exempt your reverts. As a senior experienced editor in a collaborative editing environment you should explain why you're making the reverts that you are. How is this IP supposed to follow WP:BRD if they don't know about it? I don't see so much as an edit summary that links to that, so why would they reasonably know about it? Likewise you reported them for edit warring without warning them beforehand that they were. I also am not sure what part of Wikipedia:Consensus you believe warrants your comment in your unblock request that I don't need to discuss anything. - Aoidh (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't need to discuss anything with anyone in context of this Ljubuški Fortress TP thing, I just need to restrain form rv and not engage in inappropriate manner, that's what it meant it, although you know that I will just clear the air, to on the safe side, since that may be needed. I do discuss almost reflexively my every edit even when I deem it not to be potentially controversial - is this now more conspicuous formula. I am not concerned that much with your actions on my report, certainly not after your reversal in decision to protect the pages, I am concerned with these new moves which to me appear to be retaliatory for all the comments and complaining's we both, IP and I, made - although I couldn't care less about interaction that you had with IP - I am concerned that you have suddenly came up with an idea, you chose, to sort of teach me (and IP) a lesson, more me than IP, after all I am senior editor and IP has a few dozen edits in his history (although I suspect block evasion) - we didn't like your first wave of sanctions, ie. page protections, we complained a lot, commented a lot, and now you are going to remove page protection and remove us instead from the project. That's my main concern. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I can understand your concerns, but as I said the protection was in lieu of blocks, and since both you and the IP have made many points as to why protection is not the correct route (not least of all because both of you felt very strongly that the "wrong versions" were protected) and that protecting the pages prevents others from editing, I addressed those concerns by removing the page protections and then addressed the edit warring by replacing the substitutive method (protection, which neither of you wanted) with the typical method of blocking the editors that were edit warring. It was neither arbitrary nor retaliatory (why would blocking you prevent further comments? This discussion demonstrates that wouldn't prevent such a thing). Page protection was the alternative to blocking so that the content could be discussed, and since neither of you made any indication that you intended to discuss and both raised several points on why protection was not the ideal way to handle it, those concerns were accommodated by removing the protection, but the edit warring still needed to stop, hence the blocks, and as your unblock request below demonstrates you do not give any indication that you intend to stop reverting or to discuss the content. - Aoidh (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I did not said nor felt "wrong version" is a thing, I said that you should have blocked IP and rollback to a given diff. per Report while the report was still relevant - I am well-aware of the "wrong version" fallacy and I don't use it, but I am aware of its consequences too - this block affect me immeasurably more than it affects IP, not only because of commitment to the project but also because IP does not need to rv following your actions, which has certain repercussions on certain other arguments. How can you change your decision like this without determined guideline-based parameters, it can't be based on "in lieu of blocks" because that happened earlier and behind that rational is the "first" decision to Full protect, I am certain no guideline gives admin a carte blanche to make such an ambiguous undetermined decision so that they can arbitrarily at any given time change its outcome (to block) whenever they want - no way that you could change your mind and block editors without any further wrongdoings on their part, let alone without some extreme new evidence or really obvious new violation or missed one in earlier reading - in which guideline is such a modus operandi grounded. Just because you at first decided to use a page protection as "the alternative to blocking so that the content could be discussed" does not mean you can change it to block at any given time just because "neither of you made any indication that you intended to discuss". We literally did not do anything, except innocuously complained in few additional comments - innocuous complaining is not a reason to block editors, not even if they really went on your nerves and/or pissed you off. How is even possible, on which parameters is based, that you simply decided that Full protection is no longer good "alternative" and now is the moment to change it to block instead. I suggested in my comments that you, ultimately, made a wrong decision to Full protect page and that such a decision will impair third parties in attempt to correct the problem - not for the moment could I imagine and predict that you will use my reasoning to block me instead. Maybe you are unable to admit that maybe you have made a mistake in the first place by Full protecting the page, when Semi protection and a firm warning to editors to restrain from edit-warring would absolutely suffice and would do much better job, even under the assumption that I may behave unethically still, because it would be easy to block whoever chose to turn blind eye on such a warning. All this fuss and time wasting would be avoided. Instead, you think it's much more useful to change your mind about your action, belatedly, without foundation in any guideline, and without any further wrongdoings on editor's part, to antagonise senior editor in decent standing by blocking them, and so on. You really don't see any problem with your actions in the last two days?

