This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article.

Add new comments below.

Archives

2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025

– CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year to you, too :) --Joy (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let you know, I think the disruptive editor previously active (and now rangeblocked) on 216.174.64.0/18 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) and 216.8.128.0/18 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) is active again.

I think this is the same person on 2001:1970:49DE:8C00:48E7:6C3E:B350:4F18 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS)

Can you handle this in any way? Thanks in advance! Aleksamil (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aleksamil aha, that last address was active in September, so it's stale by now. I see they're all rejected already. And I see you seem to have rewritten Dimitrije Najdanović. Did they add any copyright violations or tendentious edits in those drafts? I found one draft they blanked (Stefan Simic (scientist)), so I deleted that one now.

In the meantime, the temporary accounts were introduced, and I actually noticed the same editor again on one of those and blocked them after I found another fake translation, cf. User talk:~2025-42551-31. --Joy (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy Take a look at a wider range for the IP I just sent, you'll notice the editor was active throughout 2025.

As for the Najdanović article, yes, you can take a look at the previous version particularly the subsection titled "Postscript". It's original research to put it mildly, what it really was is a short hagiographic essay. I haven't noticed copyright violations, the main issue I see is that Najdanović's prewar activities in Zbor and WW2 participation in the collaborationist government were glossed over, while various tidbits and details from the man's life were given undue weight. Aleksamil (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you bring this up at WP:ANI please (and ping me from there)? Pondering another range block, esp. with IPv6 addresses which might impact even more unrelated editors, should be discussed in a wider forum. --Joy (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done. Aleksamil (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joy. Thank you for your work on AEG (brand). Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Please establish notability as per WP:NCORP. Thanks and have a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariamnei I had just made the original redirect, someone else actually expanded it, please inform them instead. --Joy (talk) 13:44, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out to me. Unfortunately, it seems like the system sometimes sends the comments to the first editor in the history of the page. I will send to them as well. Thanks and have a great day! Mariamnei (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Could you please explain to me how an article with 12 references about the biggest scandal in the history of Macedonian pop music is not ready for publishing. Do you please mind taking the conversation to the talk page first before drafting an article. Zagrebite (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in the draftification messages, those two articles both had substantial amounts of promotional tone inappropriate for the encyclopedia, and one of them lacked sufficient references. --Joy (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Thank you for the clarification. Zagrebite (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects you have created have 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/2026 January 15 § I.C.E. until a consensus is reached. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 15:05, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: ~2026-35905-4 (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Their comments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ~2026-35905-4 (talk) 13:01, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	I just went back to (re)remove the trolling TA's comments on Talk:Nikola Tesla but of course they'd been replied to by then. Sorry about that! —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:11, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers :) --Joy (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also see, latest ANI report. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:38, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Verdis 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/2026 January 30 § Verdis until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should mark article Tave (musician) as patrolled. thank you for your contributions the are appreciated Goddesschrisna (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Tave (musician) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. TURKEYDICAE🦃 16:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Joy, it is generally not appropriate to draftify articles that have already been moved back to mainspace once by another editor, as I can see happened at Gavrilo Cerović and a couple of others. If you feel like these articles are not acceptable for whatever reason, feel free to open an AfD instead. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The problem there is that this user who submitted them, Reino de Bulgaria, was completely ignoring everyone. They used the Draft namespace for the first edit, and then immediately moved the article to the main namespace. I am pretty sure that's not how this system is supposed to work, and this is effectively gaming it. If we as a community are supposed to benefit from the use of the Draft namespace, there needs to be a modicum of actual use of it, for actual drafting. Using it like this, to trigger you to think that we shouldn't be moving it back, can not be proper.

They're been warned about this, but proceeded to completely ignore us, which was a blatant violation of WP:EPTALK. I actually blocked them a few days ago, but it had no effect I guess? I will now proceed to double check this, and then block them further if there was no improvement. I don't want to keep the unfixed new articles created by a policy-violating user in the main namespace. While we could just delete them, it's technically possible that some uninvolved editor picks up the bad drafts and fixes them and then promotes them. --Joy (talk) 08:30, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration — I've dealt with my share of "I can't hear you" editors in the past — but repeatedly undoing another editor's actions, regardless of whether or not you believe you are right or in line with policy, is edit warring.The other editor is hardly blameless in that regard, but responding in kind doesn't seem productive. I see that you moved these articles back to draftspace for a third time today (as a side note, draftify is a valid outcome for an AfD; it doesn't necessarily mean that an article will be deleted if you nominate it) and blocked the editor indefinitely. The latter action also seems inappropriate to me, given that it involved use of your administrative tools when you were an involved party in this content dispute. Please let me know if I'm missing something here; I'm otherwise considering bringing this situation up for administrative action review. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't the content, it's the behavior. I didn't edit those articles in a manner where I disagree with the person, I only assessed them for basic policy compliance like having no sources whatsoever, as I did with the behavior.

