User talk:Hey man im josh

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, linking to me ({{Ping|Hey man im josh}}), so that I will be notified.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, linking to your username, so that you will be notified.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

This is Hey man im josh's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19: 90 days

This talk page is automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Thanks

		Project Editor Retention This editor was willing to lend a helping hand!
		Thanks for all you do to acknowledge others at the Editor of the Week Awards

Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 11:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awww this means so much coming from you @Buster7! Thank you so much!! I need to write out the statements for the noms I have so we can get that backlog bigger! I'll continue to make noms for as long as I can and encourage others to make nominations as well, as I often do on the community Discord. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it! The more the merrier! If you use stats like how many "this" or how many "that", if you could just visit the Accepted page right before awarding happens so I don't forget to update the figures. Thanks. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 03:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An edit you should not have reverted on 2024 Summer Olympics medal table

Someone tried to edit the infobox so that the U.S. would be listed before China in regards to the number of gold medals won, as the tie between them is officially broken by the U.S. winning more silver medals, but you reverted that edit, despite previously editing other articles that discussed how the tie-breaking is done. It only goes alphabetically when there isn’t a tie-breaker. No one else seems to be fixing it, so please undo your revert that shouldn’t have happened. 2600:100A:B1C6:5C9A:3C33:1C62:992:B55C (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by the revert. The only aspect being considered for the "most golds" statistic is the number of golds. There's no tie breaker to be considered because there's only one part of the table that's relevant in that content. When there's a tie, as there is for most golds, countries are listed alphabetically by IOC code. Additionally, the info box already includes the NOC (USA) with the highest number of overall medals already. To push for the USA to be listed first would be a bias towards America in this context. I will not be reverting that edit. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the only bias being shown here is your bias *against* the USA. Previous articles with this same situation show the country that won the tie-breaker being listed first when it has the same number of gold as another country. You edited this article — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Winter_Olympics_medal_table — and didn’t mind Norway being listed before Germany there despite Germany being before Norway alphabetically. 2600:100A:B1C6:5C9A:3C33:1C62:992:B55C (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The IOC website itself https://olympics.com/en/paris-2024/medals lists the USA first using a tiebreaker (silvers), your anti-USA bias is showing. 217.66.157.127 (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(hey man im josh) isn't wrong. When there's a tie in gold medals - the code is to list alphabetically. You guys are not seeming to understand that and also nobody is even saying that USA didn't come first. But in terms of gold medals won, USA is tied with China and so constantly removing mentions everywhere in all articles that they are tied in gold medals, is just invalid and needs to stop. I made talk threads in those articles addressing those edits and you should discuss and not edit war. Evibeforpoli (talk) 07:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out to me, that was an inadvertent oversight on my part. It's thankfully now been fixed. For what it's worth, in text I had already listed Germany first, because that's what you do when you're making a list and they're tied in the only relevant qualifier. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Wharton Page

Hi, was just wondering why you have flagged the page Mike Wharton for may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies there are secondary sources on the page. if you think it needed anything else can you please say what. thanks Knowledgework69 (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgework69: I believe they are likely to be a local politician that lacks enough significant coverage to meet WP:NPOL. The sources included are secondary, but they're entirely routine coverage that don't signal that the individual is independently notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi so, Wharton is the Deputy Mayor of a Region that has a population of ~ 1,571,000 He is also the Leader of one of the 6 borough councils within that region with a population of 128,432. also it is important to understand the UKs emerging quasi-federal structure, in the UK there is not a set standardisation of devolved administrations, in Scotland Wales and NI for example they are lead by a First Minister and local parliament for devolved matters. due to the size of England it is not possible to have a singular devolved English government and local parliament. instead England has what is known as Combined Authorities which are large areas of England, containing a number of towns settlements and local authorities which are lead by a Mayor (legally metro mayor) these mayors and the combined authorities they lead wield powers devolved by the government on a wide number of portfolios such as Crime, Health, Housing, Transport, Tourism, Investment and Localised Trade to name but a few.

WP:NPOL says that "(for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office" the Liverpool City Region would fall into this i believe as although it says "City" this naming was just a compromise due to the lack of wanting to call it the Greater Merseyside Region Combined Authority. it is essentially similar to that of a state in the US all be it a lot smaller with less powers it is never the less a form of central government devolution in the UK therefore its officers (Such as Deputy Mayor and Cabinet Members) I believe are entitled to a page Knowledgework69 (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgework69: The population isn't particularly relevant, but I've seen mayors of towns of over a quarter million people get deleted based on a lack of anything other than routine coverage. In this article, it's all typical press release coverage, almost entirely about him getting the role and leaving another. These are kind of as run of the mill as they get. We'd want to look for coverage on the individual, or broader coverage to include that's not just about them taking or leaving a job.

As for WP:NPOL, the Liverpool City Region is not the equivalent of a state/province, that would be the Regions of England. Never the less, WP:NPOL is guidance, and not absolute. I'm not planning to nominate the article for deletion, but, in its current state, it's not displaying enough to show clear notability. I'd just encourage you to add more sources that show WP:SIGCOV of the person. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do get what your saying however I do feel the need to correct you on your comment about the regions of England, basically they have no level of governance in the UK structure and are pretty much solely used for census data and things like the BBC will break up their broadcasting to regional channels etc. in the UK the tiers of government basically go

Local Councils (Wirral Council, Westminster City Council Salford City Council Etc)

In England the next highest tier is Combined Authorities Chaired by Metro Mayors (Greater Manchester CA, Greater London Authority, North East CA, Liverpool City Region CA, West Yorkshire CA etc. In Scotland Wales and NI it is the Devolved Administrations

Then Above this it is the central government

The Combined Authority Mayors will sit on the Council of the Nations and Regions along with the First Ministers of Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland, and is chaired by the Prime Minister. while the UK System is messy and imperfect Combined Authority Metro Mayors despite the sounding of their name are not "Local City Mayors for example, as they do exist in the UK see Mayor of Salford" rather they are more similar Governors in the United States, not saying its like for like but they aren't like for like to Local Mayors either. Knowledgework69 (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgework69: I'll be honest, the subdivisions don't really matter to me in this case. The article needs improved references because it's simply not obvious why this person is notable, given that all the references are just about him starting or leaving a position. I have no intention of nominating the page for deletion, so I recommend you just work on improving the references. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah no worries, some more have been added today, I did just want to emphasise that the way the UK is split up I think it would count under WP:NPOL for being the equivalent of a state or provincial office. I do agree that the page needs improving. Thanks anyway for highlighting the need for more sources. Knowledgework69 (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Hello @Hey man im josh, I've seen that WP:ECR is applied to someone contentious topics. I was wondering how exactly does it work? Do you have to ask an admin to add a template to the talk page or something else like that? How do I request an admin for that on a talk page on a contentious topic? PadFoot (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @PadFoot2008. I don't actively deal with contentious topics, but, my understanding is that WP:RPP/I would be the best place to make such requests. I believe in Twinkle's menu for requesting page protection you'd select the "Arbitration enforcement (ECP)" option in the drop down menu. Then throw a quick explanation explaining which topic applies in that situation and an admin will process the request if they agree. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flemmish explained about it to me on the main article. He said that ECR doesn't to IPA. I was actually talking about a talk page above. An IP sockfarm was disrupting an RM. I've filed an SPI now. PadFoot (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vice-Chancellors categories

Hi Hey man im josh. I've noticed that you have been nominating multiple category trees per MOS:JOBTITLES. A large set that I have had on my todo list for quite a while are those with Vice-Chancellors in the name, see this list. As I don't use tools like Twinkle I've put off nominating them manually. But perhaps they would be something you could get to? To complicate things some also have incorrect reference to the university, e.g. Category:Vice-Chancellors of University of Johannesburg should have a 'the'. Anyway, if you do nominate them thank you in advance! Tassedethe (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Tassedethe. Downcasing is super easy and low risk for me when doing these batches, but you're right, it does complicate things to have "the" in it. Just to be 100% clear, is every category meant to have be prefixed with "Vice-chancellors of the ..."? Also, not that it probably matters if you don't have Twinke, but I use User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/massCFDS for these batch nominations. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see where it should differentiate (based on Category:Canadian university and college chancellors:

Vice-chancellors of the University of Johannesburg
Vice-chancellors of Brock University

So, if I understand correctly, we have a "the" before "University" in these types (for the names of universities anyways). Hey man im josh (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I think that's right. Unfortunately it's a little more complicated than that. I think if it's "University of Foo" then it is "the University of Foo" as you say. "Foo University" doesn't have a 'the'. But also "Bar University of Foo" is also "the Bar University of Foo". So for instance "Category:Vice-Chancellors of Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta" should have a 'the'. And as I'm staring at the list there are some errors the other way, e.g. Category:Vice-Chancellors of the King Edward Medical University should not include the 'the'! Tassedethe (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Tassedethe, I got most of them done, the obvious slam dunks, but I have some tentative lists I'd like you to look at before I move forward with the rest.

List 1: Add "the" to make it "Vice-chancellors of the..."

List 2: Remove "the"

List 3: Just downcase to "Vice-chancellors"

If it helps, you're more than welcome to edit my comment to place the categories where they belong in this list. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hey man im josh, thanks for all your work so far. I couldn't believe how quickly you got that done, I need to check out that script you mentioned. Thanks for these new lists, after seeing them all listed I think my "advice" was at least in part incorrect. Of list 1 I think only these ones need 'the' adding:

List 2 looks correct. From list 3 I think these one need 'the' removing:

But honestly my head is stating to hurt. :) I'm sure other people will weigh in if there are mistakes. Best, Tassedethe (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tassedethe: I think your suggestions make sense, but I feel you! It definitely does my head in after too much time on this stuff lol. You should have just received the last ping for the remainder of the nominations. Fair warning, I do a lot of Excel screwery, so while the script is incredibly useful, it might be less so than it looks like from the outside when looking at just my speed :P Hey man im josh (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AA question

Hi Josh. Just wondering. T. J. Watt and Nick Leckey were both 'SI' and 'ESPN' first-team All-Americans. Watt was also AP second-team. Does that mean he loses 'first-team' distinction for the infobox? Not sure why these distinctions are going all AP at times. Not just in this situation. This is when I'm bored, lol. John. Bringingthewood (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bringingthewood: I actually don't know the standard selectors for college ball, I'm sorry. With the NFL wikiproject, we do take the highest of the selections for the infobox. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of sounds like what I wanted to do months ago .. amend to first-team. The AP seems to be the standard, that and a token gets you on the subway. It's like All-Pro, seems like when someone says AP only .. it gets reverted. I can change it and argue with someone later on, I don't mind. It does show those selectors as first-team in the infobox link and in his article. Just wanted to see if you had a firm stand regarding this mess. Bringingthewood (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bringingthewood: Rule of thumb, if the College Football Hall of Fame recognizes the selector, that's probably the threshold. From what I understand that's what we go with.

I do support AP as the most credible selector, as does the NFL for ~14 or so years now? I say that because ever since the NFL Honors started they've had AP selections as the person who wins whatever award. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, maybe it's not the higher selector. When AP gives a second .. you lose the first in the infobox. That means if PFWA gave first-team All-Pro and AP the second team, it's wrong for the box to show both? AP should be the consensus. I'm not touching these in the future, safer that way, lol. Bringingthewood (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bringingthewood: I tried to go that route at one point, I'll have to find the discussion... Anyways, at WT:NFL there was a discussion about it (there had apparently been several before that as well) and the consensus was basically Hall of Fame accolades mattered most. I was also told that AP may not have been the most prestigious selector for the entire life of the NFL, after all, they selected the teams themselves at one point. So do we then leave or the selections of the NFL themselves in favour of the AP? No, that'd be silly, in the end there's several recognized selectors. I believe it was UPI I was told that was more prestigious at one point.. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you and I get it. I probably just still despise the AP for the DPOY award last year and Pro Football Focus can also scratch my ***! Screw the stats, it's who gets to the quarterback the quickest and doesn't sack him!!! @@ Well, I'll leave you alone now, just looking to cut corners I guess. Enjoy the rest of your week. I appreciate your feedback. John. Bringingthewood (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 August 2024

In the media: Portland pol profile paid for from public purse

Recent research: STORM: AI agents role-play as "Wikipedia editors" and "experts" to create Wikipedia-like articles, a more sophisticated effort than previous auto-generation systems

In focus: Twitter marks the spot

News and notes: Another Wikimania has concluded.

Special report: Nano or just nothing: Will nano go nuclear?

