Jump to content

User talk:Hey man im josh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BJCHK (talk | contribs) at 15:25, 27 August 2024 (→‎Query about the New pages patrol: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

New FL Delegate
Welcome to being a Featured List delegate! Someone gave me a spear when I joined, so that makes it traditional to give you one too. --PresN 14:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I love it and I'll wield it proudly, thanks @PresN! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 July 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Rankin

Hello,

A few months ago I had put up a Wikipedia page for Jack Rankin, who is a British politician who was standing in the 2024 general election. It was taken down as he was yet to be elected. However, he has been voted in this morning: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2024/uk/constituencies/E14001588

Do you mind reinstating it and I'll edit it to be up to date as soon as it's up? MHan2145 (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MHan2145: I've restored the page and moved it to your user space at User:MHan2145/Jack Rankin (British politician). You are free to update the page and move it back to main space, as he would now meet WP:NPOL, though the page could definitely use some work. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2024

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

Administrator changes

added
removed

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July

Hi. You draftified this article in May. Looks like yet another incomplete version has been incorporated by user Bryant. zoglophie•talk• 06:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, the draft and the main article exist, but the main article appears to be much longer than the draft. Template:48JCLsignature 11:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Washington Redskins 1991 NFL draft picks and Template:Washington Redskins 1992 NFL draft picks

Looks like you got the two years mixed up. Could you please straighten that all out:) Thanks. --DB1729talk 16:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell... I see what happened, it was because of the sortkey that I fixed here. I made the moves with an excel sheet I created, and based on the sort being out of order (from the category), they were ordered wrong in my sheet. I've moved the pages around to fix this. Thanks for catching this @DB1729! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to check through your latest moves in this area. I found another pair the same way: Template:Washington Redskins 1971 NFL draft picks/Template:Washington Redskins 1972 NFL draft picks. --DB1729talk 16:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DB1729: It looks like this is all related to bad sort names. I have a set I was just about to run that I verified and checked @DB1729. If only I could beat the person who mistakenly added the wrong sort keys! Blech, before I used AWB I suppose since I didn't just use {{subst:title year}}. I have 5 teams left to run through, and I'm checking them all now. But, based on the reason for the screw up, I do feel relatively good about it. I know exactly how I plan to check and verify them all. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay great, Josh. I'm just glad to see the bad sortkey person wasn't me;) DB1729talk 16:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuna Kim A-class assessment

Hi Josh, so Yuna Kim is up for an A-class assessment and it's currently languishing because we haven't been able to find a third reviewer. This bio is the first A-class assessment by WikiProject Figure Skating; see here for more information. I know you don't tend to work on figure skating articles regularly, but you seem to be an knowledgeable and experienced editor who likes sports, so would you mind helping us out? It'd be muchly appreciated. Thanks, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Figureskatingfan, I'm sorry, I just realized I never responded to this! I appreciate your interest and kind words, but I have a fair bit on my plate right now and I'm not familiar enough with the project's guidelines to be a good reviewer in this case. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, I know about having a full plate. We're getting a bit desperate, but thanks for the response. If you change you mind... ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguars

I'm congratulating you, Josh. Promotion message be damned, lol. Regards, John. Bringingthewood (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John! I only have three more lists ready to nominate... I think I need to build my backlog up. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, you deserve it. ONLY THREE?? Yeah, that sounds good ..you build it and I'll congratulate you on building it. ;) See you later. John.
LOL. I finally beat the promotion message. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

A Barnstar!
Thanks for participating in the June 2024 backlog drive!
You scored 223 points while adding citations to articles during WikiProject Reliability's first {{citation needed}} backlog drive, earning you this citation barnstar. Thanks for helping out!

Pichpich (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Crown?