Indeed, I generally like what they were initially doing, apparently trying to document a period of Montenegrin political history. But without basic sources, we don't know if they were posting hoaxes instead. There is no content dispute to speak of, because there was no actual discussion. By leaving those articles in the draft namespace, I explicitly do not take a side in any sort of a conceptual content dispute - I neither want to add it or to remove it, I just want to give it a fair chance to become encyclopedic, the same chance given to other similar content. Even if the account that originally posted it may not have been legitimate.

History of user talk there says clearly that they were warned by almost a dozen different editors. They acknowledged none of it, neither through talk nor through actions (they didn't e.g. fix those articles to add a source).

I did not "respond in kind" - I afforded them the enagagement and explanations that they did not afford anyone else. Only after all of these warnings were ignored, I blocked them for a short time, hoping that this would cause them to engage. It did not - they just waited out the block, came back and repeated the exact same behavior. They proved that they will indeed not edit in a collaborative manner.

This isn't a situation of a rogue admin biting a defenseless newcomer. This is just a new account used by someone who can't or won't follow basic policies. I don't think it's helpful to rebuke administrators for enforcing policy. --Joy (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just getting caught up with my notifications; thank you for the explanation. I wasn't aware of the extent of their disruption, so after taking a closer look, your motivation on the blocks makes more sense now. Consider my concerns moot. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, I'm also trying to figure out what would be the alternate explanation here, one where I needed to assume even more good faith from the editor.

The user registered a username that means "Kingdom of Bulgaria" in Spanish, a language not used in Bulgaria or Montenegro. They started posting these relatively large articles with a fair bit of formatting. I'd have assumed a beginner would post stubs. The initial edit summaries say they were translations from the eu Wiki, the Basque Wikipedia. Not sure why this would be an inherently good source of content about Montenegrin history. The history of one of those articles there shows it was initially posted by a temporary account.

They know how to click the edit buttons to post kilobytes of text in the article namespace, and they know how to click the move buttons, and they know how to do it on at least two different Wikipedias. Speaking of which, global contributions also says they know how to use Wikidata.

But they can't figure out how to edit their own talk page, or any others? Or they're too self-conscious or scared to do it? They feel free to edit an encyclopedia, but not to interact with people?

The first message they got was on 18 January. It was by a bot, so okay, maybe they didn't want to interact with it, fair enough. But the message they got from Arjayay on 29 January was from a person. That was two weeks ago. That should be plenty of time to figure out the various technicalities and/or muster up the courage to interact with other editors. I don't get it. --Joy (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked through a little bit more, and found that their first edit at the Basque Wikipedia was in 2023. I checked whether they ever contributed to a talk page there - nothing. Maybe that Wikipedia is different from this one, and you just never have to talk to people? Regardless, I think Wikipedia:Editing policy is pretty clear. --Joy (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I saw their 'efforts' yesterday, almost AfDd the lot, but it was late at night my time, so I knew I'd make tiredness errors. Their refusal to engage is a key factor. Their drafts look to have potential, but the lack of references speaks against them. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:21, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If an editor can't comprehend the basic concept of talk pages and talking to other people, while still ostensibly being able to create complex articles, something is very wrong. The articles didn't particularly seem like hoaxes, but the onus is on them to do a modicum of work to prove it, not everyone else. Let's see if they try to follow the unblock process now. --Joy (talk) 11:29, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I support your IAR return to draft, WP:DRAFTOBJECT sometimes needs to be set aside. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The spirit of the draft namespace is to actually use it to draft these sorts of articles. Putting them there and then immediately promoting them to the article namespace without any changes is not something I typically see people do, because it's just weird and wrong. The subsequent move-warring over it, without any explanation whatsoever, just reinforces that there was something off there. --Joy (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I want a "like" button! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

	The Minor barnstar
	Thank you for improving the quality of the text and making the metro section easier to read in Transport in Zagreb! User4926 (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) --Joy (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joy. You have recently changed the links in several articles from [[telegram]]s to [[telegrams]], with the explanation "use the whole term for the link, disambiguating it WP:D". There is no ambiguity about [[telegram]]s, and the MOS guideline MOS:PIPESTYLE indicates [[telegram]]s as simpler and clearer, and hence preferred. Please could you revert all those changes? Thanks. Masato.harada (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a disagreement over content with which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Culpeper".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