I feel compelled to return to your interesting observation: "(I expected sanctions against IP's prolonged edit-warring); if they are edit warring, how are you with the same amount of reverts not? ", either later or in some other appropriate venue. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

My explanation above already addresses your comments here but I did want to acknowledge that I have read them but at this point I would only be repeating myself. - Aoidh (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I have to thank you for the acknowledgement, but I just don't see where you addressed my main concern about the decision to change things on the fly without the editor(s) giving you any reason for that, other than making innocuous complaints - no one has yet been blocked for making such complaints. I did not want to open any discussion with IP who clearly expressed at your user TP willingness to go against two different editors' reverts all the while disregarding your explanation that they should discussed it first, and what's not. But, when i say that I did not want to engage in discussion with such an editor, that is it, there is no edit-warrior hiding in an ambush, waiting to make a further disruption - you took my remark out of context and drew conclusions based on subjective assumptions. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

change things on the fly without the editor(s) giving you any reason for that is not accurate as explained. - Aoidh (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean? How is not accurately presented? Haven't you decided to Full protect page - I even made edit-request, and we even continued to exchange a few comments. And then, suddenly you decide it is time to put me to my place, sort of speak, and show me what it means to remove Full protection over which I complained in my comment. This happened hours after your initial decision. And what have I done to force you to change your mind in the fly? Well, I complained in my comment - was I annoying that much, or showed how unethical I could be if you let me of the hook, I don't know. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

There is one sentence that stands out though: belatedly it was in response to the points raised by both of you that there were issues with protection and was an attempt to address those concerns while still preventing further edit warring. without foundation in any guideline WP:EW is policy. and without any further wrongdoings on editor's part if the protection was removed (per the request of both of you) the edit warring still needed to be prevented, and both of you showed no sign that the edit warring would cease. Therefore the application of the blocks was dealing with the original problem which you reported, that now needed to be readdressed, further wrongdoing wasn't the issue, it was that the original edit warring needed to be addressed still. to antagonise not to antagonize but stop the disruption caused by edit warring. senior editor in decent standing by blocking them I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but editors should not get special treatment just because of their number of edits. Also regarding a firm warning to editors to restrain from edit-warring would absolutely suffice, given that you've been blocked twice within in the last year for edit warring, there's evidence that such a warning wouldn't absolutely suffice. - Aoidh (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi protection and firm warning would be more than enough to regulate that page - you chose another way and that's OK. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I was sort of told many times over how this "you have been blocked twice within a year" so you are unreliable editor can't be used against you in specific circumstances, but here we are. First block was removed on appeal with some compelling evidence of tag-teaming of now t-banned editor, and the second was pretty much my failure but it's still the one that makes me confused about this mechanism the most - it's simply too contradictory regarding how admins act upon these 3RR reports, that I find it mind boggling. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you find contradictory, that you were blocked for edit warring despite not going over 3RR? - Aoidh (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I said that second block you mentioned, one prior to this, is contradictory, but yes, it is contradictory in relation to this one. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

That block was for making more than 3 reverts and looks to be fairly straightforward. This block was for edit warring without going over 3RR, which is not contradictory because your ANEW report was against the IP who similarly was edit warring without going over 3RR, and you made a point in your original unblock request below that you expected the IP to be sanctioned for this, so given that you were blocked for the same type of edit warring that you not only understood but expected sanctions for, I don't see anything contradictory. You were edit warring, and were blocked for edit warring when both you and the IP pointed out the issues with page protection, so the edit warring needed to be addressed. To be clear, I have no problem unblocking you and would do so right away if you can commit to not edit warring on either article without a consensus on the talk page, because I would be happy to unblock you with reasonable assurance that edit warring will not continue and that you will try to get a consensus for the material. If you'd rather have another admin review your unblock request below I would respectfully point you to WP:NOTTHEM and suggest you tweak your unblock request with that in mind. - Aoidh (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I made four reverts, only, reporting editor made five consecutive reverts and made some unacceptable remarks in their report, and still went on their way, I got 60 hours. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean other reviewer? Isn't it always other admin who does these reviews? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