About this, I thought featured topics were considered a piece of featured content instead of a piece of good content, as shown on many other Triple Crowns. Excuse me if I'm wrong, I'm a bit of an idiot. — 48JCL 00:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@48JCL: I believe it would qualify as a topic, based on the following:
...for featured topics they need to have been a major contributor to at least two featured articles within it as well. A topic counts as an additional good or featured item, even if all the individual content within it has already been counted separately for the award.
Any type of featured content counts toward a Triple Crown. Editors may mix and match different types of featured material when requesting the Imperial Triple Crown Jewels and beyond.
I might be wrong, but either way, I'm excited for the possibility of my first featured topic. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would never get a WP:FT, (or even a WP:GT really wish I could though. — 48JCL 00:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@48JCL: I don't do GAs, so this is my only shot at it. Hoping for the best based on what appear to be flexibility built into the intentions.... Hey man im josh (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of List of Jacksonville Jaguars seasons

Congratulations, Hey man im josh! The list you nominated, List of Jacksonville Jaguars seasons, 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, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

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.Doug Weller talk 12:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Josh!

Hey, I hope you are doing well. I want to express my deepest apologies for what happened the last time we talked. At that time, I wanted to explain to you personally on Discord why I was having those types of conversations (which I acknowledge was my fault). Nearly two months have passed, and I want to request that you unban my Discord account from the Wikipedia group. I hope you will give me one more chance. I promise I will not do anything that violates the policies. Thanks, and happy editing, Josh. GrabUp - Talk 09:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grabup: What was your Discord name? Hey man im josh (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. My discord name is wiki_grabup GrabUp - Talk 13:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grabup: I'm unblocked you from the Discord server. For clarity sake, even though I believe you do understand now, do not directly message admins from the server as a form of forumshopping. Reaching out to admins is not prohibited, but going around to different ones until you get the answer you want is not acceptable. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the unblock Josh, I truly understand what you said. Happy Editing. GrabUp - Talk 14:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:SwiftLint

I'd like to ask your advice regarding this article, which was rejected for "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.".

The three references I've attached all

  1. dedicate multiple pages or sections to SwiftLint, according to their tables of contents.
  2. are references to published print books, published or distributed through mainstream publishers (Manning, Springer, etc)
  3. are independent of the subject

I'm not sure what I'm missing to meet the in-depth, reliable, secondary, independent criteria.

I'd totally agree that the wording of my link to the references ("It is the most commonly recommended Swift linter") is slightly clumsy, but in terms of the references themselves, can you give me any clue as to what I'm missing? Mildm8nnered (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Mildm8nnered. Thank you for your efforts, but I don't have a ton of time on my hands at the moment. Your best bet is asking at the AfC help desk, which can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UAAP season 61

This was one of the articles that were moved, but can't be reverted to the original title. I'd appreciate if it can be reverted to the original title pending discussion. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Howard the Duck: Done. In the future, this request is best made at WP:RM/TR, where someone can help you out in a more timely manner than I was able to this time. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Detroit Lions draft picks (1970–present)

Congratulations, Hey man im josh! The list you nominated, Detroit Lions draft picks (1970–present), 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, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thanks for all the work you do at WP:FLC (and at the Discord guiding people about featured lists)! It is very appreciated. :) Staraction (talk | contribs) 21:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Staraction: Thank you so much for the kind words and taking time out of your day to give me this! I very much appreciate it =) Hey man im josh (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FL thoughts?

I am planning to get A. Sreekar Prasad filmography as a FL and I haven't worked on FL/GA articles before. Do you think it's a suitable article? He has worked on more than 600 films in his career. Should the list be complete or can it include only the well known films? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeraxmoira: I have no doubts it can get there, but it's not referenced well enough at this point (recently created, so I'm of course assuming it'll become more well referenced). You'll also need to incorporate row scopes and columns for accessibility. Lucky for you, we've got 149 featured lists based on actor's filmography already, so there's plenty to compare your recent creation against when considering how to improve it and prepare it further =) Hey man im josh (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did glance through many of them on the list earlier but couldn't find any about an Editor. The main concern I have is whether it is okay for an article to have a list of 600+ films with an inline citation for each? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeraxmoira: I don't see why not. Ideally you'll be able to reuse a number of the references to trim down on things a bit, but there's no reason you couldn't have 600 references. It would just really suck for the source reviewer. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was hiding!