Opinion: HouseBlaster's RfA debriefing

Traffic report: Ball games, movies, elections, but nothing really weird

Humour: I'm proud to be a template

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1996 Summer Olympics medal table potential FLC

Hi there,

I was wondering if you could help me get the medal table for the 1996 Summer Olympics to featured list status? I did start a little bit on improving the list by partially rewriting the lead paragraphs and adding a few more pictures of gold medal winners, but can you help also add more to the lead paragraphs and help me research which countries won their first gold and first overall Olympic medals? You can co-nominate the list with me when the list is ready. Birdienest81talk 23:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure @Birdienest81. Have the five recent medal tables got you interested in them again :P? I was actually going to reach out to you at some point because that list is the next one in the streak of articles (User:Hey man im josh/Progress#Olympics). I can take it the rest of the way if you'd like and put it in my queue to nominate :) Hey man im josh (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be of great help, @Hey man im josh! Well, yes, I am a fan of the Olympics with the 1984 and 2012 Summer ones being my favorite (hence why I saved the 1984 Summer one from demotion and promoted the 2012 Summer one to featured list). You can tell that I'm a Rams/Dodgers/Lakers, Pokemon (particularly Squirtle) and Oscars fan based on my edits.

Also can we add the 1988 and 1992 Summer tables to the queque? Although be warned, I’m job searching so my time might be hampered.Birdienest81 talk 00:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Birdienest81: Sure, I don't see why 1992 then 1988 couldn't be the next ones. I'm assuming you're talking about the Summer tables, especially since they're next sequentially, and because the Winter versions of those tables are already promoted. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant entry

Olympique Lyonnais (Superleague Formula team) this entry for deletion has nothing to do with Greek topics. Can you remove it? It is a French team. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @D.S. Lioness. Good catch, definitely a mistake on my part. I've reverted it and should have included it for France and not Greece. In the future, you're more than welcome to revert obvious mistakes like this or like to address them in a more timely fashion. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:2025 Pro Bowl Games

Hello, Hey man im josh. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "2025 Pro Bowl Games".

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Josh,

This was a redirect you created that an now-blocked IP editor created an article on top of. But, as you know, Twinkle alerts the editor who made the first edit which was you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never a problem @Liz! I know that's how it goes sometimes considering just how many redirects I've made :) Hey man im josh (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1996 Summer Olympics medal potential featured list

Hi there,

I have made further improvements to 1996 Summer Olympics medal table. As you can see, I've added a bit more in the lead concerning which indiviaul athletes won the most gold medals and most overall medals. I also added a few more photos of winners from these Games and added references when their accomplishments were not mentioned in the body of the list. Can you help me with finding out which respective nations/NOCs won their first gold and /or overall medals? You may also add more information as you please. I suggest this be the next medal table you could submit for FLC (as long as you name me co-nominator since I did contribute to this list).

--Birdienest81talk 08:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff, and of course @Birdienest81! You absolutely deserve credit for your work. I just don't typically really edit on the weekends. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @[[User:Birdienest81|Birdienest81]. I finished up most of the referencing on this today. I'm confident on the number of first time golds and medal winners, and everything seems properly sources. My last bits will be done tomorrow, making sure every reference is proper and everything is archived. so, assuming nothing urgent pops up, I expect to co-nom this tomorrow. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From / of

I think that this is the oldest discussion moving from "of" to "from". The occupations mentioned in the discussion were e.g. painters and historians for whom "of" means something completely different. After this discussion many others have followed. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Marcocapelle, thanks for the link. It's not a particularly strong consensus, and I do have some reservations, but not enough to push back on it or anything. You mentioned that it was the oldest, have there been a couple more since then by any chance? I have a spreadsheet I keep some outcomes in to use as reference, and to provide to others in regards to conventions for naming, and I'd feel better if I could point to one or two more as well when spreading that information to others. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There have been many more, but it is difficult to find them without a spreadsheet already in place. I like it a lot that you are setting that up. The way I found this discussion is because Ottoman Empire and Russian Empire are the two most obvious suspects for me. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Isn't there a categories WikiProject? It may be a decent idea to set up a page with common outcomes / outcomes that set the basis for why a category naming scheme goes the way it does. On the other hand, if it stays in user space, it can be better curated to not included poorly attended discussions. Hm hm hmmm... Or I just keep my ken spreadsheet and do what I can lol.
Either way, I spend enough time at CFDS that I need to start making better notes about these discussions, like I have with some at RfD. I'll do some digging on Monday if I get time to better flush out my list of discussions for that one. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- See also User:Good Olfactory/CFR and User:Good Olfactory/CFD for discussions up to around 2020. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Oh my goooood. I love it. Thank you for this!! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of 1964 Summer Olympics medal table

Congratulations, Hey man im josh! The list you nominated, 1964 Summer Olympics medal table, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Giants2008 (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

Congrats, my gold medal friend, on yet another great job! See you soon! John. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand you

On the one hand, you're replacing piped links to redirects such as East South Central States, which is not even marked as a miscapitalization, so it's a "purely" cosmetic edit; and on the other hand you're removing the tags that would encourage such things and make them not purely cosmetic. What's your theory? Dicklyon (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: ... My theory? What a strange way to ask why I'm doing something. Well, I'd say you're the one who's harder to understand given your fervor and misguided passion to downcase everything, even things you yourself have deemed to be proper names, but we don't need to go down that road right now.

I remove the inappropriate tags that mistakenly classify pages as an error in capitalization when they're not an actual error. As previous discussed, redirects from an acceptable alternative capitalization outside of Wikipedia are meant to be tagged as alternative capitalizations, not as errors. I understand how you want to use Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations, based on our past discussions, but mistagging redirects is not what should be done, which is why I remove those tags. As for replacing redirects which might be considered "cosmetic", I attempt to do so only in references, templates, and where a template may be copied between articles. I also don't see why it matters how East South Central States is tagged. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't downcase proper names, unless maybe accidentally. And the things I tag as over-capitalized are miscapitalized per WP style, e.g. things we don't judge to be proper names, not in some absolute, abstract, or theoretical sense; since the tag is there to help track miscapitalizations, it's very useful for things like post-move cleanups, and ought to be used for that. Dicklyon (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: I was referring to the overzealous usage of WP:NCCAPS, in which people have admitted to using the guideline (which mistakenly always defaults to lower case) to have articles downcased despite recognizing that the names are actually proper names (the extremeness of which has pushed a number of great editors away), even if not by Wikipedia's poor definition.

You're just making that up, right? Who had made such admissions? Dicklyon (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not really the point of this discussion. You absolutely do tag items that are not considered an error in capitalization, such as the hundred of sports redirects in which "Draft" or "Playoffs" is widely used in sources and is considered an acceptable alternative capitalization, just not by wiki standards. They're often consistently used by a number of relevant sources, even if it doesn't meet WP:NCCAPS. For example, the NFL Draft redirects you tagged as errors in capitalization was a mistake, as we've previously discussed, because all 32 NFL teams and the NFL itself have an MOS that always capitalizes "Draft". Who are we then to tag that as an error in capitalization instead of an alternative capitalization?

An inappropriate/inaccurate tag is just that and, frankly, it doesn't matter what you want to use the tag for. If you want the purpose of a template to change, propose it, but don't continue to misuse them. You've got enough experience on this site to know you shouldn't be misusing rcats for your own purposes. As mentioned, request a report of some kind which tracks alternative capitalizations that don't comply with Wiki MoS. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tags are appropriate and useful to categorize things that ought to be fixed. There's nothing wrong about that. Dicklyon (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: Do you understand the difference between an error and an alternative capitalizion? My name contains a capitalization error (josh, it shouldn't be lowercased), whereas NFL Draft for example is not an error (as previously discussed), it's an alternative capitalization by the rcat definitions that we utilize. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) From what I gather was the intent of those Rcats, "alternative capitalization" is wrong for Wikipedia and "miscapitalization" is wrong for the English language. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That has also been my interpretation of them. The alternative capitalization wording specifically states that the target is in compliance with wiki policy, whereas the miscapitalization template states that it's an error. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith, @Dicklyon: It seems there was no consensus on this when it was last discussed at Template talk:R from miscapitalisation § Template intent. The issues seem to be 1) How to flag what WP considers a miscapitalization so that it can be replaced with WP's preferred capitalization 2) Should a distinction be made in categorization between what WP considers a miscapitalization but is not uncommon in the "real world"?—Bagumba (talk) 05:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: The distinction already exists in the rcats, and I'd argue there was actually a rough consensus based on the arguments made, but I understand there was no closure to say as such. The issue then and now is that Dicklyon wants to continue to mistag pages for the miscapitalization report and continues to press forward. The matter of whether a distinction should exist isn't necessarily relevant to the tagging at this point because, since it does exist, we should also make that distinction unless the rcat gets deleted. Hey man im josh (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there disagreement on the actual capitalization he is doing? Or is the issue just the existing categories that he is using, but say a new category might be fine?—Bagumba (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: I do have disagreements on some of his capitalizations, and I think he needs to hold more move discussions than he does, but he's not listened to those recommendations in the past and I just won't have it in me to fight that fight. I'm not fundamentally opposed to a new category, but I do think it'd be difficult to find a better classification for "NFL Draft" for example. I keep using that example, but that's because we were all that in that discussion and that's the example Dicklyon used at the discussion.

The issue, to me, is that the rcat he's repeatedly adding classifies pages as a "capitalisation error". See Wikipedia:Template index/Redirect pages, which gives pretty clear examples about the usage of the rcats. I recognize and have accepted the outcome of the RfC on NFL Draft, but I don't believe it's accurate to refer to that capitalization as an "error", because "NFL Draft" is consistently capitalized by the NFL and all of the teams, to a level I was quite surprised about, and how can we say their name is incorrect? I think the wording of alternative capitalization contextually fits perfectly (points to a page in line with Wiki policy) and the usage is backed up by the template index. I'm not sure there's a middle ground between an error and an acceptable (in some context) alternative capitalization. Truthfully, based on the template index, he's actually tagging a lot of pages improperly. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The limitation of using Category:Redirects from other capitalisations is that it can't be used to track titles the WP community agrees should be replaced, because it is commingled in the category with other titles that WP/MOS says, "meh, use either one". Presumably, that's why Category:Redirects from miscapitalisations was chosen—to note these should be changed on WP—but then here was disagreement whether the category should reflect the real world, not just WP's preferences. So the issue is how to track miscapitalizations per WP consensus that might just be "other capitalizations" in the real world? —Bagumba (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I participated in that discussion, and I agree with Bagumba that there was no consensus. Maybe we should try again? Regardless of how you assess the consensus, it didn't result in a change to the part of Template:R from other capitalisation that says "If a redirect is from an excessively capitalized title that violates WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, please use the template: {{R from miscapitalisation}}". If I'm understanding this dispute correctly, DL is using the template in a way that is explicitly encouraged.

I said in that discussion, and I still believe, that we should use the distinction between "real world" errors and "just Wikipedia" errors to distinguish the categories. If we do make that clear, both should populate Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations and both should mention in the documentation that reader-facing text linking the redirect without piping should in most cases be changed.

As someone who thinks both HMIJ and DL have reasonable positions, I do wish the tone here could be more collegiate. That said, no one appointed me tone cop here and I won't press the issue. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need to propose a rewording, including of the index, but for the time being, it's very clear to me what the CURRENT purpose of the rcats is. I understand there's a desired purpose, but that's not in line with the text that currently exists.

You're not wrong @Firefangledfeathers... I've lost patience and I recognize I'm not showing my best self, but at this point I'm just so exhausted by all of this. Dicklyon is extremely experienced and their shenanigans have resulted in four blocks this year alone. I mean really, how much more patience can you really have with somebody who intentionally and continually tries to steamroll ahead regardless of what everybody else asks them to do? I BEGGED them to start move discussions for a number of things, but they refused to acknowledge or accept that move discussions should happen for anything somebody might reasonably object to, but they anoint themselves as the judge and push ahead anyways... They just do not learn from their mistakes, they simply wait and try again a couple years later. I completely understand why people have left the site over this stuff, and I empathize and relate to them.