If I unblock you no further review is needed (the blocking admin can reivew an unblock request and approve it, but they cannot not deny it). I am fine with either way, but if I'm unblocking you, what I'm asking is that you make an effort to get a consensus for the material if you're going to make efforts to retain that preferred version, to prevent edit warring and back-and-forth with another editor, that way you can point at the consensus and then it would be the editor edit warring against consensus. You also don't have to discuss anything if you're not going to revert that material, you're correct about that. If you can commit to either trying to obtain a consensus or to refrain from reverting I will be happy to unblock you because the blocks are not punishments, they're meant to prevent further edit warring and if there's a reasonable assurance that edit warring will not continue then there's no need for the block to remain. I'm leaving my home soon for a few hours but I did want to stick around to see if that was the route you wanted to take or if you wanted another admin to review your request below so that I could unblock you if needed, but once I leave the house I'll be away for a few hours. Can you commit to that? - Aoidh (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I did not intend to make any further reverts anyway - I did tried to utilize Edit-Request, which is pretty much inclusive process, but after your initial decision to Full protect page I never intended to do anything on my own, even though I did not like Full protection. That edit made by IP is so baseless that the first interested third-party editor will remove it anyway. I may continue to edit that article, at some points, after all I created it entirely. But I am not sure are you saying that I remove this appeal request or do something else? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't remove it yet. If you can commit to either trying to obtain a consensus or to refrain from reverting regarding that disputed topic on those two articles I will unblock you, which would mean the appeal request wouldn't be needed. Can you commit to doing that? I do want to clarify that I'm only talking about that specific disputed content, I'm not asking you to stay away from those articles or anything like that, only to discuss when it's known there's a dispute, and regarding the unblock I'm specifically talking about this disputed content. - Aoidh (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course, ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done - Aoidh (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, it was a long exhausting day. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Santasa99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello, I would like to appeal my block for being applied on the pretense that I may be engaging in edit-war in the future.Here's sequence of events: It started with my report against IP's prolonged tendency to edit-war over policy issue here The perceived violation concerned two pages Dračevica (župa) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Ljubuški Fortress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Prior to reporting IP for 3RR violation I requested page protection against unregistered users, but request was denied, and only then I decided to make a report at AN 3RR board. Needless to say, I expected sanctions against IP's prolonged edit-warring over their undiscussed inserting of a wiki-link without achieving prior consensus, but administrator now decided to Semi protect only one page but did nothing on problems at the other. I pointed that to admin and they decided to Full protect the other page, Ljubuški Fortres. I complained and commented on their decision saying that Full protection is making third parties editing and potentially fixing the problem much more demanding, and simultaneously made an edit-request at Ljubuški Fortres TP, after which they made a suggestive comment to concerned reviewer and made, what to me appeared as a strange, a request that issue be discuss with IP on TP or be blocked for edit-warring. I don't need to discuss anything, I just need to comply with the recent consequences of my report, even if complaining in the process and "kicking and screaming", ie. I only need to restrain from further rv and not to disrupt the article, even if I don't agree with that report resulting decision - I don't have to discuss anything with anyone on demand, or what if there is nothing to discuss, what if problem was not content but disregard of policies. However, I did discuss my points in my edit-request and additional comments, which it appears from this didn't go well with an admin. But now, it appears that my "kicking and screaming", my complaining, is most likely used as a pretext for this sort of preventive block which is issued half a day later with an explanation that since I am not satisfied with Full protection I am going to be blocked. What an alternative and Solomonic solution; I thought we pick up sanctions after we make violations of our policies and guidelines, not prior. And as an endnote, I find threatening and depresive when mechanism such as this is applied so arbitrarily that admins often contradict themselves, applying it without firm and consistent criterion. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The reported violation concernes two pages:
