User talk:BrunoMed

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

Hi BrunoMed! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ryan Vesey (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

List of former populated places in Croatia

added links pointing to Omar, Slatina, Dubrava, Trnovo, Valle, Fontana, Prokop, Kanal, Završje, Bukovec, Kal, Lipnik, Kamenica, Selo, Gorica, Brda, Kuzma, Kula, Mala, Lipovec, Katun, Klara, Glavica, Karaula, Trebež, Banki, Resnik, Dobrova, Borki, Gradac, Karin, Brdo, Banja, Sušak, Staro Selo, Zamet, Lipe, Draga, Struge, Lipovica, Seoci, Martinska Ves, Selnica, Poljice, Selište, Cerje, Mačkovec, Čemernica, Poljane, Trstenik, Plitvica, Orehovica, San Michele, Babin Potok, Jezero, Podgorje, Humac, Goričica, Planina, Ravnice, Jezernice, Vinjani, Sveta Katarina, Sveti Vid, Donje Selo, Petrovići, Seoce, Laze, Gorenja Vas, Brezovci, Ovčara, Drenova, Cerovica, Veliko Selo and Kapelica

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response on your comment on my talkpage

I do not hate you, I do not hate Croatia but I do hate very bad articles. The massive list of red links are just soso. The problem are the 85 different links to disambiguation pages. All without information to identify them. Instead of being critical about me, you better start looking at the quality of your work and fix those links to disambiguation pages. And please, we are trying to work together. Do not use any personal attacks. The Banner talk 15:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am still waiting for an apology for your rude behaviour and the personal attacks. The Banner talk 09:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of towns and villages in Illinois

Hi, I am wondering why you changed the name of this list, because it is very specifically for "incorporated" towns and villages in Illinois. There is also a list specifically for cities, and unincorporated populated places. "Populated places" would fit more for neighborhoods, etc. I am changing it back to the original title because I do not see any discussion about changing the name of this article. If you are considering moving it again, please list it at WP:RM first so we can have a proper discussion. Funandtrvl (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roger Joseph Boscovich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Church of St. Nicholas. 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) 10:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for continuing your battlefield attitude after being warned.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I′m truly apologizing for my behavior, User: Hebel was provoked me on purpose and I react wrong. I′m also apologizing to offend your friend and other user. I request unblock and I′m apologizing once again, I′m promising that I won′t do anything similar again. --BrunoMed (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The discussion below does not convince me that you are ready to drop your battleground approach. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

.

1) I cannot see where Hebel provoked you. Please provide diffs. Note that disagreeing about content is not provocation. 2) Hebel is not "my friend". He is a fellow colleague working on Wikipedia. 3) The reviewing admin should also look at this and note the IP's edit summaries. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I′m apologizing for IP addresses, it wont happen again. Here are some diffs: [1],[2], [3],[4],[5], [6], [7]. Some of the edits weren't touched for a week, because the were correct and good and he just deleted them with no reason and proofs. And, please, read his comments. I think he should be blocked, he definitely worked against all my works. --BrunoMed (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not against all of them, but the occurrences of today did make me take a look at your edits that denied an Italian identification that are associated with some people. Italian language and culture (and indeed ethnic identification) were extant well before 1861. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. Nikola Tesla, for example, was born in modern-day Croatia, and nowhere in article about him states that he was Croat. Faust Vrančić was also born in Croatia and he was Croatian, and in his article states that he was Italian. No, he was born in Republic of Venice, modern-day Croatia, he was not Italian, he never said he was Italian. That is not a nonsense, completely opposite, nonsense is that he was Italian. The same thing would be that in article about Diocletian states that he was a Croat, no he wasn't, he was born centuries before first Kingdom of Croatia and before Croats settled Croatia, same with Faust Vrančić and Italians. Jawhar al-Siqilli was born in Sicily, modern-day Italy, but there wasn′t Italy back then, modern Italians didn't existed and he never said he was Italian, and he wasn't Italian by ethnicity same as Vrančić. Please, think about that, and delete his untruth Italian origin. --BrunoMed (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla was born in an area that is now in Croatia. That doesn't make him a Croat by ethnicity or by relevant identification. You need to understand that historical categories are not so easily applicable to situations like that just because you like them to be and it is rather obvious that you do not understand that. Tesla was an ethnic Serb that happened to live in what was also then the Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia, part of the Empire of Austria. To make him a Croat because of that is wishful thinking on your part, which is basically the problem about your edit behavior here. And on another note, once again Italian language and culture (and indeed ethnic identification) were extant well before 1861. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was not talking about him. I was talking about Faust Vrančić and Marco Polo. Vrančić was ethnic Croat, but he was not Italian. The same thing would be that you say that Mahatma Ghandi is British because he was born in British empire. --BrunoMed (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Italian language and culture were established before that date, but not in Croatia and in the 10th century. --BrunoMed (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, please will you stop the content argument here. @BrunoMed: please stick to trying to get yourself unblocked. @Hebel: please leave BrunoMed alone here and leave further discussion for the appropriate talk page later - your presence here is not helping. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee, it's his talkpage. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which needs to be used for unblocking discussions right now, not anything else. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly as NeilN says. Now, Gerard von Hebel, please do as I ask and go away, or I will consider your behaviour deliberately disruptive. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will you unblock me? If not, I don't mind arguing on my talk page. We have to determine the truth. --BrunoMed (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to drop the content argument here and concentrate only on the behaviour that got you blocked. If you continue the content argument further, you could lose the ability to edit here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice, but I can′t wait for three days. --BrunoMed (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be unblocked earlier than that, you need to make an unblock request that addresses your problematic behaviour and convinces a reviewing admin that you will change your approach. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won′t. I will rest that three days starting now. So don't write any messages for that three days, except if you want to apologize to me. --BrunoMed (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With that attitude you'll soon get blocked again, so I strongly suggest you spend the three days thinking about what you did wrong, not thinking about what everyone else did wrong. And don't hold your breath waiting for apologies... Thomas.W ^talk 19:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time to be blocked on English Wikipedia, I usually don't get upset with other wikipedians, I′m now. I want to forget everything here and make no more mistakes. --BrunoMed (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I usually don't get upset with other wikipedians. And what about this edit, made just 9 days ago. Okay, you apologised to me so I let go at that time. But there is certainly a pattern of battleground mentality and strong Croatia-nationalism. Unless you manage to shut those two down, Wikipedia will be shut down to you quite quickly. The Banner talk 09:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that are insults. I worked on that article for hours, I was collecting villages from DZS, and I put that only source I used, and you just simply destroyed everything I was making for hours. I have created that article in the first place and I was working for Wikipedia not for my nationalism. I have been apologizing for many times, and I going to do it again. I′m apologizing, and now why you just leave me for that three days, instead of provoking me. Again, I′m truly apologizing. --BrunoMed (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sheer fact that you see this as provoking, shed a gloomy light on your future career here. Be more positive about what others do to maintain a neutral Wikipedia. The Banner talk 10:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for a period of indefinite for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BrunoMed. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I am apologizing for sock puppetry, this is my first time for doing this. I had to do that because I wasn't unblocked in the first place, please, I will serve my first block, but please unblock this new Blocking policy. That unblock will stop me doing similar things, I promise I won′t do that again. I think I don't deserve to be blocked indefinitely because of sock puppetry, I was blocked only for a three days, and that was my first time. Please, consider my older contributions, I′m not so bad like it looks like. I′m going to stop all my fights once for all. I′m truly apologizing once more, I promise, I won′t do anything similar again. Thank you. --BrunoMed (talk) 3:24 pm, Yesterday (UTC+2)

Decline reason:

First of all, you did not have to do that. Second, your statement that unblock will stop me doing similar things makes no sense. Actually, the block will stop you doing similar things, and we have a very efficient WP:SPI system that will ensure you don't evade the block. I can't trust your promises because you were lying here on this page as soon as 3 days ago ("I will rest that three days starting now. So don't write any messages for that three days"). Vanjagenije (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

To my opinion, your apology sounds not sincere. Sorry. The Banner talk 20:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC) not an admin[reply]