The amount of time spent on this nonsense, the environment of it all, and the obsession are a genuine net negative to Wikipedia and it's absolutely ridiculous. How much more time am I supposed to waste before I just give up, like all the rest who have done so after trying to speak sense before? I don't know anybody else who gets as many chances as they do between the 11 blocks for edit warring, the multiple blocks for personal attacks, the old six-month ban on page moves except through RM they received, the ban for socking, and the ban on them using automated tools. That's not even counting the number of stern warnings and lectures they've received. Their inability, or unwillingness, to work with others has been ridiculous. I'm over it and I'm at the point that I'm concerned I might be the next casualty. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I might be the next casualty" I hope not! It's great to have you around. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: I recognize the problem but the wording used on both templates, and the guidance from the index, make it clear, at least to me, how these should be tagged. At the end of the day, tagging them as a miscapitalization just to get them to appear on that maintenance report is not appropriate. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I think the goal would be for tagging them as ~~a miscapitalization~~something TBD just to get them to appear on ~~that~~some TBD maintenance report. Is that workable for you if that could be done outside of existing categories? —Bagumba (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation on the template says the intent is to get them to appear in maintenance reports. Dicklyon (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: Ok? I understand what r from miscaps does, I don't think that's at all in question. Does it also say to use inappropriate tags just so that you can personally use the maintenance reports for things you're interested in following up on? I'd like that part of things highlighted for me please. Propose the templates be reworked or get a separate maintenance report to get that type of information, do not misuse what we have in place. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for wanting "more move discussions", feel free to revert or complain about any particular moves I make, and we'll discuss them. Dicklyon (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to rehash this with you @Dicklyon, you have a clear disregard and "no fucks given" attitude in regards to potentially controversial moves and complaints about that have never deterred you (hence the ~15 blocks you've received). I threw WP:PCM at you dozens of times, but you continue to make moves that are OBVIOUSLY going to be contested, seemingly in the hopes that nobody notices or cares enough to fight about it. So, it's a waste of time and it'll fall on deaf ears. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time predicting that "potentially" thing that may seem obvious to you. When I see things that are not consistently capped in sources, and I move them to lowercase, I don't generally anticipate any pushback, and I don't often get any. So we'll have to just agree that we different perceptions of all that. Dicklyon (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And none of my 12 blocks had anything to do with that. Well, one sort of did, but it was reversed early on explanation. Dicklyon (talk) 06:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had to look up "no fucks given". I still don't see what you were attempting to convey there. Dicklyon (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dicklyon. I really don't think continued discussion here is going to be helpful. If you want to talk it out more, you're welcome to post at my user talk page or yours (please ping me). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mouse: P.I. for Hire

I have recreated it as a redirect to Works based on a copyright-free Mickey Mouse Ahri Boy (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Ahri Boy, is there a reason you felt the need to let me know about this? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None so far, Josh. Ahri Boy (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spain 1992 (Olympics host) should be redirected to 1992 Summer Olympics.

Spain 1992 (Olympics host) should be redirected to 1992 Summer Olympics. It clearly says "Olympics host" in the parenthesis. Abhiramakella (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhiramakella: I understand that it "clearly says" Olympics host, but that text, to me, implies you're looking for information on the nation that hosted as opposed to an event hosted by that nation. Which, by that logic, makes Spain at the 1992 Summer Olympics the reasonable target. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhiramakella, I stumbled across this discussion at RfD about France 2024 (Olympics), which resulted in being retargeted to France at the 2024 Summer Olympics. I think this is the same situation. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mass creation gone wrong

I've corrected Canada 1761, please correct your other creations likewise. Fram (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Damn it, thanks for the heads up @Fram. I'll get right on it. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phew, luckily it was just the most recent 10... after which I had been working on other AWB stuff. Thanks again for letting me know, I've made a note in a spreadsheet I use for dynamic titling / targeting so I don't do this again. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week

I included a mention of our allegiance to different teams in the banner that I just added. I felt that the banner was a more appropriate spot for football Humor. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 11:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha as long as he knows we appreciate his work, even if misguided! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

declining of Draft:1985 in China

Hi, I saw you declined to my draft page Draft:1985 in China because of sources. The thing is the article is a list of events and I looked through other pages of years in China and almost none a lot of references. for example: 1988 in China have only 2 sources, 1984 in China have one. an they are concidered suitble for the mainspace. I understand I may be wrong and appreciate if you will be able too explain the standart for references in a list of events kind of article.

Thanks GvTara.

GvTara (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GvTara: Ideally, everything in a list would be referenced, that's actually how it should be. We also only move pages to draft space if they are less than 90 days old, which is why yours got moved and those did not, and the sourcing is why it got declined. Perhaps there's a source somewhere that actually has a lost births and deaths in China that year? It could be added as a general reference or just reused across all the places where appropriate. To be honest, I might be willing to accept a list with a few unsourced things in it, but it's hard to justify accepting something with 100+ facts that are unsourced. Those other lists you mentioned absolutely should be improved as well and I do hope someone does so. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewers

Hello! I see you have reviewed requests for new page patrollers. I just wanted to see with you on if I should reapply for it and if not why. The reason I got declined was because I have had an article deleted in May, I've made 20+ articles since then, and not even one of my articles have a tag and out of the 28 articles I’ve made, 11 of those are C class. I am often on the new pages feed and am often drafting or speedy deleting articles that need it, I also very regularly tag articles. I have participated in a few AfD's, and I would say I've learnt a lot since I had my article deleted in May. I feel like I would be good if I had a chance for a trail for at least a month. I do meet to criteria to become a new page patroller, but it's obviously up to the admin that reviews your request. Many thanks. Azarctic (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Azarctic: (talk page stalker), Hey, I don’t know what Josh will say to you, but even if he declines to give you NPP now, I suggest you start reviewing pending drafts using the AfC helper script, which is a good place to start if you’re interested in this field. You can post your request here, and maybe you will get probationary or permanent rights. Happy editing. GrabUp - Talk 05:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Thank you very much for the suggestion, I will definitely apply for it! Many thanks. Azarctic (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your amazing work at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working. It is both noticed and very much appreciated, Josh :) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 16:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much @HouseBlaster! I actually never expected any recognition for my work at that page and figured very few people would ever notice lol. It's the least I can do considering I've nominated thousands of pages to be renamed and I don't want to put that entire burden on other admins :P Hey man im josh (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol \| September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query about the New pages patrol

Hello. I am a fairly experienced editor but I mostly stick to writing articles and some gnome work. I am interested in getting involved in next month's drive but I was wondering - is there space on the team for someone who mostly deals with the 'Optional Steps' of new articles - basic copyediting, short description, orphan, categories, stubs and wikiprojects (and perhaps wikilinks - I love me some wikilink sorting)? Or do people have to do all the other elements too? For my first go I would much rather stick to what I know while I get a feel for things. Thank you BJCHK (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BJCHK: Most of what we do is optional and if you don't always want to mark something as reviewed, that's entirely up to you. I frequently give the advice that "if you're not sure, just move on and leave it for someone else". Improving the encyclopedia is never a bad thing! I recommend people get started at WP:NPPSORT in the area they're most familiar with until they're comfortable with the process. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the speedy reply! So it's a case of I do a little tinkering to some articles and that will help things move forward a little. I like the sound of that. I'll sign up and see what I can do. ThanksBJCHK (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated

	Good Neighbour
	Thanks for putting my rubbish out :) `Fred Gandt · talk · contribs` 18:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem @Fred Gandt, happy to help! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about recreated deleted pages?

Hi, I was just given permission to review pages, and I often see recreated pages such as Technology Connections. This page was recreated 16 days after deletion, but I am doubtful it applies for WP:G4 as a duplicate. What is the standard procedure for these pages, since I don't have permission to see the original pre-deleted version? Cheers, -1ctinus📝🗨 19:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@1ctinus: G4 tag is typically the appropriate route. Some folks will read over the AFD to see if it's easy to tell whether the comments there were addressed in the new version and then tag the page. That's part of the pain though as a non-admin, you don't know whether what you're tagging matches or not since you can't see the past version. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hello, Hey man im josh. 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.

DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Real Malabar F.C

Hello. See Wp:Sockpuppet investigations/Bobanfasil. Both the creator and the user that moved the page from Draft space for the millionth time, see log, are sockpuppets of Bobanfasil, the IPs as well. They just haven't blocked them yet because of backlog I guess. See the logs and see also Real Malabar F.C. and Real Malabar FC and you'll understand. The G5 is blatant and repeated many times over and over again. Jonteemil (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonteemil: Until someone makes a block and decides the accounts are linked, G5 does not apply. The page also had substantial edits from editors other than the alleged sock, which, per WP:G5, also makes it ineligible for G5 deletion. If all the accounts that made substantial edits were linked to socks then the page may be eligible, but as of now, it's not. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to wait for a block, it's obvious for anyone that opens their eyes. On Commons the accounts are blocked in a minute but here it takes several weeks, unbelievable. @Wikishovel: can you help me out here? All substantial edits to the article are socks or IPs used by the same master and the page should be deleted, like it's been several times before. Unbelievable that it even has to be argued for. You are likely editing in good faith and I do respect that it's just so frustrating that you don't see what I think is so obvious. Jonteemil (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HmiJ is right, and when I recently nominated another of the same puppeteer's articles A7, G4, G5 and G11, HmiJ correctly declined the G4 and G5, while leaving up the A7 and G11. (The AFD outcome was speedy G5, therefore ineligible for G4, you see... sigh.) And yes, you're also right that it's frustrating. It's also a gift to the spammers, many of whom get paid by ignorant clients while an SPI churns it way through the backlog. But that G5 policy was decided quite a while ago, by consensus. Ironically, if the Real Malabar FC article weren't being recreated over and over by sockpuppets, I think the AFD outcome would likely have been "keep", so this pest really is shooting themself in the foot. Wikishovel (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wikishovel. @Jonteemil: First off, I do appreciate your efforts, and I can relate to the frustrations you're feeling. Unfortunately, there is actually a need to wait for an admin block or link the accounts in some way before I G5 a page they've created. I see that you've submitted the names to SPI, which is good, but the G5 tag does not force me to do process the SPI and do the leg work of making a comparison and a proclamation that someone is or is not a sock. Generally when a G5 tag is added we check whether the creator has been blocked and whether there are significant contributions to the article outside of that person and we also don't let G5 tags linger indefinitely until the SPI has been processed.

I'm sorry that this is frustrating for you, but that's just how it is, we wait for the accounts to be linked before we go and delete them all, we don't just go deleting before a block or link has been made. It's the whole mantra of innocent until proven guilty, and I'm not investigating whether the accounts are linked, I'm investigating whether the G5 tag, in its current state (at the time of processing), is valid, which it was not in this case. Additionally, because of the changes made by LeapTorchGear, the page also would not be eligible for G5 deletion. In the future, please just be patient and wait for the accounts to be linked/blocked. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects from another language

I am just wondering what you use, when reviewing redirects from an alternative language to english. Blethering Scot 21:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Blethering Scot, good question! WP:RLANG is my go to on this one. It can really be summed up as, is the alternative language relevant? If yes, then probably okay, if not, then RfD. Using Tokyo as an example, a redirect from the name in Japanese would make sense, I'd mark it as approved, but a redirect in German I would send to RfD. We don't provide translations via redirect for every language in existence and the language has to be relevant in some way to the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September backlog drive

Hi there,

I have a question regarding the drive. If I were to review an article and push it to the mainspace, but it turns out to be a sock-created article (or other blocked editor) and is speedy deleted, would those points then be deducted? Conyo14 (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Conyo14, that's a fair and good question. In short, based on how the bot counts reviews, it will still be counted unless manually deducted. I do not intend to deduct points from anybody who this happens to because I'm giving all NPR members the benefit of the doubt that they would not have done so if they had known it was created by a sock/blocked editor. As such, I see no reason to penalize them in any way if they put the time in. Pinging co-coord @DreamRimmer to make them aware that I've made this declaration. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2024 August newsletter

The fourth round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 29 August. Each of the 8 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 472 points, and the following contestants scored more than 700 points:

Generalissima (submissions) with 1,150 points, mostly from 3 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 7 good articles, and 13 did you know nominations;
Arconning (submissions) with 791 points, mostly from 2 featured lists, 8 good articles, 4 did you know nominations, and plenty of reviews;
AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 718 points, mostly from a high-multiplier featured article on Genghis Khan and 2 good articles; and
BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 714 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Susanna Hoffs, 2 featured lists, and 3 good articles.

Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated. Contestants put in extraordinary amounts of effort during this round, and their scores can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 36 featured articles, 55 featured lists, 15 good articles, 93 in the news credits, and at least 333 did you know credits. They have conducted 357 featured content reviews, as well as 553 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 30 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed during Round 5, which starts on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. If two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Remember to claim your points within 14 days of earning them, and importantly, before the deadline on 31 October.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've backed up my edits with credible sources

I've backed up edits with factual support and sources and will make sure I do so there isn't anything that's factually incorrect. I guess I should know better than make arguments with a dictator moderator who think he knows everything. I'm guessing you are artificial intelligence and not a real person. 68.234.69.24 (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, you haven't. We've discussed this way too many times at this point, it's ridiculous actually how many chances you've been given. You've been making unsourced or poorly sourced edits, and routinely edit warring for your desired outcome, for over 2 years on that IP range alone.

You did not try to make arguments, you just told me that the sources that state they're unofficial are actually official. I'm not sure how I can make you understand that pages which 'explitcitly state they are unofficial are not appropriate sources over official sources. That unofficial source was also used as an argument against a pile of sources stating otherwise, and based on you trying to interpret what positions players are likely to play.

Strange to accuse me of being AI given the number of conversations we've had on the matter of your unsourced changes. Perhaps if you'd have been more willing to actually discuss things it'd become more clear I'm a human?

Lastly, on your dictator mod comment... it wasn't me who blocked you, but I did make the report. This is the seventh unique administrator that has blocked you, so you can levy accusations and insults all you want, but I laid out the history in my report. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A year already, wow. Thanks for the award and the reminder! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Dukes

Hi, can you tell me why did decided to speed rename bunch of categories about various Grand Dukes from "Grand Dukes" to "Grand dukes"? ([1]) Marcelus (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly against WP:NCROY. Marcelus (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus: You're coming on a little strong here, so I'll mention that we should always assume other editors are also trying to improve Wikipedia (WP:AGF). I obviously wouldn't make this type of change / proposal if I didn't believe it was correct.

So, to elaborate, I don't see how WP:NCROY is relevant in this case. Please do correct me if I'm wrong and point me to the appropriate section, but I don't see a part of that page addressing plurals of titles that are typically singular. As an example, Great Duke of Canada could be capitalized but Great dukes of Canada would be the appropriate capitalization, per MOS:JOBTITLES. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Marcelus (talk) 07:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus: For what it's worth, I've spent a good bit of time over the last year working on downcasing category names of titles that are pluralized for consistency. I've made a few mistakes here and there, not knowing enough of a history to realize I was incorrect. I try to do my due diligence, so, if I do make a mistake in these renamings, let me know. I'll do the cleanup work of cleaning up after myself because, like you, I want to improve Wikipedia, not make it worse in any way :) Hey man im josh (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I understand, I'll make you aware if I find any mistakes. Marcelus (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About WP:AFC Backlog drives

Hey man im josh, I see 3 Months WP:AFC backlog drives are currently exist on there and numbers of awaiting is 1,930+ are awaiting of review and I thoughts it's backlog drive as like Wikipedia:NPR backlog are started from today and we need to clear of WP:AFC of 3 months backlog drive and last backlog drives has done November 2023.Happy editing --- ᗩvírαm7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 04:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aviram7: I actually don't handle any coordination or backlog drives for AfC. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2409:40F3:1094:A201:5F1:A577:18D:9819

This and one similar ip are making mess with few pages, one especially as log shows ("madeena"). admin blocked his socks too, if you can delete the article best. ip refused my clearing attempt so redirect was quick solution. Appreciate 93.140.190.14 (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's been dealt with, but my talk page is typically not the best place for timely responses to these types of requests. You might consider the SPI report or WP:ANI next time, as I don't typically deal with socks. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).

Administrator changes

Pppery

Interface administrator changes

Pppery

Oversighter changes

Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

Guideline and policy news

Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.

Arbitration

Following a motion, remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) were repealed.
Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") was suspended for a period of six months.
The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.

Miscellaneous

Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in September 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,900 articles and 26,200 redirects awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed Page Move

Hi, RikuOka0222 moved article Koreans in Japan to Zainichi Korean but I've reverted their this moved, they did n't created the discussion for changing the name of the article to new article and I've warned for undiscussed moved on their talkpage.please check it.Happy editing! --- ᗩvírαm7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 13:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aviram7: I'm not sure what you'd like me to do. You've reached out to them and I'm not really sure what type of admin intervention you're requesting. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

apology for about that,I would like to ask if this article could be protected from being moved, since they are suggesting on their user talk page that we should change this article's name.Happy editing --- ᗩvírαm7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 13:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the article?

TL;DR You made an edit to an article I added and now the article is in a redirect loop(?)

The long story - The article "Billy Joel: Live at Yankee Stadium" (with a colon) redirected to "Billy Joel Discography." Another article, "Billy Joel - Live at Yankee Stadium" (with a dash) also redirected to "Billy Joel Discography."

I added content to the (dash) version and had the (colon) version redirect to it. Then someone changed the title to "Live at Yankee Stadium (Billy Joel video)" and everything was perfect.

Now, however, the two titles redirect to each other and the article I added is gone. Is there any way to revert "Live at Yankee Stadium (Billy Joel video)" to show the article I added? I'd try it myself, but I just seem to be making things worse. Baron Crimson (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see now, the redirect became circular. The page is restored at Live at Yankee Stadium (Billy Joel video). Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Baron Crimson (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of 2016 Summer Olympics medal table

Congratulations, Hey man im josh! The list you nominated, 2016 Summer Olympics medal table, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Hey man im josh. Thank you for your work on Boccia at the 2024 Summer Paralympics – Women's individual BC1. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

The ref is for the male version of the sport. please fix.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Hey man im josh. Thank you for your work on Boccia at the 2024 Summer Paralympics – Men's individual BC4. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

one of the refs is for the BC1 version

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Hey man im josh. Thank you for your work on Boccia at the 2024 Summer Paralympics – Men's individual BC2. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

one of the refs is for bc1

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Hey man im josh. Thank you for your work on Boccia at the 2024 Summer Paralympics – Men's individual BC3. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

one of the refs is for bc1

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @MPGuy2824, just to recap what we briefly spoke about on Discord, these were actually created by someone else after I had created some redirects. Thanks for reviewing the pages and participating in the drive! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 September 2024

News and notes: WikiCup enters final round, MCDC wraps up activities, 17-year-old hoax article unmasked

In the media: AI is not playing games anymore. Is Wikipedia ready?

Recent research: Simulated Wikipedia seen as less credible than ChatGPT and Alexa in experiment

News from the WMF: Meet the 12 candidates running in the WMF Board of Trustees election

Wikimania: A month after Wikimania 2024

Serendipity: What it's like to be Wikimedian of the Year

Traffic report: After the gold rush

Humour: Local man halfway through rude reply no longer able to recall why he hates other editor

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bring It Now

Hello! A few days ago I tried publishing an article about a moving company called Bring It Now. It is my first time using Wikipedia and would love an explanation on why it was deleted and how I can edit it and get it posted! I had thought I followed all the guidelines and rules but if you can inform me what I did wrong id appreciate it for attempt #2! Thanks a ton, Bobby. BobbyJayy (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like your first edit was actually to this talk page, and I'm not finding anything under that name even when I change the capitalization. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, this is my first time using this site. Ill try again to publish it. BobbyJayy (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Future Events Redirects

Hey,

Apologies as you are becoming my go to for queries. What would you consider with regards to redirects for future events to the main competition. Is there tags that are relevant to this, and what would we consider excessive. This is my Example. Thanks in advance. Blethering Scot 20:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to apologize for @Blethering Scot! It's all part of the collaborative effort and working together. My rule of thumb is generally "is it mentioned at the target", and is there anything at all useful there that someone who searches that event might find? My XfD log has some stuff in it that relates to this actually. Sometimes it's two years ahead (2026 Peach Bowl), sometimes the next three to four events may be valid redirects. It's case by case but if the redirect isn't useful because nothing is at the target that references it, then it should typically be deleted per WP:FUTURE. You'll notice I have some good recent examples in my xfd log actually, including WrestleMania, Olympics, basketball seasons, and a bit more.

Based on your example and the target, I think RfD is the way to go. I would say the redirect is misleading based on what's there.

Also, in case you ever want a second opinion from someone not me (you can always reach out to me, I'm definitely not pushing you away, but it's also great to learn from multiple sources), I encourage you to reach out to Utopes (next most redirect patrols next to myself until you came along), Tavix, or Thryduulf. The last two are two of the most active people at RfD, and they're both admins I've learned a lot from in discussions and from reaching out. Oh, one last person I'd feel bad about not mentioning is Steel1943, who has also taught me things and has been active at RfD for a long time. I've disagreed with every one of them and it's always been civil and a great opportunity to learn. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and for tags, r from subtopic, with possibilities, and print worthy. The season are sub topics of the overall target in a sense and it's probably more correct than the r from related topic tag. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Annual sack leaders

Hi Josh. Not sure if you want my recent edits to stay here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NFL_annual_sacks_leaders#NFL_annual_sacks_leaders. Someone was tinkering, I think they wanted to show that S. Barrett was retired and J. Houston is not currently active. I saw that Chandler Jones is shown as not active, but he is free agent. So I made Houston look the same way. Now, Vic Beasley is no longer active in the NFL, but he currently plays in the UFL. Bottom line, can we leave 'active' off for a free agent on this page, you know like the infobox would have it? It's not listed as active on a player page for a free agent. Just wondering. Thanks in advance. John Bringingthewood (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

== Had to share this. No rush to respond. Regarding my little T. J. Watt tantrum with the All-American infobox in August, I saw this today and was going to edit it. Beanie Bishop was a second-team All-American with the AP. Other selectors have him first. Same exact thing with Watt. But Bishop's page specifies first-team in the infobox. If we're using AP as the guide (when multiple selectors chose them), am I correct to edit Bishop to second-team? Truthfully, it's a sad situation when there are 15 selectors and basically 14 are irrelevant. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bringingthewood: Not active and retired are two different things and we need to think about it that way in my opinion, but I consider "active" to be active on a roster of any kind. I do think it's not really reasonable to mark them as inactive if they're a free agent during the offseason though. My feeling is they should be left as active during free agency, but once the season starts it does technically make sense to mark them as not active. That would be the most accurate I believe.

Re, first/second team, I'd default to whatever the college HoF recognizes, but I'm not sure which selectors those are. I believe there have been equally recognized selectors other than AP at various points, which is why it becomes a pain. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. I just wanted to make sure when I saw Jones one way and Houston another. On their Wikipedia page it's a no-no to have free agent listed in the infobox. You showed me that one, lol. So I had to ask. A bit confusing to a new reader, being that they tried to edit it yesterday. I think you're okay with the look right now, being that the season starts tonight. Beasley is in the UFL anyway. You have my word, if Houston or Jones are signed to a roster this weekend or any other weekend this season, I'll change it.

As far as AA selectors, I'll leave Beanie and Watt alone. I guess maybe AP, FWAA, and AFCA are higher on the pecking order than ESPN and CBS etc. Ridiculous. Thanks for all your input. John. Bringingthewood (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confused by your reversion of a delete request

I am confused by your reversion of my request to delete the Draft redirect to List of amphibians of Vermont. I figured that now that the page has been accepted as an article, and is now in the main namespace (and there are no remaining links to the redirect--I checked), that it would be make sense to get rid of the redirect. What am I missing here? Unfortunately, your edit summary of Not U1 eligible means nothing to me.

It's not that important to me (other than wanting to clean up whatever cruft I've left behind), but I would like to understand.

Trackerwannabe (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trackerwannabe: You tagged the page with a tag to indicate you wanted it deleted under the WP:U1 criteria. Being that the redirect is not in user space, it's not eligible for U1 deletion. There's no harm in having the redirect and it doesn't meet our definition of cruft. As far as cleaning up after yourself, that redirect was actually left behind by another user, but I understand the phrasing since it was something you worked on that caused that redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks.

I suspect it's going to be quite some time before I get a reasonable grasp of the ins and out of Wikipedia. Fortunately, though, I seem able to make useful contributions with whatever shallow I understanding I have.

Trackerwannabe (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The more rules you learn, the more you understand how many unknown rules are still out there! Your spirit of inquiry—"I am confused ... but I would like to understand"—will get you far here. For what it's worth, speedy deletion is on an extreme end of the "common sense gets you pretty far"–to–"bitter morass of bureaucracy" spectrum, so your reasonable grasp of the norms in most spots is probably stronger than you think. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

Hello, Hey man im josh. 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.