Dračevica (župa) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Ljubuški Fortress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I felt this appeal had to be rewritten so here it is: this appeal concerns my block that was imposed on the pretense that I may engage in edit-war in the future. Admin responded to my report against IP's edit-warring over my revert on their inclusion of WP:EGG wikilink without obtaining prior consensus or even commencing discussion (disregarding WP:Consensus policy) - IP was so adamant in having its way and showed no intention to cease and desist even after the report produced Semi protection on Dračevica page and third-party editor made a same revert on their edit as I did. 3RR, produced Semi protection on Dračevica and only after my additional intervention the second, Ljubuški Fortress, was Full protected. I expected sanctions, at least firm warning, against IP, but admin decided to Semi protect one page and later Full protected the other, Ljubuški Fortress. However, I complained and commented on their decision by saying that Full protection puts third-party editors, who would potentially fix the problem, in demanding position - I simultaneously made an edit-request at Ljubuški Fortres TP, after which admin made a comment to concerned reviewer and suggested to me that my edit-request is insufficient without discussion, that I should discuss issue with IP on TP or get blocked for edit-warring. Here I said something in scratched appeal txt, and I will repeat again just to make it clearer -above I said, "I don't need to discuss anything, I just need to comply with the recent consequences of my report, even if I don't agree with it and complain about it while "kicking and screaming", ie. I only need to restrain from further rv and not to disrupt the article", end of story - this "I don't have to discuss anything with anyone on demand" bit was cherry-picked and taken out of this context and used later as a part of a justification (I suppose it was understood that I am just waiting to strat edit-warring) for something admin unexpectedly did, that is, they change their mind regarding decision to protect articles and replaced it with a block for editors instead. The main concern is: how can admin change their decision like that, without determined guideline-based parameters. They posted this, and in above discussion suggested it's based on their statement that they decided to protect pages "in lieu of blocks", but that happened earlier and behind that rational is the "first" decision to Full protect; I am certain no guideline gives admin a carte blanche to make such an ambiguous undetermined decision so that they can arbitrarily, at any given time, change its outcome (to block) whenever they want and block editors without any further wrongdoings on editor's part, let alone without some extreme new evidence or really obvious new violation or missed one in earlier reading - in which guideline is such a modus operandi grounded. Then, admin additionally suggested that at first they decided to use a page protection as "the alternative to blocking so that the content could be discussed", which should not, could not mean they can change it to block at any given time just because "neither of you made any indication that you intended to discuss". So what? We (IP and I) literally did not do anything, except innocuously complained in few additional comments - innocuous complaining is not a reason to block editors, not even if they really went on your nerves and/or pissed you off. How is even possible, on which parameters, guidelines is based such action, where admin simply decided that Full protection is no longer good "alternative" and now is the moment to change all back and block editors instead. I suggested in my comments that admin, maybe came up with a wrong decision to Full protect page because such a decision will impair third-party editors in attempt to correct the problem, when Semi protection and a firm warning to editors to restrain from edit-warring would absolutely suffice and would do better job, even under the assumption that I may behave unethically still, because it would be easy to block whoever chose to turn blind eye on such a warning.