A BIG BELATED CONGRATS, JOSH! Nothing came over on my watchlist. I should stick with my old way of looking for things, lol. Regards, John. Bringingthewood (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again John! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Botswana WHS

Hi, I see that the List of World Heritage Sites in Botswana has been promoted. Do I get a credit as a co-nominator as well? Cheers :) Tone 06:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tone: I see what happened, I had a similar issue once as a co-nom. I've tweaked the nomination in hopes that the bot properly updates Wikipedia:Featured lists promoted in 2024 (which is what WP:WBFLN is based on). I've also manually given you the talk page message for the time being. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I guess the bot will update it tomorrow. Great job with maintaining the FL nominations, appreciated. Tone 14:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Tone. Just pinging you to let you know that Wikipedia:Featured lists promoted in 2024 updated and the bot properly included your name as a nominator. WP:WBFLN will count it towards your promotions. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thanks! Tone 07:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UAA bot

Hi, Josh. I saw just today that the bot was disabled due to JamesR being deceased (RIP to him). Do you ever think in the future you're going to develop a bot that will do UAA work? (I'm not sure if there's any other bot that can operate UAA) NoobThreePointOh (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NoobThreePointOh: I was sad to hear about JamesR's passing... As for the bot, I won't be the person to set something up, that's not my area of expertice. I have mentioned it to a person that I'm confident could handle it if they wanted to, but I'm sure there's going to be a discussion somewhere about the bot tasks. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really hope so because... y'know, it's probably a massive chore trying to remove the users manually. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 NBA G League expansion draft

You added a template for mor sources, I added two, I think everything in the article is referenced. Themanwithnowifi (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Themanwithnowifi: Feel free to remove the tag if you believe the issue has been addressed :) Hey man im josh (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im bot

The AI revolution!
After all of the progress we've seen with LLMs we've decided that natural intelligence makes the best bots. Thanks for doing that tedious work. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beep boop! Thank you for the kind words and recognition. You will be spared when power belongs to the bots. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AAA Athletics articles

Hi Hey man im josh, thanks for reviewing the AAA Championships articles, I need to start on the women's equivalent soon. I didn't realise that articles I created still went through the page review because I have been creating articles for a long time. Anyway thanks again. ApricotFoot (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

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.

– Joe (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 July 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Southland, New Zealand

Hey man. The subcats of Category:Southland, New Zealand got moved, but not this head cat. Just an oversight? Nurg (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Nurg. I completely understand why you're wondering and how it's confusing if you're unfamiliar. After nominations have sat for at least 48 hours at WP:CFDS, they are moved to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working, where the bot (JJMC89 bot III) works on moving pages and categories. Sometimes it goes in an order that appears to be strange for those on the outside, but it does eventually get through all of them, even if the subcats appear to be orphaned for a short bit. In time, the bot gets through all of it and, based on what I'm seeing, did exactly that since you left this message =) Entirely reasonable question! Hey man im josh (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I didn't know how it worked. Thanks for the explanation. All good now. Keep up the good work, Nurg (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nurg: I've been exacted where you are confusion wise til I figured it out lol. Good thought to be following up and helping to make sure things are cleaned up! Hey man im josh (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NPR requests

Hi! Since you've worked on WP:PERM/NPR before, I was wondering if you could take a look at some of the earliest requests on there (including mine), since they've been sitting around for almost a month now. No worries if you wouldn't like to work on that right now though! Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 00:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Suntooooth, thank you for your interest and volunteering. Truth be told, if your application hasn't been processed in that amount of time, it's because people either have concerns or they don't see enough to make them comfortable with granting. My advice to those who may have the knowledge, but don't have the demonstrated / easily findable examples of such, which is something we look for when processing applications, is to spend some time at WP:AFD making policy based votes. Try not to just pile on at the end, when the decision has already been made, because we don't look for 100% "correct" votes. What we look for is that the rationale used when voting is policy based and shows that, even if you're not always on the right side of the vote, you're voicing opinions that showcase an understanding of notability guidelines, even if you sometimes disagree about where the line is. I also encourage CSD tagging, and to enable the CSD log functionality of Twinkle so that we have easily searchable examples of experience. Finally, I'd also encourage Articles for creation, which typically has a lower barrier of entry for applicants and can be a fantastic opportunity to help newer editors and to demonstrate experience said guidelines. It's okay if experience is only in a certain area of the guidelines as well, that's how everybody starts, get comfortable somewhere and use WP:AFCSORT and WP:NPPSORT to focus on the area you're comfortable with til you comfortable with the process. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the great advice! It's just a little frustrating that requests are being left unanswered. I'd much rather be told "no" quickly (if that's the outcome) than be left waiting for almost a month. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 17:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair @Suntooooth. I don't like to keep people waiting, but I also like to leave it for others to see if they're familiar with an applicant. It ends up being that nobody wants to actually decline the person, and someone has to be the bad guy. But that's also not fair to the applicants, but we also don't want to come off as jerks by quickly shooting people down. We can definitely be doing better than we are in that aspect, and it's good to hear this type of feedback. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:2025 Pro Bowl Games