The Kip ^(contribs) 01:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

Hi Josh. All of my rambling up there and I missed the promotion. Congrats on the 2016 Summer Olympics medal table! Feels like yesterday watching Phelps win six! Maybe he can paint the silver one. Regards, John. Bringingthewood (talk) 06:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent advice

I recently edited on an article and was somehow logged out and made one logged out edit by mistake. Is there something I need to do? I'll appreciate any advice on this matter. PadFoot (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) If you're logged back in now, there's nothing else to do now... Reason for being logged out might be phab:T372702. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks @Vestrian24Bio. Also that reason seems likely. PadFoot (talk) 10:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.

To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @7&6=thirteen! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Props

HMIJ, I do not know how you and other editors can keep up with watchlists during NFL Sundays lol. I mentioned this to another longtime editor. There are some good eggs out there trying to be helpful but the vandalism can be rampant. I try to stay away from current players' articles during Sunday afternoons and Sunday nights to make life a little easier. Red Director (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's fricken brutal some days, eh @Red Director? I too often wait until Monday because of the nuisance that is live updates, which some editors seem to insist on... Really wish WP:LIVESCORES applied everywhere! I happen to catch some things on my watchlist as I'm looking into fantasy stuff usually since I don't really edit on the weekends. Side note... I've won all 3 of my fantasy matches this week, so that's pretty cool at least! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basic article writing

Hello! Id like to write an article and would just like to know the very basics of how to get it published and not denied. I so far understand that I can't be connected with the topic personally (I am not), and I need to be factually correct (Ill make sure to be). What id like to know is how can I optimize my chances of getting the article published? Should it be a certain length? How many sources should I provide and what kind of sources? Do I need sources etc...

Thank you in advance! -Bobby Jay BobbyJayy (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:My first article is the place to start I'd say @BobbyJayy. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections: Updates & Schedule

Administrator Elections \| Updates & Schedule
Administrator elections are in the WMF Trust & Safety SecurePoll calendar and are all set to proceed. We plan to use the following schedule: Oct 8 – Oct 14: Candidate sign-up Oct 22 – Oct 24: Discussion phase Oct 25 – Oct 31: SecurePoll voting phase If you have any questions, concerns, or thoughts before we get started, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections. If you are interested in helping out, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections § Ways to help. There are many redlinked subpages that can be created.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity

You declined two speedy deletions I tagged from original creations by blocked users:

Cave of the Beasts - this was "moved" and immediately moved back by the now blocked editor 2 mins later. It could arguably be considered disruptive. Pages I have tagged for deletion in the past in similar circumstances have been deleted.
Oloirien, Arusha Rural District - the rationale of duration is not in itself unreasonable, although the page wasn't further developed under this title.

I considered the circumstances on the history of each beforehand, and while I appreciate duration for the 2nd makes it slightly different a consideration, there is not in my view any reason to not proceed with removal on the first one, at least. Maybe you could offer your opinion under the criterion you believe to be more suitable. We typically use G5 for creations by blocked users, and the creation of disruptive redirects, including from the origin of page moves, i'd argue could fall under such criteria (with exceptions).

If my thought process around this scenario is incorrect, please point me towards the appropriate policy and correct protocol to consider in further cases. Thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cave of the Beasts – One could argue the move was disruptive, yes, but I think that'd be an unreasonable assertion. I don't think this would qualify as page move vandalism, it was simply an attempted renaming. "Cave of the Beasts" sounds more grammatically correct to some, even if that's not the actual name of the cave, and it could actually still serve as a useful search term. Never the less, I'm actually surprised to see it, but G5 doesn't explicitly state that we don't typically delete redirects from page moves. This is more of a best practice not to because there's an expectation that, unless there's a very good reason not to (such as a completely ridiculous redirect name), we always leave a redirect behind when a page is moved. The whole purpose is to keep people directed to what they're looking for, especially if they looked for it at a past name. With that said, I was not aware at the time of tagging that the page had only been there for two minutes, but I typically follow what the most active checkusers at WP:SPI do, which is usually leave the redirects from moves not deleted. I admit, this one is rather borderline given that it was only at the location for 2 minutes, but the redirect has now existed for over 4 months without issue and the article starts out with "The Cave of the Beasts..."

Regarding Oloirien, Arusha Rural District, that did not qualify for WP:G5 because this was a redirect left behind from a move you completed. Sometimes redirects from page moves qualify for G7, but, per WP:G7, For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages before the move. However that's not the case, so that redirect wouldn't qualify based on that and based on the fact the article was at this location a few days shy of four months. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woops, forgot to ping you @Bungle. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thoughtful response, first of all. Speaking generally, there are numerous redirects from page moves I encounter awaiting review, where the author is subsequently blocked for sockpuppetry and later determined as having been a blocked editor when the move/action took place. If it is credible, I often do accept it than G5 (it if it's not an unreasonable redirect title), although in some cases, I have then seen it subsequently G5'ed later on, so the consistency isn't always there.

My thinking with "Cave of the Beasts" is that if it were a straight redirect created, you would not be able to argue against it being eligible for G5, only through your own discretion if it seemed reasonable to retain. I feel this is along the lines of what you're suggesting anyway, although I disagree with your view of it not being eligible for G5.

The second one I considered in the same way beforehand (that "technically", I became the author due to reverting the move). I have, however, previously seen these deleted in similar circumstances, perhaps through G6, but I can't recall precisely. I didn't suggest or consider G7 for the reasons you outlined. Perhaps there is a case to point this to Oloirien, if it's even a different place, as it appears to be erroneous with the current target.

I don't professs to know everything about policy or that everyone would always be agreeable with my actions, though it helps to understand those who take a different view, to consider whether they better represent consensus thinking. Thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Bungle, if you do G5 a page move redirect again and you notice it's a specific admin that's processed and deleted several of them, I'd appreciate being let know who did so so that I can pick their brain a bit. It's possible I'm off base, I also do not claim to know everything about policy and make it a point to state that I don't. I hate to actually say this, it's something I was specifically trying to avoid saying on a talk page, but I'm hoping it'll get lost in the rest of the messages here... There are socks who specifically move redirects to other redirect titles in order to avoid their "creations" (redirects) getting deleted. There's a handful of specific sockmasters I have in mind for this, but it's part of their regular MO, and it's what has caused some of the redirects to stand when they wouldn't have if they were created in the regular fashion. This is actually a big part of where my thinking on the subject comes from, as I do do a lot of deletions (I think I'm fourth or something for the year?) and review a lot of redirects (I currently lead that category for the year), so it's something that I've dealt with a good bit. In doing so, I have tried to clean up the NPP queue by finding G5 eligible items, and I've found that those at SPI, and the tools they use, do not delete redirects left behind from moves in these cases. Possibly I inferred it somewhere or it's just a best practice I picked up somewhere? Again though, I could possibly be dealing with these better for all I know, and I would like to know if that were the case. I feel strongly that the redirect to Olorieni should be kept, especially because it's not under the sock's name now, but the other one I'm feeling quite wishy-washy about because of the 2 minute thing. That one could definitely be a judgement call that I could have gone the other way on had I initially realized it had been that short of a time. Initially, I just validate that the redirect was from a page move and that it made at least some sense (not R3 eligible then), not how long it had been at the title.

I could be wrong, but I do think Olorieni and Oloirien might be ever so slightly different? I'm not super sure, but they're both part of a "district" named Arusha, their names and coordinates are pretty close, but one is in an infobox for Arusha City Council, Arusha while the other is in an infobox for Arusha District Council, Arusha. The areas covered by those two pages look pretty darn close, but different from one another, and with a different number of wards in each, square km, and population. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your honesty here (in different ways, particularly an admission that you aren't always right either, which I respect more than a doubling-down approach). The matter in hand is trivial enough that it isn't actually going to be contentious either way, whether you supported my tagging or not, but I thank you for at least trying to rationalise your thought process on it. I know that you are relatively new to having usage of additional tools, though I also know you have more hands-on experience at NPP than I do. It used to frustrate me with the sheer amount of policy one had to familiarise themselves with, however I now moreso find frustration where policy is vague or lacking in matters which typically end up as discretionary decisions.

No idea on the credibility of those places to be honest. The fact that one was renamed to essentially the other one has thrown me a bit, and I considered that something seemingly erroneous, and generated by a blocked sock, may warrant removal to avoid further confusion. Although I am on the fence if they are different localities, if even just slightly. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admin role

hello Josh, I am considering applying for the admin role on English wiki.

please what do you think about my account and my chances to get selected. Thank you. Ugwulebo (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be blunt @Ugwulebo, you do not currently have a chance. While there's no official threshold, most editors expect somewhere between 8 to 10 thousand edits, at minimum, as well as work in a number of administrator related areas, such as reporting vandals at WP:AIV or username violations at WP:UAA. Keep at it and maybe some day. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your blunt reply. I will keep improving my contributions. Ugwulebo (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content model

Hi Josh, could you please help me out by changing the content model for User:BaranBOT/RestrictionScan from text to JSON? Thanks in advance! – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you are offline at the moment. This is pretty urgent for me, so I am going to move the request to WP:AN. Thanks for understanding! – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay @DreamRimmer! This has been completed. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Garden State Film Festival

Hi Josh! I did not know that I can't post about our Call For Entries. We are an arts non profit looking for help. Could you please unblock me so that we can continue to ensure factual information is on your site? Also, I know Laura McCullough and just learned that she is an expert with your website. I will make sure to find someone to help us instead of it being me.

173.70.32.42 (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the unblock template from this message. Please login to your account and use the template on your user talk page, not here. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	I give you this for continuing to improve articles while doing administrator work. Congratulations on recently going over 300,000 edits. You voluntarily took on a greater role with administrator duties and that is to be commended from my vantage point at least. Best wishes Red Director (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow! forgot to congratulate you on 300K edits. Very impressive! Fathoms Below (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much @Red Director!! I've been a big fan of yours for a long long time and I so very much appreciate your kind words. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need help

Hi Josh! I need help determining whether 2024 MTV Video Music Awards is considered as an article or a list... Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 01:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vestrian24Bio: From a quick look, I'd imagine list would be more appropriate. We've got plenty of award lists like that already, with the first one that springs to mind being Academy Awards. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind taking a look at 2026 ICC Men's T20 World Cup qualification as well, Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 05:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could be argued as such, as yes. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Thanks.

Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User renaming

Hi, Hey man im josh, please change my name in Redirect autopatrol list because my username has been changed from Aviram7 to Bhairava7. Happy editing --- Bhairava7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 12:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhairava7: Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

	Special:Diff/1241715198
	:wikimoyai: 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 21:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YAY A BARNSTAR! Not clicking the diff! Just assuming it's good things @1234qwer1234qwer4! Just gonna add it to my collection instead of looking! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

For the article protection. You're a star. Knitsey (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vegas Golden Knights seasons and FLC

On the note of the GMs FL nomination - the seasons list is at seven entries, with season eight about to begin. Would I stand a chance if I improved/nominated it for FL in the near-future, or should I just wait until the end of the upcoming season? The Kip ^(contribs) 23:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deferring to discussion at User_talk:PresN#List_of_Vegas_Golden_Knights_seasons_and_FLC. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan article Scott Vlaun

Greetings, Today I de-orphaned this article by adding a link at List of photographers, United States section.

Help to de-orphan articles.

1. WikiProject Orphanage - working to reduce the article backlog.

2. Wikipedia:Orphan - the complete How-to Guide for Orphaned articles.

» De-orphaning articles is an important aspect of building the web.

Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @JoeNMLC. Thank you for de-orphaning the article. Yes, I am aware of that WikiProject, but I am not interested in taking on more projects at the moment, but thank you for thinking of me. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question

The bot says I have 69 mainspace edits. I have 400 edits. Why is this failing?? Source: https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Cooldudeseven7 Cooldudeseven7 (Discuss over a cup of tea?) 17:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cooldudeseven7: See this link to see the difference spaces in which you have edits. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the difference between all of the spaces? Do reverts count?? Cooldudeseven7 (Discuss over a cup of tea?) 17:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cooldudeseven7: Each WP:Namespace. Each namespace has their own purpose, but "mainspace" is typically where articles are hosted. Reverts do count as edits. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information! Cooldudeseven7 (Discuss over a cup of tea?) 17:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Solis

Sorry I was not able to contest the speedy deletion nomination in time. I think you missed my comment on the Talk Page. The page wasn’t a repost; I spent days creating it from scratch with many sources. The deletion debate lacked thorough research. There’s significant coverage of the subject, as confirmed in a previous debate [1] years ago. I added all the sources from that debate and more. Reviews of his books and descriptions by respected experts like Andrew Keen and Chris Brogan, all cited in my page, support his notability. My page should be restored and you can nominate it for a deletion debate to determine the current consensus. The first debate had more comments and arguments and resulted in a keep. Even the nominator changed their vote to keep, while the second ended in delete with only two comments. So, is he notable or not? My page and the earlier debate both affirm his notability. JJelax (talk) 11:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JJelax: Your creation was similar enough to that which was deleted at the most recent AfD discussion, which actually had 3 participants (the nominator counts). The more recent AfD, from about 8 months ago, takes precedent over the older one, which was over 9 and a half years ago. Keep in mind that the previous discussion was linked from the recent one, which would have led to the past discussion being read. The consensus is recent enough, and the page similar enough, that I do not intend to restore and nominate the article at AfD. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hey man im josh. I forgot that the nominator would also count as a participant. But why did the AFD not review any of the sources in the first one? There are also many other sources not mentioned in the first AFD. There are also academic papers about his work. Solis meets all the notability criteria for creative professionals and writers. He is known for originating a significant new concept (Pillars of Influence theory) which has been analyzed in academic papers published in Journalism & Mass Communication Educator [1] and Journal of Social and Political Sciences [2]. He has created significant and well-known works that have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews such as this review in Journalism & Mass Communication Educator [3], this review in International Journal of Advertising [4] and this one in Financial Times [5]. He is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers (many examples in news articles and academic papers) JJelax (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Bjorn Vidoe

Hey... man :)

Absolutely no issue with you declining the G4 request at Draft:Bjorn Vidoe. I only requested it because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bjørn Vidø closed as delete, and this draft is part of a set of several at slightly different spellings. Northamerica1000 already deleted Draft:Bjorn Vidos, the redirs at Bjorn Vidoe, Bjørn Vidø and Draft:Bjorn Vido, and possibly others. So I thought Draft:Bjorn Vidoe could go, too. (And yes, I now realise it would have made much more sense to just ping Northamerica1000... but alas, my best ideas often come too late!)

Up to you, I've no strong feelings about it either way.

Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing: The two draft titles you point to were redirects, which is reflected in the G8 rationale they were deleted under. The difference is that the G4 request applies to a draft of an article, not to a redirect or mainspace article. I don't personally see a reason why we would need to rush and delete the draft, as opposed to letting someone try to address the reasons the page got deleted in the first place. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad, I didn't spot that they were also redirs. There are two editors (possibly only one) who have created multiple versions of these and moved them around, I guess I lost track of them.

Alright, duly corrected, I'll have a stern word with myself for not paying proper attention. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing: Mistakes happen, no biggy. You were confused about something that logically didn't make sense to you until the final bit (that they're redirects) became clear. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Pedong (community development block)

Review the page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pedong_(community_development_block) WB851300 (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WB851300: No. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my NPP rights

Hi Josh, I hope all is well with you. I humbly request that you grant me permanent NPP rights. Since I've only started contributing to the backlog (having earned 333 points so far) and considering that the 2 month trial is almost up, I figured it would be appropriate to ask now in case I forgot. I'll be extremely busy for the entirety of next month and the month after that, so I won't do much in the way of NPP patrolling until December. Thanks for your understanding, Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 19:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Wolverine XI, I actually have some work I'm looking to wrap up before I'm expecting to be less active for a bit. I encourage you to make the request at WP:PERM/NPR so someone else can complete the review properly, since I'm not sure I have the time to do so. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll request there instead. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 19:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:DotCoderr

Hello, and thanks for opening the SPI. Are the articles they created eligible for speedy G5? Wikishovel (talk) 09:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikishovel: I would have liked to get confirmation, but I'll give it some thought and maybe tag the user page tomorrow. It felt about as clear as can be, especially once they edit warred to remove it. It's just SPI is not my forte, but if I was ever sure, I think this would be one of the times. If/when I do tag the user page I'll follow up with the appropriate G5 deletions. I expect I'll see them again during my NPP work. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and do shout if you want a spare pair of hands on the cleanup. Wikishovel (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Monuments

Your mass nomination regarding National Monuments is not processed at WP:CFDS. I guess there are two possible ways forward. Either you find an admin who is willing to process it from this platform, or you move it all to full discussion. If the latter, you may count on my support. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: I'm pretty disappointed that the user has failed to elaborate after I think it was 5 pings and 3 talk page notices, and I think the changes will go through CFD fairly smoothly... but it's a pain to do so to be honest. I really should, but I was kind of hoping that at least the non-national monuments ones would be moved. Really don't feel like a CFD should be necessary to match capitalization that has stood for 7 years, but alas. Maybe I'll be up for it on Monday, I do want to wrap it up, it just makes CFDS so much bigger than it needs to be for a month now. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:HouseBlaster listed them in full CfD today. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very grateful to @HouseBlaster for taking care of this!! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL annual forced fumbles leaders

Hello, can you please indicate what sources are available that meet WP:NLIST for this topic? I spent about 10-20 minutes searching but couldn't find any, hence the tag. I'd like to add NLIST-compliant sources to the article, like I did at List of NFL career passer rating leaders. Left guide (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Left guide. I'm a bit busy, but the article is actually on my featured list to do list. It'll eventually show it, but for now I don't really have the time. I do however still strongly believe the tag is unnecessary and, to be honest, actually forgot I created the article. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1992 Summer Olympics FLC and other FLCs I've been keep up with

Hello,

I see that you are expanding 1992 Summer Olympics medal table for what appears to be a future featured list promotion. I did attempt to add a few nations that won either their first gold and/or overall Summer Olympic medals along with references backing up that information. If you could see anymore nations that I've missed, feel free to add to that list with an appropriate reference backing that fact.

Also I was planning to add photos of some of the athletes that won gold at this specific edition. Unfortunately, Vitaly Scherbo, who was the leader in golds and overall medals, has no fair use image that I could use. Which athletes do you think I could add on to the side of the table?

I plan to submit 76th Primetime Emmy Awards for FLC on October 10, and I have a current FLC with List of accolades received by Oppenheimer (film). If you have time, could you review that list for featured list promotion? Sgubaldo and I would appreciate the feedback. Birdienest81talk 07:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Birdienest81: Thank you! I'm really getting bummed out at the number of significant athletes without an image, and I'm struggling to find appropriate images to include (particularly first time medal or gold winners for countries). I'll definitely be nomming it when I can. If/when I get time I'll do what I can in terms of reviews. Hey man im josh (talk) 10:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of 1996 Summer Olympics medal table

Congratulations, Hey man im josh! The list you nominated, 1996 Summer Olympics medal table, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Thank you and the committee!! Hard to believe it's been a year... Hey man im josh (talk) 10:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

In the media: Courts order Wikipedia to give up names of editors, legal strain anticipated from "online safety laws"

Community view: Indian courts order Wikipedia to take down name of crime victim, editors strive towards consensus

Serendipity: A Wikipedian at the 2024 Paralympics

Opinion: asilvering's RfA debriefing

News and notes: Are you ready for admin elections?

Gallery: Are Luddaites defending the English Wikipedia?

Recent research: Article-writing AI is less "prone to reasoning errors (or hallucinations)" than human Wikipedia editors

Traffic report: Jump in the line, rock your body in time

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

Administrator changes

CheckUser changes

Guideline and policy news

Administrator elections are a proposed new process for selecting administrators, offering an alternative to requests for adminship (RfA). The first trial election will take place in October 2024, with candidate sign-up from October 8 to 14, a discussion phase from October 22 to 24, and SecurePoll voting from October 25 to 31. For questions or to help out, please visit the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
A request for comment is open to discuss whether there is a consensus to have an administrator recall process.

Arbitration

The arbitration case Historical elections has been closed.
An arbitration case regarding Backlash to diversity and inclusion has been opened.
Editors are invited to nominate themselves to serve on the 2024 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until 23:59 October 8, 2024 (UTC).

Miscellaneous

If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist on your watchlist, and help out when you can.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I missed another one!

Hi Josh. CONGRATS on yet another gold medal promotion up there. I really need to start paying attention. :/ Regards, John. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lol no worries, and thanks John, there's no need to feel bad for not congratulating me each time :P Hey man im josh (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome and it's never a problem. I didn't think I would be here this often ... and it's too late to punish you now, lol. Enjoy your weekend. John. Bringingthewood (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review edits

Hey, Josh. We may have not met, but I want you to know, a glitch on my computer's web browser caused me (in the middle of me logging me into my account) to edit without my username. This problem has been going for the past ten minutes since logging in.

My contribution to this article is tied to an IP address here while my recent edits to Jimmy Iovine and his former label, Interscope Records (IGA/CMG - UMG labels) are tied to me by name ([2][3]).

I assure you, these edits were planned, but my browser's bug and glitch causing my account to bounce in and out between my IP and user edits are unintentional. Please review this for me and see if my username edits are tied to my IP edit for its sister label, please and thank you. Appreciate it. Hope not to get blocked again for evasion or sock puppeting. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 05:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of administrators without tools

	Greetings, Hey man im josh. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: Vanderwaalforces
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

Tol Bot (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of 1994 Winter Olympics medal table

Congratulations, Hey man im josh! The list you nominated, 1994 Winter Olympics medal table, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating the leaderboard

Thanks for updating User:BaranBOT/Task 1/Drives/2024-09 New Page Patrol/leaderboard! I have fixed a minor typo in my total points for Week 3 in Special:Diff/1249914447, where the digit after the decimal point needs to be an even digit, not an odd digit. GTrang (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it @GTrang, just going through and double checking everything now before sending out awards. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award

		The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia
		This award is given in recognition to Hey man im josh for accumulating at least 500 points during the September 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 19,000+ articles and 35,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 26,884.6 points) completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024 NPP backlog drive – Streak award

		Planetary Gear Award
		This award is given in recognition to Hey man im josh for accumulating at least 100 points during each week of the September 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 19,000+ articles and 35,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 26,884.6 points) during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections: Call for Candidates

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates.

Here is the schedule:

October 8–14 - Candidate sign-up (we are here)
October 22–24 - Discussion phase
October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
Prospective candidates are advised to become familar with the community's expectations of adminstrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
The process will have a one week call for candidates phase, a one week pause to set up SecurePoll, a three-day period of public discussion, followed by 7 days of no public discussion and a private vote using SecurePoll.
The outcomes of this process are identical to making requests for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA or administrator elections.
Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

To avoid sending too many messages, this will be the last mass message sent about administrator elections. If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual handshake

Thanks for always stepping up!

I know we do not work together closely, but I wanted to say thanks for the fact I always see you popping up. If I casually browse Discord, there you are to answer a question or assist someone. If I decide I wanna participate in a backlog, you are there coordinating and handing out the barnstars. This is labourious and often thankless, so, thanks! — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the acknowledgement and kind words @MaxnaCarta, it's always nice to receive these types of messages and I love when folks take time out of their day to send them. You've put a smile on my face and I wanted to say I've also noticed you and appreciate all that you do as well :) Hey man im josh (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh

Obviously, I need to get hit in the head with a big brass bell! Congrats again, Josh! Maybe I should send these messages under the promotion .. it will save you some well-needed space, lol. You're the man! John. Bringingthewood (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks as always John :) Hey man im josh (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Odisha Pol

Hey, I noticed that you redirected many names of Odisha politicians to the 17th Odisha Assembly. I was creating articles on them. Should I continue?

For example: Seemarani Nayak. GrabUp - Talk 15:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh by all means @GrabUp. I can actually delete them if you intend to finish out the set? Hey man im josh (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will create them all, surely, but slowly slowly. Thanks GrabUp - Talk 15:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that should be all of the redirects I created @GrabUp. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. 🥰 GrabUp - Talk 15:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Odisha finished; Thank you for giving your time to review these. GrabUp - Talk 17:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the work you put in to make them. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The page ‪* has been reviewed."