Accept reason:

Unblocked per the discussion above this unblock request. - Aoidh (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Stop adding individuals to Islamophobia categories

You have recently repeatedly added a number of individuals to the various Islamophobia categories, despite a hatnote that clearly states that "This category is for issues relating to Islamophobia in the United States. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly Islamophobic." This includes a link to a discussion that has established this policy. Thismess (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

This problem goes beyond my edits - a huge discrepancy appears in BIO and BLP's categorization with Category:Racism subcats. It could also be a part of the problem that editors are not very consistent in watching over these categorizations. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Nikola Pavlović-Radinović moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Nikola Pavlović-Radinović. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Tomislav of Croatia

Hi Santasa99. Hope you are doing well. I revisited the King Tomislav page and the move to delete the portrait from the page on the grounds of it not meeting WP:PORTRAIT requirements but at the time of removal seemed like this was applied to a fee Croatian kings but I noticed on other examples contemporary renderings of historical figures are kept. Would the same reasoning for not including the painting of Tomislav apply to King Solomon article as well? I noticed an IP bring this up. I also noticed another IP attack that IP for supporting an “ustashe nazi propaganda image”. Is the painting in question actually Ustashe propaganda? I know there were ultranationalist myths generated by the regime. Was King Tomislav, his artifacts or his images part of it? I don’t know luch about this and do not want to be inadvertently peddling fascist propaganda. You insight would be appreciated as you deal with aspects of Croatian history. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello Oy, thanks I really appreciate. Look, I wouldn't worry about those silly remarks about propaganda and such, but I know User:Surtsicna work and I have to admit he has a point (he is the guy to go to on all issues about medieval bio's). Even though you will be able to find fantasy portraits put into some infoboxes on some articles, they are still against WP:Leadimage as explained in WP:Portrait, and it would be better to try to remove those than to put another one elsewhere. However, you can always put Tomislav's fantasy portrait somewhere else in his article with a caption that explains that it is a fantasy portrait from author so and so, year, and additional info. Cheers and see you around. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 06:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I think I understand. Though it seems on these other articles people are fighting to keep the fantasy images for various figures and claim that the Wikipedia guidelines are believed to be not needed? For example I see on the Solomon article there seems to be consensus to keep the fantasy image despite the rules? I don’t see why Croatian Kings are to be held to the rules and all others an exception. That’s how it sort of seems. And i kinda agree with the agree with the editors in favor of the images. It gives a visual. Especially if it is a image commonly used to depict a subject. I also understand that when dealing with non-fiction subjects there needs to be an accurate visual of the real person not what comes from imagination and mythology. I’m conflicted between the two sides honestly. Not sure what is best for the readers and the platform. Perhaps we should consult with editors like Surrsicna and perhaps others rhat deal with the topic of WP Portiat and Lead?it confusinggiven the vastly different consensus on different articles. There needs to be a consistent set of protocols for all articles. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I will include you into discussion, and some other editors too, if I find a time to proceed with this to create RfC; I am a little bit bogged down with RL stuff but maybe I will find some spare time. Those guys are wrong to use fantasy images, and we don't because we strive to be as ethical editors as humanly possible :-). ౪ Santa ౪^99° 04:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Help with reviewing an article

I saw that you reviewed Center for Economic and Policy Research in the past and was wondering if you could take a look at Bolivarian propaganda as well (since CEPR was previously included in the article). There is a lot in this article and wanted to know if you could help review it. Thank you! WMrapids (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I just came by chance to the article and the version history (therefore I saw by chance also this edit), but the CEPR-chapter seems an obvious case to delete. It is for one part original research, on top with own interpretations of the sources. And the used source proveo is not a journalistic or otherwise usable source. I don't know the website, but when I do a quick search for proveo.org on https://www.startpage.com/sp/search the result is "UK based NGO that provides information on the social, educational, financial and political crisis of Venezuela caused by the neo fascist revolution of Hugo.." (seems just a description from the Google cache from the Chavez time, they have a not so direct intro now). Otherwise there aren't many results, anyway not the right source especially for political hot topics. If there will be a debate over the chapter, you or I can copy this statement over there. --Casra (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Casra: Not seeing the edit or entry about "proveo.org", but there has been a lot of original research and POV issues in Venezuelan articles that I've been trying to fix (even though I want to leave the topic one day), so I appreciate you taking a look. Sorry for all of this talk on your page Santa! WMrapids (talk) 07:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Casra, @WMrapids, I am not that familiar with the topics of Central and South American politics, propaganda, and related subjects. I stumbled upon that one paragraph which was really badly written, so badly that any average editor could have made fixes I did. Also, you guys need to move your discussion to article talk page so that I don't get these alerts all the time for every reply. Thanks. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:Romani writers by nationality has been nominated for merging

Category:Romani writers by nationality has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Redžep-pasha's odžak, Žepa

Hello Santasa99,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Redžep-pasha's odžak, Žepa for deletion, because it's a redirect to a non-existent or deleted page.

If you don't want Redžep-pasha's odžak, Žepa to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bjelimići odžak (tower)

Hello Santasa99,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Bjelimići odžak (tower) for deletion, because it's a redirect to a non-existent or deleted page.

