Add new comments below.

I am requesting a name change to Joy. --Shallot 12:16, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This page is now archived. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Happy New Year, Joy!


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

Abishe (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Happy New Year 2024!

  Happy New Year!
Hello Joy:

Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters.

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Request move comment


Hi, can you please make a comment so a consensus can be reached at: Talk:History of the Balkans#Requested move 27 December 2023 and Talk:Slavic migrations to the Balkans#Requested move 27 December 2023. Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

"bad SMC, bad!"


I think you mean {{Strongbad}}. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  12:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@SMcCandlish I forget to preview as well sometimes, too :) --Joy (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I even did, and simply didn't see it. Same with another typo someone caught after you.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  14:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@SMcCandlish I guess the best way to do it is to split the copyedit up into smaller chunks. --Joy (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Veliki Bukovec, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dubovica.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply


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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved


  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Joy and “self control issues”. Thank you.Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 08:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations, sort of


WP:ANI has more than the usual number of attacks by new or unregistered editors against established editors. Welcome to a strange club. Some of them have been blocked. Your enemy hasn't yet been blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Talk:King Charles


Hi Joy, thanks for the update on Lord Cameron, which I'll be subscribing to. I was just wondering what you thought about the statistics for King Charles and whether another move request might be justified now or a little later down the line. All the best, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Neveselbert thanks for the note. That's an interesting case as well, because it might be indicating that the current formatting might be causing about a thousand misclicks a month? :) We can't be sure, but sure looks like it. Either way, if we combine those two, it's still 4.62k out of 8.2k, which is ~56%, so ~44% of the readers either aren't looking for the current British monarch or couldn't identify him from that list. This is so still much reader traffic that it would probably be worth the effort to try to experiment a bit. Maybe putting him on top of that list might change this? Maybe extending his caption to indicate something like "former Prince of Wales" would be helpful? Maybe a common meanings section on top of it everything? --Joy (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sure thing. I've edited the disambiguation page, would this be OK? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would have done that Charlemagne change in a separate edit, but sure. Since we're now in the middle of February, the first month where we see the full impact of the change will be March, so let's check back in mid April after the stats regenerate. --Joy (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi Joy, it's mid-April now. Looking at the stats, I think there's a stronger case now for both King Charles and Lord Cameron. What do you make it? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Neveselbert I actually followed up at Talk:Lord Cameron already - it actually subsided a bit from the initial spike. Given the downward trend, I'd track that one for a couple more months to make sure. I'll have a look at the other one. --Joy (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
So, wait for Lord Cameron, King Charles stays as is? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Neveselbert in each of those cases there were organized discussions, using the WP:RM system. They were both somewhat contentious, so regardless of what you and I observe now, if substantial changes were to be made, they should be made using the same organized discussion process anyway so that interested people are notified in a consistent manner, as a means of following the WP:CONS policy. --Joy (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply



Thanks for sorting out most of the incoming links :) 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Cremastra I actually only did a few, I think you should thank Onel5969 :) --Joy (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why a /28 block?


I must confess I never even knew Croatian kuna existed, much less had any thoughts of editing it, so it's not as if it'll really affect me. But all the same, why did you block the entire 2603:800* range from the article, when from looking at its history only a single /64 range (2603:8001:b202:3294:*) was the one editing the article? (For context, the /28 range includes 68 billion other /64 addresses (and thus devices) besides the one actually causing you problems.) 2603:8001:4542:28FB:13D:3E61:A292:EAAC (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC) (Send talk messages here)Reply

Could you at least reduce the block from 1 year to 6 months instead? 2603:8001:B202:3294:A943:8193:E260:B3E6 (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

My grandfather


Hello and dobry den , I am the granddaughter of Jan Smudek - thankyou for this Information - I’d love to know more and add some things ! jsem Katuš Young , vnučka Jana Smudka . Děkuji za přidání této informace. Rád bych k tomu někdy přidal další! A pokud o něm máte nějaké další informace, budu rád, když se o ně podělíte, Dekuji, Katuš Katuš young (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Croatian kuna blocked user now vandalising Ryan Bang


Hi. You blocked this IP from Croatian kuna; they have now begun to vandalise Ryan Bang. Not sure if this is relevant to you, but thought I would highlight just in case. BobEret (he/him) (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

"TAR" listed at Redirects for discussion


  The redirect TAR 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/2024 February 25 § TAR until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

CS1 error on Sofronije Podgoričanin


  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Sofronije Podgoričanin, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Heads up on disruptive user