Hey Josh, I got a notice saying "The page ‪Paris of the Plains‬ has been reviewed." with your username linked at the bottom. I'll admit I'm quite new to creating articles and doing more than wikignoming. May I ask what that means? TheBooker66 (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @TheBooker66, it just means I marked the redirect you created (Paris of the Plains), which redirects to Kansas City, Missouri was marked as reviewed. This is a function of WP:NPP, of which I am a part of. While it's not a ringing endorsement of any of your creations, it just means there's no obvious errors with the redirect that mean it should be immediately dealt with. Personally I will say I do think the redirect makes sense, since it's a nickname for the city. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you! I'll make sure to read WP:NPP. Just one more question: I looked through history of Paris of the Plains and couldn't find any mention of your review there. Do reviews not show up there, or did I miss it? TheBooker66 (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBooker66: Admins (I am one) and those with the WP:New Page Reviewer user group get a special option to mark pages as reviewed, which shows up in the page logs (here), but not in the edit history. You don't need to read through WP:NPP unless you really want to, but a page being marked as reviewed is typically a good thing. It just removes it from our "pages to be reviewed" queue. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, the logs. Alrighty, and thank you once more. I might not fully read through it, but I'll at least skim as not to be totally ignorant. TheBooker66 (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

waving... I'm new here, navigating my way around. interesting accolades

Airypedia (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the adorable cat @Airypedia! I hope you enjoy your time here and thank you for signing up to contribute. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking my redirects

Thanks for checking my redirects. wait how do you do it? how do you check redirects? is it just redirects because when I made a new page I didn't get a message saying it was checked? so are there different people to check pages and redirects? I don't think ill ever wanna do it though, what if make a mistake and allow a bad redirect or a bad page to exist and it stays on wikipedia for years, im just cerous/wondering how you do it. Anthony2106 (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Anthony2106. Admins (of which I am one) and members of the WP:New Page Reviewer (NPR) user group have the option to mark pages as reviewed. I see that the article you mention, Angeline (Heartbreak High), has not yet been marked as reviewed, which is why you haven't received a message about it. All of the NPR members have the option to patrol redirects and articles, but each reviewer has their own interests and focuses and there's no requirement that they focus on anything specific. I myself prefer to patrol redirects, as it's often pretty easy to say "well this makes sense, I'll mark it as reviewed", whereas I typically have to do a bit more work for article reviews (not that I don't do them, I've done over 4,000 this year). As for a mistake, well, that happens to all of us. All we can do is our best, skip pages we're not comfortable marking as reviewed, and ask questions when we're unsure. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You think my new page would of made it past articles for creation if I made it a draft?, I think it would because its just a episode, but I was worried it wouldn't so just made it directly, I thought to myself "if its longer then other page its fine" The Yellow Lotus was way shorter when made. Also if my page is never approved does it get deleted? Anthony2106 (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta be honest @Anthony2106, episode articles are not my forte and I don't typically review those. With that said, the length of the pages are not typically the primary concern, but what determines notability will typically be the sources available. For articles, if the page is never marked as reviewed it simply stays in the new page queue. For redirects, they're removed from the queue after six months. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you. Anthony2106 (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correction of errant title move

Hi, Hey man im josh! I saw you reviewed my errant title, Disney Junior (UK & Ireland)), which I moved from Disney Junior (British and Irish TV channel), instead of Disney Junior (UK & Ireland), the latter of which was my actual target and the latter two are currently redirects. Could you please move the page to Disney Junior (UK & Ireland) without leaving a redirect, since it's what I was going for/ The rationales/reasons for this is evident at the "Cartoon Network (Central & Eastern Europe)" section here, the RM at Talk:Channel 33 (Israel) and the move rationales by Number 57 here contrary to this. Thanks. Intrisit (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Intrisit: I'm not on PC now so I'd suggest you make the request at WP:RM/TR instead. I'd rather not try to correct it via mobile. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using WP:NORUSH here, please execute this when you're on PC, whenever you're ready! I ain't rushing to see this done now though. Thanks! Intrisit (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been fixed @Intrisit. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and thanks so much; I can't thank you enough!!! :) :) Intrisit (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A quick question

Hi Josh! I had a quick question regarding informing people about a FLC. Since one of mine is currently in the "urgently needs reviewers" box, I'm thinking of leaving a notice on a few WikiProject talk pages. The issue is that I'm not sure whether that would be canvassing or not (because obviously members of certain WikiProjects could be biased). Thanks! :) Sir MemeGod  13:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No issue @Sir MemeGod. I've done that for some nominations needing reviews in the past and I encourage you to use Template:FC notice, as it's neutral. The idea is to just make sure that your notification is neutral, which the template is. It makes perfect sense to notify the groups that are most interested and knowledgeable on the subject, it doesn't inherintly mean that the reviews are going to be biased. I use Gonzo Fan2007 as an example of this. We both love American football, but few people grill me harder about my nominations than they do because they're so in the know on the subject. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks! :) Sir MemeGod  13:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect pages about fire

Hello Josh! I have found you reviewed the redirections I made about fire quenching. Are they OK?

Thanks! Scriptir (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scriptir: If redirects have been marked as reviewed that typically means that a reviewer feels the redirect is relevant to the target and presents no obvious issues. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks! Scriptir (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment at the tectonic plate lowercasing RM, now relisted

Thanks, and the RM at the talk page of Eurasian Plate was relisted on the 15th, so not much time left. Logic and commonsense would keep the uppercasing on the 90+ plates under discussion, but lowercasers are using the casing guideline, which some of us have countered with WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE which is under fairly intense discussion. If you agree with this approach, or even have more comments, your additional participation may be useful. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this message is being sent to all participants to avoid the illusion of canvassing @Randy Kryn. With that said, it's the same three that typically show up to support Dicklyon's proposed moves. I don't think IAR is necessary, as there seems to be a fairly clear consensus against the move which some folks are attempting to bludgeon against. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the relisting editor mentioned that the opposers had no guideline or policy reason to keep the uppercasing, so the IAR route may be the only one that might hold up as actual policy. And of course, the lowercasers should also have a chance to comment on the further relisting and use of WP:IAR but some already have. I'll notify all but they seem to know about it. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: My POV is that COMMONNAME and sources were fairly clear, despite cherry picked sourcing and the nearly always useless ngram usage that certain editors always rely on to downcase anything that has a common noun. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but the relisting editor Amakuru put their thumb on the scale by disregarding Commonname, IAR, and any other points in what seemed to me to be a logical overwhelming consensus. There is quite the discussion taking place on Amakuru's talk page which may be of interest. I hope you keep track of the RM, as it will likely be challenged once closed. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: Amakuru is not an unreasonable person, so it'd be best to speak to them directly about it. I've found it best that I walk away from RMs because far too many people bludgeon the absolute hell out of them and cherry pick stats, while ignoring relevant context, in order to down case anything with a common noun. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Amakuru has been quite reasonable, which is why I was surprised at their thumb-on-scale comment, and I opened the discussion at their talk page a couple of days ago. Commonname would be argued by the existing n-grams which, although their approach is errorfilled, nonetheless are being used to lowercase what would be a massive change in Wikipedia's geology collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ngrams are absolutely useless for anything that includes any type of common noun imo @Randy Kryn. It's why so many clear proper names end up being downcased with an argument of "inconsistency", even when relevant context and subject matter experts are brought up. I've basically accepted that some of our processes are flawed enough that some editors are able to continue to cause anything with a common noun in it to be downcased. Certainly not an improvement to Wikipedia, which makes us as a whole look worse, and some people should find better ways to contribute. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and this is a big one as a major change to Wikipedia's geology and geographic collections, of long-term proper names, and in the size of the items under discussion - the largest named structures on Earth! The "improvement" and "maintaining" aspects are why maybe only IAR can save the uppercasing, but time will tell. Thanks again. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has now lowercased the largest named structures on Earth, its tectonic plates. The lowercasers can party like it's 1899! Randy Kryn (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah what a shame that "inconsistent capitalization among sources" leads to downcasing against what subject matter experts state. Seems to only be necessary to show that there's ANY inconsistency, which is obviously going to happen when those unfamiliar with a subject don't realize that the nouns in some proper names are meant to be capitalized and misreport it without the capitalization. Self fulfilling cycle, leading to a worse state of Wikipedia. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This, though, is a major one, this now-present error in Wikipedia (uppercased in Britannica and many other sources) presents a societal shift in how the plates are viewed. This one should be challenged, but maybe someone other than myself should do so as I was quite active in the discussion. Do you want to address this in a challenge or maybe one of the geologists would be better (although the first step, of course, is to ask the closer to overturn). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying, but I'm not the one to make the challenge @Randy Kryn. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will possibly add a comment to the closer's talk page later. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glock

Well of course, now I look like a total numbnuts for reporting a globally locked LTA just for a username vio. But I wish the WMF would make it slightly more obvious when they do. I mean, our block notices are generally impossible to miss. But even though a Glock is even (far far) more severe a sanction than a local block, the info's buried away in the contribs page. Talk about counterintuitive. Hope all is well! SerialNumber54129 17:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all @Serial Number 54129, you'll never look like a numbnuts for trying to help protect Wikipedia :P I've done the same thing myself in the past! I agree, it would really be nice if the strikethrough option that some of us have enabled for blocked users also applied to globally locked users. That might actually be a useful request now that I'm thinking about it... Hey man im josh (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just asked and apparently a script for this exists @Serial Number 54129. Check out User:GeneralNotability/mark-locked.js or User:DaxServer/Mark-locked.js. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick, I was just replying with "That would be a great ida" :) I'll try the new script now. Thanks very much! Anything to save my blushes at UAA! Cheers, SerialNumber54129 17:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Afton

I just draftified Michael Afton, and noticed you deleted the article several months ago. Does the creator of the draft seem familiar to you? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@I dream of horses: That's actually one of the few LTAs I'm familiar with, and it's not obvious to me at this time whether that's them or not. For clarification though, that page, when I deleted it, was a redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh Thanks for asking! At least there's some level of behavior difference. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@I dream of horses: Im not saying for sure it's not them for what it's worth. I'm just saying there's not enough for me to report at SPI. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

News and notes: One election's end, another election's beginning

Recent research: "As many as 5%" of new English Wikipedia articles "contain significant AI-generated content", says paper

In the media: Off to the races! Wikipedia wins!

Contest: A WikiCup for the Global South

Traffic report: A scream breaks the still of the night

Book review: The Editors

Humour: The Newspaper Editors

Crossword: Spilled Coffee Mug

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for patrolling the redirects I just created. I enjoy seeing my watchlist refresh and update with reviews :-) LR.127 (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, thank you for your thanks and the effort you put in creating these helpful redirects @LR.127! Hey man im josh (talk) 02:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections: Discussion phase

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

The discussion phase of the October 2024 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

October 22–24 - Discussion phase
October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

During October 22–24, we will be in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages will open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase.

On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rogers Centre Ottawa

I checked the website and it's branded as "Rogers Centre Ottawa" since they probably don't want to confuse it with the stadium in Toronto.

Check it out: https://rogers-centre.ca/ HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, my mistake. Sorry for reverting in that case then @HalfOfAnOrange. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Notification of administrators without tools

	Greetings, Hey man im josh. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: Saqib
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

Tol Bot (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Submission Declined

My company topic submission declined due to it's not adequately supported by reliable sources and i don't have enough resources that mention my company or the website. Ahmed-reda-galal (talk) 08:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmed-reda-galal: Then the company is likely not considered notable enough (based on Wikipedia notability guidelines) to have its own article. See WP:NCORP for the relevant guidelines. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of administrators without tools

	Greetings, Hey man im josh. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: Serial Number 54129
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

Tol Bot (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections: Voting phase

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

The voting phase of the October 2024 administrator elections has started and continues until 23:59 31st October 2024 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies for a vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Kanitz

Could you please restore what was A7ed to draftspace? I was going to redirect the page to Gertrud Kanitz#Persobal life but wanted to see what was there previously. I believe he is notable. Thanks! FloridaArmy (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @FloridaArmy, it's not really worth restoring. It's simply "Ernst Kanitz born on April 9, 1894 in Vienna. Died in Palo Alto, CA in 1978." Hey man im josh (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Probably would have been developed by now if it would have been left.. Take care. Thabks for your help. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some redirect edit conflicts over at WP:AFC/R

Hello! Hope you're doing well.