If you don't want Bjelimići odžak (tower) to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a right call. I don't know what came over me - I created another one I think, not thinking that template link to other lang wiki is sufficient. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@CycloneYoris, let this redirect stay - Redžep-pasha's odžak, Žepa . ౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I will. Apparently Wikishovel found a plausible target, so no problem there. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:Mirković noble family has been nominated for deletion

Category:Mirković noble family has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Radojević noble family has been nominated for deletion

Category:Radojević noble family has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi Santasa99, I've made an original barnstar for Template:The Most Improved Editor's Barnstar. Jerium (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Jerium I really appreciate it. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

No problem, glad you like it. Jerium (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Dinjčić noble family has been nominated for merging

Category:Dinjčić noble family has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

"accusation"?

The term "accusation" in "Palestinian genocide accusation" seems extremely inappropriate to me, and I noticed you'd added some useful comments to pervious discussions in the page. I'm trying to write something in the talk page now. I'm having trouble thinking of a title that is more appropriate that would be accepted by other editors, given the previous discussion seemed to be going in almost the opposite direction? Irtapil (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

see here Irtapil (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand, but you really rushed with a new request, it was really too early for a new one. Just recently we had two similar request, like just in a span of week or two. We need to wait a bit before the issue is raised again. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Tvrđava Hutovo

[1] Iako dijele sličnost u nazivu (Hutovo blato / Hutovski grad), te iako su relativno blizu (cca 5 km zračne linije) stari grad iznad Hutova nije dio parka prirode Hutovo blato, stoga sam ga uklonio iz članka. Ma▀▄Ga 13:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

P.S. U ovom članku šesta slika po redu je ploča koja je locirana u parku i koja prikazuje granice.--Ma▀▄Ga 13:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, ako si siguran da je to tako onda si dobro uradio. Sve najbolje! [OK, if you are sure that this is so, then you have done well. All the best!] ౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Ta je slika dobra, šteta što je nemamo na nekoj Vikipediji, tj. šteta je da nemamo takvu mapu (ili imamo li je?) [That picture is good, it's a shame that we don't have it on some Wikipedia, that is. it's a shame we don't have such a map (or do we?)] ౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Takođe, može biti da je gradina u bafer-zoni - ja sam davno pisao na članku, pa sam zaboravio. Znam da je bafer šire područje od onog vidljivog na karti sa table.Trebalo bi to provjeriti u Studiji izvodljivosti, u tekstu, da li je u bafer-zoni, jer ako jeste onda je i dalje unutar zaštićenog područja. [Also, it could be that the castle is in the buffer zone - I wrote on the article a long time ago, so I forgot. I know that the buffer is a wider area than the one visible on the board map. It should be checked in the Feasibility Study, in the text, if it is in the buffer zone, then it is still within the protected area.] ౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

U Planu upravljanja granice Parka mogu se naći na 25. stranici (slika 2.2) i to je zapravo ono što je na tabli koju sam gore naveo. Buffer zonu moguće je vidjeti na 117. stranici (slika 3.2, označena je sivom bojom). Budući se Hutovski grad nalazi cca 5-6 km zračne linije južno od Svitave (kod koje je ta zona cca 1 km), onda smo riješili i taj problem. Ma▀▄Ga 15:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Jeste, i ja sam pronašao plan i neke studije izvodljivosti. Bilo bi lijepo imati ovu ilustriranu mapu paraka, ali ja je nisam uspio pronaći, pogotovo ne copy-right free. Ako znaš kako doći do karte ostavi poruku ili ubaci kopiju. [Yes, I also found a plan and some feasibility studies. It would be nice to have this map of the park with illustrations, but I haven't been able to find it, especially not copy-right free. If you know how to get it, please leave a message or upload a copy.] ౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Do karte kao takve - slobodno ću reći da je nemoguće doći, a i taj netko tko ju je radio, sigurno je ne bi dao na slobodno korištenje, ipak su u nju uloženi mnogi radni sati. Možda dođem do fotografije, ali ne mogu obećati. Ma▀▄Ga 11:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks MaGa, nemoj se opterećivati, ako naleti nalet.[don't worry, if it comes to you it comes.] ౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Barnstar renaming