Just wanted to let you know (talk · contribs · WHOIS) or (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is still at it, still with the same awful hagiographies, still doesn't communicate with anyone. So sadly, nothing has changed in that regard. Aleksamil (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Aleksamil you're saying we need to restrict their edits to draft space again? --Joy (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Joy Oh, I thought they were banned back then from all namespaces. Idk what the course of action in cases like this should be, honestly. I haven't really seen this behavior before.
The articles they're churning out are usually egregiously violating WP:NPOV, and I think it's safe to say they're consciously refusing to communicate with the community. Aleksamil (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oh yeah, the block was set to a year and it expired since. If there's been no apparent change in pattern, I'll just extend the blocks again. --Joy (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply



FWIW, I don't agree with the charge (especially as the roles could easily have be reversed  ). It seems perfectly reasonable to me for the proponent to offer rebuttal to points made against the motion – and conversely. To me, bludgeoning would be to just say the same thing over and over, no matter what points were made. I doubt that this will escalate but if it does, do please let me know as I will be very happy to lend my support. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@JMF thank you for your kind words! I agree, we are merely having a polite disagreement, and the consensus-building process is not being disrupted, or rather there was little to explain an alternate interpretation of how the discussion is going. Certainly a volume of comments can be an indicator of a problem, and goodness knows I can be verbose, but still, I think this is still a quality discussion. In either case, I don't hold a single such charge against the commenter, I've seen people throw around potentially inflammatory wiki-lingo in various situations before :) --Joy (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Dekimasu I don't know if you were closing this arbitrarily today, or with the explicit intent of preventing an escalation of a disruptive discussion, but either way, I would appreciate it if you could share with us a bit more about why Talk:Maus#Requested move 11 February 2024 was ready to be closed. --Joy (talk) 13:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I thought perhaps the most telling point made is that on the one hand we have a Pulitzer-winning novel and featured article; on the other we have a unit that never saw service. We don't count !votes but the majority is clear for no change. I struggle to understand why you would consider that Dekimasu might consider it likely that any substantive new point will be added at this stage. Why prolong the agony? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm mainly worried about this impression is that we ended on a bit of a low note, with this accusation of impropriety, a couple of new !votes without much comment and the close without much explanation all coming in the same day. I don't know about the potential for new points to be raised, but it didn't strike me that anyone was really agonizing there. --Joy (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the message on my talk, since I didn't receive the ping. This was my first visit to the page, and I arrived there directly from the backlog section of WP:RM. I read the full discussion and closed it normally. If I thought there were particular problems with the behavior of editors in the discussion, I would have mentioned that in the close. As far as the strength of individual arguments, less is usually more when writing a close; mentioning specific points often makes editors feel less heard rather than more. A "no consensus" close in this type of discussion is often awkward, since it is a place where our standard processes point to different solutions: "no consensus" usually retains the status quo, but "no consensus" that there is a primary topic means a disambiguation page would be better at the base title. In this case, I read the discussion as a consensus (though not unanimous) on the question of whether there was a primary topic with regard to significance, and a consensus (though a weaker one) on the question of whether there was a primary topic according to usage. It's possible that closers visiting the page earlier in the discussion may have thought more time was needed in order for a clear consensus to emerge and avoid the scenario mentioned above, but I saw a consensus in a backlogged discussion when I came to the page. I hope this explanation is sufficient. Best, Dekimasuよ! 04:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Croatian wikipedia


Hello Joy, can this page be edited better, so many things are written incorrectly here, look at my edits of this page, but some users do not agree with it. They write that it says that it is the past tense, but it doesn't say that it is the same today, which confuses the readers. Thank you. I won't edit anymore if you can improve it.[[1]] (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Incomplete block?


Please check

He is still editing. How?--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Estopedist1 they are only blocked from one particular page. If you think there is reason to block this IP address from other areas of Wikipedia, please start a thread at WP:ANI to explain why. --Joy (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Could we end this block by December or January? Besides, Bulgaria is scheduled to replace the Bulgarian lev and adopt the euro in 2025 (originally planned for 2024). 2603:8001:B202:3294:5C30:C30C:67BE:C42F (talk) 05:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Dear anonymous user from 2603:8001:B202:3294::/64, do you understand why you were blocked? Please also see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. --Joy (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Can you please reduce the block or at least try to give me another chance to edit the article? I'll promise that I won't do any vandalism. 2603:8001:B202:3294:1E9:2C20:D1BF:CD23 (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Croat-Bosniak War result dispute


Ok so, I messaged you about this since I figured you would know, you do work with these types of pages (im assuming), so here is this question:

How did the Croat–Bosniak War end? Was it because of a Bosnian victory or because it ended by the Washington Agreement? I am saying this because two users are disputing about how the war ended (I'm not naming). I personally think the agreement ended the war, but one person says it is a Bosnian victory, while another says the agreement ended it.

If you could message me back and tell me your opinion, that'd be great. If a talk page discussion should be added, let me know.