CSGinger14 (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

can I get some help with becoming a admin so I san access my old pages? WYATT AYERSWyatt.ayers (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

sawv ~2026-11254-13 (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joy, I had a question I thought you might know the answer to. Is there a reliable way to get clickstream data for redirects? When I search WikiNav for redirects I often get an error, for example the WikiNav for Donald Jr.Donald Jr. returns an error message. At WP:RFD, I occasionally find myself wondering what proportion of a redirect's pageviews come from clicks in articles vs. search. Pageviews and usage in articles are among the tools editors sometimes use to assess the appropriateness or "usefulness" of a redirect (as you know). Sometimes the question arises whether an otherwise bad redirect gets a lot of traffic simply because it is used in a popular article. Another common concern at RFD is whether something is a plausible search term. It strikes me that WikiNav, while imperfect, would help to get at both of these issues. You're who I always think of with clickstream/WikiNav stuff so I thought I would ask. Hope you are well. :) —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Myceteae sadly, no. meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream just says: Requests for pages that get redirected were mapped to the page they redirect to.

I actually asked about it a year ago in meta:Research talk:Wikipedia clickstream#redirects but there was no progress.

Maybe we should propose that sort of a change in some other forum, like meta:Community Wishlist? --Joy (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a good feature, even if it serves a rather niche purpose. I don’t have experience with such proposals but I’d be interested in moving this forward. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You found a good phrasing for surname pages: "a surname found in...", vague enough to suit actacroatia.com and some other sources which do not explicitly say its origin. I will use it in the future as well. --Altenmann >talk 17:54, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the adjectival form is problematic because it's also possessive, so we don't want to give out that impression in cases where there's ambiguity. I also sometimes use "South Slavic surname found among [peoples]", which is often close enough to WP:BLUE. --Joy (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joy! Thanks for the note on maintaining NPOV on Energy in Croatia but I'd welcome some clarification. The term I added was that this country was an "emerging energy power in Europe", meaning that it has recently demonstrated a capacity to supply greater energy power to the continent via liquefied natural gas (LNG), geothermal energy, and natural gas. Perhaps the term I used was confusing? Happy to change to "energy provider"? Your guidance is welcome. Peripteros (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence was not cited, which can be fine in case of a WP:lead section, but then you have to refer to something like that in the article body - and in turn there wasn't anything in the article body to directly justify that claim. Please see WP:No original research. --Joy (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the context, I'll leave the phrase out. I added two additional citations to the article to better source more generally. Please accept this barnstar as a token of my appreciation. Peripteros (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The Croatian Barnstar of National Merit
		Thank you for your extensive efforts in expanding and maintaining the coverage of Croatian topics and providing guidance to likeminded editors – very much appreciated. Peripteros (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your tag, but was frustrated because I don't know where "Morlongi" is, and wasn't able to find out. Thought I'd explain my process here, so it doesn't cause more confusion. Typically I give the Roman-era name listed for the city or town, and if there doesn't appear to be one, the modern name. But in this case I couldn't find any place called "Morlongi" on Wikipedia or by Googling it. That suggests that it's either a very obscure place, or the name is a variant of something I can't identify, or maybe it's an error that crept into ten entries—I think mostly or all pottery inscriptions, only one or two of which could potentially be citeable.

An older version of the database—before the death of Dr. Clauss led to its migration—allowed you to click on most locations and view a map, which I had to do for a fair number of places in North Africa (where there are many spelling variations), and occasionally in Spain or elsewhere. But that feature seems to be gone... in any case, if people aren't going to be able to find anything about "Morlongi", I figure it's better just to say that the inscription was from "Venetia and Histria", and leave the exact spot to readers who want to look up the original inscription. P Aculeius (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@P Aculeius Oh yeah, I was tripped up by the mention of "present-day", but the LLM web search is telling me this term appears only in older sources. When I search for it in context of Gaius Anneius, it says it's nominative Morlongo, and most likely located in the southern parts of the areas known to have been Ateste. It's not immediately clear what it's basing it on, maybe it's just a context 'hallucination'. --Joy (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, meant to reply sooner, but got busy on other things! We can certainly put it back if we're sure that it's correct, but at this point I'm not. The C–S Datenbank entries give "Morlongi", which I assume is a modern place name as it does not look like Latin. It would be nominative if it were Latin; all of the entries in the whole database use the nominative form, though of course the inscriptions themselves might not (here it's a pottery stamp, so just a name, with no location; the location is where the inscription was found). If we can identify Morlongi with an ancient or modern location more specific than the whole province, then it'd be fine to put it back, but it's really a minor detail: a list of places where a particular potter's maker's mark has turned up. If there were more examples I'd probably abbreviate the list anyway; if someone really needs all the epigraphic evidence that exists, they'll know where to find it! P Aculeius (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