Please, I apologized to you about Former populated places in Croatia, after that I worked hours on that page, and done everything I needed to. My apology is sincere, it doesn't matter if I can′t express my feelings. I′m still in a shock, I should be, please consider my old contributions. I′m done with Croats and everything nationalistic. Honestly, I am begging you. --BrunoMed (talk) 08:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by I′m done with Croats and everything nationalistic? Are you willing to accept a WP:topic ban on Croatian topics if unblocked? If so, what kind of articles will you edit and what kind of edits will you be making? Vanjagenije (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be better for me to accept topic ban, and I am accepting it. I will edit mainly lists or articles that have no relationships with Croatian people or other nationalities, if I don′t have to. I am apologizing, please, unblock me, I′m willing to accept topic ban. --BrunoMed (talk) 09:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After all my good articles, and contributions, I′m on Wikipedia for three years. Please, I have moments when I need to write about Croats, no more. If I do anything wrong block me again, I promise you won′t have to do that. Please, give me another chance, I′m of bigger help unblocked that blocked. --BrunoMed (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to know that I regret for doing all of this. Bogom se kajem za sve što sam učinio. --BrunoMed (talk) 10:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean by if I don′t have to? Well, you don't have to do anything. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, I don't have to do anything, but I sincerely want to help. It is easy for you to block me again, but I am sure you won′t have to do that. --BrunoMed (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will unblock you if you agree: (a) to an indefinite topic ban on topics concerning Croatia and Croats, and (b) not to ever use any other account or IP except this account. Please, indicate your acceptance below. Be sure to read WP:topic ban and wp:Blocking_policy#Conditional_unblock to know what does this mean. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree and accept both of the conditions, and I promise I will fully respect both of them. Thank you! --BrunoMed (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I unblocked you. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, very much! --BrunoMed (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vanjagenije (talk · contribs) do you think you might review BrunoMed's latest edits?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @BrunoMed: I re-blocked you because you were not able to adhere to the topic ban that was agreed above. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lists

If you get unblocked, you should stop massively moving lists without a prior discussion. After taking a look at your contributions yesterday, I had to revert a bunch of page moves you had made some time in the past, e.g. "List of villages in Massachusetts" → "List of populated places in Massachusetts". A "populated place" is a term which could mean a village, town or a city. The problem is that pretty much all the pages you moved had a related "List of cities in..." article, and you moved the lists specifically about villages. Never mind the fact that you didn't even discuss the massive moves, by making a vague title for villages, and a specific one for cities, you created a pretty confusing naming system. If you wanted to combine those multiple lists into just one under the name of "List of populated places in...", you should have started a discussion, and they would have been combined and moved appropriately if there was a consensus to do so. If you don't get unblocked, ignore this message (obviously). – Srdjan m (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry about moving lists. I wanted to make one, universal name for all these lists, I should have start a discussion. --BrunoMed (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Targum (species) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Targum (species) 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/Targum (species) 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. — TAnthony^Talk 23:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, BrunoMed. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kuzma, Croatia

The article Kuzma, Croatia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The village is uninhabited, cites no sources, and is seemingly not notable for any reason.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Snood1205 (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Vrbovačko Brdo for deletion

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

dudhhr_Contribs 05:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:7th century in Croatia has been nominated for renaming

Category:7th century in Croatia has been nominated for renaming. 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. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:11th-century establishments in Croatia has been nominated for renaming

Category:11th-century establishments in Croatia has been nominated for renaming. 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. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:12th-century establishments in Croatia has been nominated for renaming

Category:12th-century establishments in Croatia has been nominated for renaming. 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. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:7th-century Croatian people has been nominated for deletion

Category:7th-century Croatian people 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. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:8th-century Croatian people has been nominated for deletion

Category:8th-century Croatian people 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. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:8th-century Croatian people has been nominated for merging

Category:8th-century Croatian people 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. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:7th-century Croatian people has been nominated for merging

Category:7th-century Croatian people 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. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kuzma, Croatia for deletion

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Glavni grad Hrvatske" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Glavni grad Hrvatske and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 13#Glavni grad Hrvatske until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Mali Beč" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Mali Beč and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 13#Mali Beč until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Hrvatska metropola" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Hrvatska metropola and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 13#Hrvatska metropola until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Metropola" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Metropola has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 19 § Metropola until a consensus is reached. —Kusma (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Završje, Primorje-Gorski Kotar County

The article Završje, Primorje-Gorski Kotar County has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Returns no results, listed coordinates are just a body of water.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Završje, Primorje-Gorski Kotar County for deletion

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]