I accepted the redirect here because it was mentioned in the target article, just hidden behind a collapsed table. You declined the redirect - and so the page section at WP:AFC/R shows that it was declined even though the redirect was created. That looks to be the only edit conflict I could spot. If you want to look over it again, that would be great. Cheers :-). LR.127 (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah no worries @LR.127, that should be the only one. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quintets

You're so fast at NPP! Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 21:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right place, right time! Hey man im josh (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About Bairakanda

I'm curious why you marked Bairakanda as "reviewed". I don't know much about NPP, but I am surprised that this article, which was moved out of Draft space by its creator after being moved there because there is no evidence that the article's topic exists, and is tagged for AFD and has no verifiable references, merits "reviewed" status. What am I missing? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: It's simply standard practice to mark pages sent to AfD as removed. The idea being it's undergoing a community review in a sense, making an individual NPPer reviewing it redundant and unnecessary. Our time can be better spent on other articles, so we do so with the knowledge that, if kept, it's already marked as reviewed, and if deleted, it really doesn't matter. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of List of Detroit Lions Pro Bowl selections

Congratulations, Hey man im josh! The list you nominated, List of Detroit Lions Pro Bowl selections, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Speedy Endorse for a barnstar. Never have I ever seen such a fast acting and hard working admin! ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 17:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you so much for the kind words and barnstar @Cooldudeseven7! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 23:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wabash Precincts

Instead of rapid fire deleting pages from areas that are not in Canada but are under the jurisdiction of WikiProject Illinois, why did you not instead try to improve them with information that was provided on those pages from the government of Illinois? Rhatsa26X (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was what was done in neighboring Edwards County, which like Wabash County and around 20 other counties in Illinois. Rhatsa26X (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhatsa26X, excuse me? What pages did I supposedly delete? I'm not sure what relevance Canada is to the discussion, but for reference, there is no such thing as jurisdiction on Wikipedia. It's not my responsibility to improve pages that I don't have an interest in. I simply marked redirects as reviewed because the redirects were valid, if they stayed as redirects. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just got notification that every single page for every precinct in Wabash County, Illinois has been deleted and you were the one who nominated every one for it. Rhatsa26X (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhatsa26X: You're definitely misunderstanding something, because I definitely haven't nominated any precincts for deletion. Please look at your notifications again, you'll see that I marked the redirects as reviewed. Someone else redirected the pages. So I'll ask again, what does Canada have to do with evaluating whether a redirect to a target is logical or not? Even if I had nominated them for deletion, the fact I'm Canadian is entirely irrelevant, so I encourage you to not attack editors and imply their opinion is irrelevant based on where they are from. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination statements

Hi. Normally I wouldn't worry about this but as you make a lot of RfD nominations, note that it is redirects for discussion (not deletion), so your nomination statement should include a recommended action (or at least be clear that you aren't specifically suggesting anything) as often it seems as though you are advocating deletion but haven't stated so explicitely. From WP:RFDHOWTO step 2 "The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.". Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 03:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A7V2: The implied desired outcome, when one is not stated, is deletion. I don't think that's unexpected in any way when I state something is not mentioned at the target and there's no relevant information there. When I believe there may be a better outcome I absolutely do state the desired outcome / suggestion, historically speaking. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In appreciation

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For being yourself. Enjoy a sausage sandwich next time you watch some handegg. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awwww hell yeahhhhhhh! Thanks @AirshipJungleman29, may your next sandwich on a bun be as delicious as this barnstar =D Hey man im josh (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great job!

Congrats again.. Josh! You're doing as well as the Lions!! Regards, John. Bringingthewood (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a joke ot be made about the Lions winning a Super Bowl and me having the most FLs in the WikiCup, I'm just not clever enough to make it haha. Thanks John! Hey man im josh (talk) 11:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of accolades received by Oppenheimer (film) source review

Hello,

I was wondering if you could do a source review for List of accolades received by Oppenheimer (film) for featured list promotion. I would appreciate the feedback.

By the way, I will get back to editing 1992 Summer Olympics medal table as soon as I can wrap of the accolades list for Oppenheimer FLC. I've been sidetracked by many things in life as well as Internet Archive being down.

--Birdienest81talk 07:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Birdienest81: Oops, I missed this comment. The 1992 medal table is pretty much done, but I got bummed out and held up because there's such a terrible lack of pictures which are relevant to add to these lists. I really need to learn more about image uploading and find a source for some of the podium stuff, or for the individuals that are the first of their country to win, or have led the games in medals. I do intend to give your list a review when I can, I've just been busy unfortunately. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

		The Original Barnstar
		For your speedy diligance in sorting issues with page moves at List of Gaylactic Spectrum Award winners and nominees for best short fiction before I could tag you and ask you to move it back! CoconutOctopus talk 12:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much @CoconutOctopus, I very much appreciate it! I consider the topic they started at the cut and paste move location, which I moved to Talk:List_of_Gaylactic_Spectrum_Award_winners_and_nominees_for_best_novel#Don't move this page again, to be a sort of move discussion if you're interested in participating. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adani Enterprises

Hi, the discussion you linked in the edit summary had only two votes and both ofthem were UPEs that have been blocked, refer to this for more information, Thanks. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratnahastin: A checkuser block is not the same as a block for being a UPE. I do not have access to the relevant ticket to read more. I do not generally object to redirecting articles, but, if the socking is as prolific as implied, it'd be better to get an outcome at AFD to have it stay as a redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2024 November newsletter

The 2024 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round being a very tight race. Our new champion is AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who scored 2,283 points mainly through 3 high-multiplier FAs and 3 GAs on military history topics. By a 1% margin, Airship beat out last year's champion, BeanieFan11 (submissions), who scored second with 2,264 points, mainly from an impressive 58 GAs about athletes. In third place, Generalissima (submissions) scored 1,528 points, primarily from two FAs on U.S. Librarians of Congress and 20 GAs about various historical topics. Our other finalists are: Sammi Brie (submissions) with 879 points, Hey man im josh (submissions) with 533 points, BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 432 points, Arconning (submissions) with 244 points, and AryKun (submissions) with 15 points. Congratulations to our finalists and all who participated!

The final round was very productive, and contestants had 7 FAs, 9 FLs, 94 GAs, 73 FAC reviews, and 79 GAN reviews and peer reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

Generalissima (submissions) wins the featured article prize for 3 FAs in round 4, and 7 FAs overall.
Hey man im josh (submissions) wins the featured list prize for 23 FLs overall.
MaranoFan (submissions) wins the featured topic prize for 9 articles in featured topics in round 1.
Hey man im josh (submissions) wins the featured content reviewer prize for 110 FA/FL reviews overall.
BeanieFan11 (submissions) wins the good article prize for 58 GAs in round 5, and 70 GAs overall.
Fritzmann (submissions) wins the good topic prize for 6 articles in good topics in round 2.
Sammi Brie (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize for 45 GA reviews in round 2, and 78 GA reviews overall.
BeanieFan11 (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 131 Did you know articles overall.
Muboshgu (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 15 In the news articles in round 1, and 36 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2025 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2024 WikiCup

Congratulations! Epicgenius (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much @Epicgenius, and thank you for all the work you put in. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the redirect I made

Yo Josh, tysm for fixing my redirect! Didn't know the thing you added exists :O

Again, thanks! Woahglaceon (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem @Woahglaceon. Thank you for making the effort to create the redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:D Woahglaceon (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bold, or disruptive?

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 180 Degree Open Angedre (talk) 10:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Double check

Hello Josh, Hallowme moved Tyla to multiple titles without reaching any sort of consensus and went as far as to create a duplicate titled Tyla Laura. My guess is that they were trying to get the credits for creating the Tyla article. Can you please look at the article, its talk and subpages and check if there's anything wrong? I can't locate the GA1 page associated with talk. Thank you. dxneo (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dxneo: Ugh, that's not ideal. I'm on mobile right now, which isn't the best for investigating these sort of issues. I had planned to take the laptop out shortly, at which point I'll take a look if someone else doesn't beat me to it. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, thank you so much. This was stressing me out. dxneo (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay @Dxneo, I didn't get on nearly as soon as I had hoped to. Luckily, it appears that the issue has been resolved now :) Hey man im josh (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, thanks for adding my redirect

Gotta love French onion song Idek mann (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of List of Detroit Lions NFL All-Decade Team selections

Congratulations, Hey man im josh! The list you nominated, List of Detroit Lions NFL All-Decade Team selections, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

Crisco 1492

CheckUser changes

Maxim

Oversighter changes

Maxim

Guideline and policy news

Following a discussion, the discussion-only period proposal that went for a trial to refine the requests for adminship (RfA) process has been discontinued.
Following a request for comment, Administrator recall is adopted as a policy.

Technical news

Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

RoySmith, Barkeep49 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2024 Arbitration Committee Elections. ThadeusOfNazereth and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.
Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections.
The Arbitration Committee is seeking volunteers for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.

Miscellaneous

An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am a (former) scholar of classical Greek (Homeric, Attic, and Koine' (demotic), but I suspect this is a mere punctuation omission. I'm reluctant to make such a change because, well, I'm a reluctant editor. Further, I don't know what the intention was of the text; as I noted, there may be some prose omitted. 104.177.133.202 (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page on "stichic" poetry

An error: Punctuation? or something omitted. Between the words "1979" and "Greek epic" there's no linking phrase, or perhaps a period is missing. Dmmsj00 (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmmsj00: I see what you mean. You're more than welcome to make the appropriate change yourself at Stichic, but that's not my area of interest or expertise, so you may be better equipped to make the fix than I would be. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page on Gregory Battcock

I expanded the Gregory Battcock new page with a number of citations. Perhaps you would like to review it again? Valueyou (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic work on yet another one!

Josh, you should be on the BALLOT tonight!! Aren't you a New York resident? Don't answer .. I don't blame you. ;) Congrats, John. Bringingthewood (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bringingthewood: Someone appears to have missed the Canadian top icon! I'm quite proudly Canadian, but thank you for the kind words none the less! Hey man im josh (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I always knew that, my attempt at humor was to prevent you from responding, "John, I'm from Canada you idiot!!" Jokes really need to be presented face to face, lol. No matter the country, you'll always get a congrats! Regards, John. Bringingthewood (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 November 2024

From the editors: Editing Wikipedia should not be a crime

News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation shares ANI lawsuit updates; first admin elections appoint eleven sysops; first admin recalls opened; temporary accounts coming soon?

In the media: An old scrimmage, politics and purported libel

Special report: Wikipedia editors face litigation, censorship

Gallery: Why you should take more photos and upload them

In focus: Questions and answers about the court case

Traffic report: Twisted tricks or tempting treats?

Technology report: Wikimedia tech, the Asian News International case, and the ultra-rare BLACKLOCK

Humour: Man quietly slinks away from talk page argument after realizing his argument dumb, wrong

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janas (band)

I ran the band's website through MS Edge's built-in translator - the result was identical (verbatim) to the article. I've deleted per G12. (I suspect I might like them though - I wonder if I can get a CD somewhere, I don't do spotify...) Girth Summit _(blether) 15:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you're funny @Girth Summit, thanks for taking care of that and letting me know! Also, it does look like they have a YouTube channel :P Hey man im josh (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mm. They're alright - a bit too Anglo-Saxon poppy (whatever that is?) and not enough traditional folksy for my liking. Give me the Gipsy Kings any day. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Saxon poppy... I LOVE that choice of phrasing, even if I don't quite know what it means haha. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the page of Emma Iranzo

Hello! Regarding Enma Iranzo Martín, I moved the page from "Enma ..." to "Emma ..." without giving any reference, sorry for that. You reverted back (with good criterion, of course :) ). I changed the page in several languages and forgot to add references, or to review the source of the article. She was a mayor of my hometown and I know her name. For reference, you can check her X (Twitter) account: https://x.com/emmair As I don't want to revert back your edit (no fights here :') ), I just first wanted to talk to you to discuss if we revert back the article again or not. You have way more experience editing/managing wiki articles than I, so I prefer checking with oyu first. Thanks! WikiCholi (talk) 09:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"No significant coverage"

You tagged approximately a dozen of my articles with template {{No significant coverage}}. What the heck does that mean? I have been creating articles about sports events for many, many years, but this has never happened to me. How about the following article? – 2024 Centrobasket Women. Do you think it's okay? Should I take that as an example of how an article with a "significant coverage" should look? Maiō T. (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maiō T.: I found them while reviewing pages, as part of WP:NPP work. While I believe the events I tagged the articles on are notable, articles are typically expected to contain independent significant coverage in their references. I do not think they'd end up being deleted, which is why I haven't nominated them for deletion, but it's a maintenance tag to signify that the articles would be improved with references from independent sources. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh shit!

Congrats and condolences on the adminship! GRINCHIDICAE🎄 22:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Praxidicae! That's certainly a good way to put it lol. Your absence has been felt, but I hear it's for good reason and I hope you're well :) Hey man im josh (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What, you as well? Wow! Good luck, and well done, I think. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 00:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]