Hello, I was wondering if you wouldn't be bothered if I moved the "Most Improved Editor's Barnstar" to "Greatly Improved Editor Barnstar", thanks. Jerium (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Jerium, not at all. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Santasa99. Thank you for your work on Konjic City Stadium. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello my friend! Good day to you. Thanks for creating the article, I have marked it as reviewed. Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Have a Wonderful Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Santasa99, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, Jerium (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Jerium (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Likewise ! Thank you very much @Jerium. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Museum of Sarajevo moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Museum of Sarajevo. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Santasa99. Thank you for your work on Grass mowing competition custom in Kupres. Acebulf, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Perhaps it would be better suited under the name "Mowing on Kupres"?

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Acebulf}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Acebulf: - Truth be told, I don't have any particular preference. This current article title was chosen only because it is registered under this sort of official title on UNESCO page. I am equally pro your suggestion, or any other you can think of for that matter, so if you wish just go for it :-)

PS. is there any precedent around, any similar article(s) ? Happy New Year! ౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Bosnia in the Middle Ages

Hello, Santasa99. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Bosnia in the Middle Ages".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Santasa99. Thank you for your work on Danac Stadium. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good start

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

excess mapframe formatting copy&pasted from a template

Hey, I noticed you have some sort of a boilerplate for mapframe additions to Bosnian articles, most recently in [2] but it's broken, it's using the variables parsing of a template, but that's not the use case in article space, none of that code does anything much there.

Can you please adjust it like this: [3]

I noticed this by accident, it breaks the preview in the popups. This is found in over a hundred articles, and I've been cleaning it up as I go along, but please stop adding it in new ones at least. TIA. --Joy (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I picked it up from Template:Infobox mapframe and I am using it for at least few years now. It doesn't/didn't work always but it worked better than all other shorter variants, so I used it in most cases -I even tried your way but it did not work at the time- I guess it depends on how particular Infobox is coded. I have to say that it's a first time that I see it breaks popup preview like that. Just now I tried your way again and it works (at least it works in settlements and military installations)! It would be perfect if it works in all Infoboxes. By looking at template TP, it seems that Mapframe template is a work in progress, constantly improving. So, you continue removing excess code whenever you encounter infobox with it, and I will help clearing whenever and wherever I recall I used it. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. There can be differences between infoboxes, yes. Some actually have optional mapframe=yes support embedded, some have image_map, some have some third parameter, some even have no facility to add this except something completely generic at the bottom. It's a bit annoying to have to deal with. I've recently worked on improving a few of these. If you notice one that's not being friendly to mapframes, please feel free to ping me about it. --Joy (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yes, it is annoying, but sometimes, in some IB it is enough to insert simplest one, like {{#Infobox mapframe|wikidata=yes}}, another time I had to improvise and remove only bits of the big one to get it work. No problem, I will. Thanks Joy. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Also the wikidata=yes parameter is implied, so the most typical use case would be just calling {{infobox mapframe}} and that's it. --Joy (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

True. However, it did not work before in most Ib's, but it seems as if now works in most cases. It should be used for nodes and ways, but relations, like buildings and urban, historic sites require different ikons with dif.spec.color, zoom, etc. I found that Ib for springs has only embedded and embed parameters, which is shame because Dinaric karstic wellsprings are always complex sits and more than often protected as heritage sites. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Is that about {{Infobox spring}}? --Joy (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that one.It has only child and embedded parameters. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

That template has | image3 = {{#invoke:Infobox mapframe|auto|onByDefault={{#if:{{{pushpin map|}}}|no|yes}}... so all you have to do to get a mapframe there is to pass a | mapframe = yes parameter. I documented this now on that template's documentation page. --Joy (talk) 10:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I came across your edit for this, have a look at how to replace that so the mapframe doesn't go at the bottom but at the image3 position. --Joy (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Joy on both advices - this second problem was particularly annoying.

Please, let me know if there anything else I can do to help. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)