I see you deleted my paragraph about the river name "Karašica". I've opened a Talk page about that: Talk:Karašica (Drava) RandomGuyFromCroatia (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to take a look at Talk:Časlav#Removal of non-Serbian sources and give some advice to Zoupan, I am giving up of editing this Serbian-related article. I didn't know he also had an investigation before and since the beginning shows no improvement in understanding of NPOV editing policy (being blocked for block evasion, but there's material for else), and recently in 2025 when became unblocked claimed that grew as an editor and will abide by the rules of Wikipedia. I am more than tired of seeing Serbian articles being ticking bombs over basic NPOV, removal of non-Serbian sources, becoming a tiresome battleground of passive aggressive OWN behavior with PERSONAL attacks on myself and non-Serbian editors as well as authors (as experienced lately with now once again blocked Sadko, at Talk:Nikodim Milaš). I don't understand what's happening with Serbian editors (The Signpost), as already said before there's Serbian editors who are capable of contributing technically very good edits, but simply don't understand the insistence on this, basically disruptive POV editing, like, many years had gone by and many discussions held, why? User:Mdennis (WMF), I don't want anything to do with all of this banning neither will question it, but have to say that am not completely sure it is the right approach without prior communication, and that am concerned what kind of an escalating effect will have on the general BCMS community, maybe even greater reactive division, or not due to less biased editors/learned the lession, as there were blocks/bans/sanctions on all fronts in last several years, so the waters kind-of calmed down by 2025. Overall, I don't think that non-Serbian editors in this moment feel safe to report Serbian editors to the admins/admin noticeboard because it is like placing a target on their back because of reporting them, with a possibility that will have to endure vindictive WP:HOUND. Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted to the previous stable version of the Časlav article before the rewrite.

@Peacemaker67 @Vanjagenije @Vacant0 can someone please help review this matter? --Joy (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i’m on mobile rn but i’ll take a look at this in the evening once I get back home. cheers, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a response (hopefully it's what editors wanted). Cheers, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy: just to be clear, aside personal attacks, I am not in favor of completely reverting to the old revision, nor do I have anything against the inclusion of new information from newly added Serbian sources, they must be included, but in a way both old and new revisions are merged based on general WEIGHT/BALANCE (although more often than not, there's only a loose balance as we have several well known opinionated claims by Serbian and non-Serbian historians on the date of Časlav's death and date of the legendary Serbian-Hungarian conflict which are interconnected as well as the border of the Serbian polity at the time, hence all or almost all those claims need mention, preferably with an attribution).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's useful to repeat the common topics in their appropriate places - I'd tend to skip to "Places" and wonder why the big one was missing, have done so in the past on other dab pages. But is there chapter and verse somewhere which we can cite for the "allowed" of "redundant but allowed" when saying this? I had a quick look at MOS:DAB and couldn't find exactly what we needed. Thanks. PamD 07:46, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD yeah, we can't really know if the readers reach for the navigation aid (ToC) or not, so it's safer to overdo it a wee bit. After a few of these cases cropped up, I ended up adding it at the end of WP:DABCOMMON: If the list is long, common meanings may appear both in the common section and in topical sections. --Joy (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's just what I need for future use in edit summaries. PamD 12:30, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD Come and take a look at Talk:Orlando § Where to place Orlando, Florida, and Orlando: A Biography. (This is just in case the discussion is fragmented.) 1isall (talk | contribs) 12:47, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am contacting you because you previously voted in elections related to the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). You may be eligible to vote in the current U4C election, which is open now and closes on 2 June 2026. You can find out more about the candidates and the election on the election page on Meta, and from there you can access the vote itself. Your participation in these elections is important to the governance of Wikimedia communities, and your time spent learning about the candidates and voting is appreciated.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk)

Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thx for the changes on Predrag Vranicki. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) --Joy (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Recreated back in October 2025 by the same sockpuppet. Maybe it's time to delete it again? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't notice it - nominated it again. --Joy (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]