Tvoj zločinac iz Srbije, Overthrow-dictator (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Overthrow-dictator please feel free to use standard WP:Content dispute mechanisms to deal with this matter. --Joy (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Piped links through redirects is not the same thing as redirect links. WP:NOTBROKEN does not apply to links that are already justifiably piped; in piped links, the linked name should always be the exact name of the target so the reader is led to the page not through a redirect but directly. This is because piping through a redirect complicates things unnecessarily for the reader who then gets a message that they were led to the article from a term that they did not even see because it was hidden in the pipe. Otherwise, for the reader, the difference is imperceptible, and the markup is technically equivalent insofar as piping is used in both cases. NOTBROKEN is about avoiding unnecessary piping. It's either-or: Redirect link or piped link, but not piping through a redirect. —Alalch E. 10:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bajamonti "last Italian mayor"


Yes, sorry, you're right, it was my mistake. Hi, --LukeWiller (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC).Reply

Category:Legacy of Austria-Hungary has been nominated for merging


Category:Legacy of Austria-Hungary has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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) 19:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply


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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply


edit Endy Angello (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

You've got mail

Hello, Joy. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 17:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your warning


I don't understand the "final warning" you are stating in this post [2].

Can you please explain in detail. Thank you. I do mean it sincerely. I will try to correct if something is not according to Wiki guidelines.

Bilseric (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you continue to post these kinds of messages that show a failure to follow Wikipedia policies, you will be restricted from editing, plain and simple. --Joy (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, I really still don't understand. Could you please help me by naming the policies and my messages which are agains those polices? Thank you.
I see you provided some link on the talk page, but it takes me to something I really can't make a sense of. Bilseric (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I think that I see now. You are referring to "Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited."
I feel this is really out of scope. I am posting and discussing a source on the appropriate talk page. This isn't even the article's talk page, but a separate talk page created exactly for this purpose. I'm not using the site for any other purpose but to edit the article to which this talk page belongs. The fact that I haven't made any requests, for now, is that I'm following Wiki guidelines on SYNTH. I have noted in my post that I have been using SYNTH, as it's allowed on the talk page. This doesn't mean I won't keep working on the subject matter in the future and research for other sources. This has been a contested topic (though not so much in the last few years), but I cannot agree that any discussion on a contested topic is falling under the "other uses" as mentioned by ARBMAC. There has to be a way to have a discussion on a contestec topic that doesn't fall under prohibited use as stated by ARBMAC. And, if the topic is contested ,it's to be expected that some would have strong opinions and even claim that someting opposite to their opinion constitutes "advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle" of the other side. Bilseric (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The problem is that you've kept posting about this without backing it up with evidence that you understand these policies, and it's been going on for years now. At some point, you need to give it a rest. --Joy (talk) 07:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't see how any of this would relate to your final warning about violating ARBRAMC, but I will try to briefly answer. I feel that "keep posting" and "going of for years" are really unfair negative labels. I feel sorry that you have such an opinion instead of a more positive one. I don't feel that my recent posts to that topic would warrant such a negative opinion. Especially after you yourself had called one of the sources that I have posted "interesting", in your most recent post [3]. You do realize that you yourself have been involved much more that I? I don't really have that much edits there. I have participated only in handful of discussions and posted only a small number of other edits, over many years. Bilseric (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The basic idea of editing Wikipedia is that we make substantive contributions to articles supported by quality sources and consensus-building discussions. If your contribution appears to boil down to an egregiously flawed reading of sources and a huge amount of misguided messages to talk pages, do not be surprised that others are not interested in engaging further. --Joy (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I feel sorry that you have such opinion. If you could share what would change your opinion, I would like to try and work on that in the future. Can we at least find common ground and put WP:ARBMAC issue to the rest? You haven't touched on in your last 2 posts and I would really feel much better if we could agree at least on this. Bilseric (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nomination of Debian Free Software Guidelines for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Debian Free Software Guidelines 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/Debian Free Software Guidelines (2nd nomination) 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.

(t · c) buidhe 22:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Some bubble tea for you!

  For your tireless work in fixing the incoming links to Roberta after the name dab was moved there. Many thanks! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply


Hello, Joy. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Joyous! Noise! 04:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply


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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Srebrenica massacre redirect


You previously indirectly intervened in an element of the ongoing conversation regarding the request to move Srebrenica massacre to Srebrenica genocide. I wonder if you might have an opportunity to take a look at the current state of the talk page and that conversation. I believe some editors are intentionally looking for opportunities to derail the conversation – perhaps with the motive of creating an impression that a consensus cannot be reached, and allow the current article name to persevere despite the fact a good case can be made that Wikipedia policy would support the move. I probably do not have enough evidence to make that claim with confidence, but several recent comments work only to derail the conversation nonetheless. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply