Archives

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

• 
• 
• 

Happy New Year!

• 
  MMXXVI Lunar Calendar

Joy,
Have a great 2026 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

---

   – Background color is Very Peri (#6868ab), Pantone's 2026 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2026}} to user talk pages.

– 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]

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]