Information icon Hello, Hey man im josh. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2025 Pro Bowl Games, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grant me NPR

On January I requested you to revoke my user membership of NPR because I was not active at that time but now I am active so you can make me NPR. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 10:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem @LordVoldemort728, I've re-granted you a 2-month trial. Happy editing, and remember to check out WP:NPPSORT. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 02:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Detroit Lions draft picks (1936–1969)

Congratulations, Hey man im josh! The list you nominated, Detroit Lions draft picks (1936–1969), 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, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm

I thought SpacedFarmer was topic banned from AfD? I guess no one ever closed it, lol. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear to me @WikiOriginal-9, I didn't keep an eye on the topic after a while. I know I voted in that so I'd be unable to close it, but I guess it wouldn't be inappropriate if you wanted to unarchive of it. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And another one!

Great job, killer! John. Bringingthewood (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John :) Hey man im josh (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

List of Detroit Lions team records

So when are you going to make this one?? :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Gonzo fan2007, not a terrible idea, but iunnoooo. Some of us just aren't as good as you are at promoting their team's articles :P Hey man im josh (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for 1964 Summer Olympics medal table

On 6 August 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1964 Summer Olympics medal table, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Larisa Latynina became the most-medalled Olympian after she won six medals at the 1964 Summer Olympics? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1964 Summer Olympics medal table. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 1964 Summer Olympics medal table), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2024

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

Administrator changes

readded Isabelle Belato
removed

Interface administrator changes

readded Izno

CheckUser changes

removed Barkeep49

Technical news

  • Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
  • Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PFR website fields

Would you be opposed to me working on those website field updates as I come across them? I do not know if a bot job is lined up. Red Director (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Red Director, I have no opposition whatsoever to that. I actually just compared my watchlist to pages that linked to PFR and just took care of a handful of them myself, figuring improving the formatting of some refs on these pages to be better than nothing. My main focus has been replacing the usage on the lists I've worked/been working on to promote. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Red Director: I know you expand references pretty often, and man I'm grateful and appreciative of that, but had you not been linking the source/work/publisher before? Or is it just that you didn't realize PFR had its own page and made sense to Wikilink? Honestly I skip over your edits in my watchlist so often, and I'm seeing it so much now, that I can't recall and thought it'd just be easier to ask lol. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. In the previous years, I rarely would wikilink the site because the ProveIt auto filled the site information. Linking the site seems to be very inconsistent across the board. Doing an edit specifically for just linking the site on one or two refs kinda seems like too small of a change to warrant a full edit in my opinion. I try to diversify my edits more these days over news and media outlets unless PFR is the only source I can find. Linking websites in refs are a little time consuming on sites I do not know have a Wiki or not. I will take any advice on your end. AWB probably can knock out most PFR refs by making a replace command for 'website=Pro-Football-Reference.com' to 'website=Pro Football Reference'. I do not want to take on such a task with AWB. I would rather an admin do it because that makes it more official. Red Director (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Red Director: So, I'm actually a delegate (coordinator) at WP:Featured list candidates and I do a lot of source reviews. Generally, when articles are nominated, we ask for consistency in the reference styling above all else. The most common stylings include:
  • Link everything: link everything that I can in references, I believe it's the most useful way to present them in case anybody wants to follow up on a source if they've hovered over the reference.
  • Link nothing: Personally I hate this, but it's acceptable if consistent. I think it makes it harder to determine reliability of sources
  • Link first occurrence: As we do with items in a lead, some people prefer to link only the first occurrence of a possible wiki-linkable item in the reference section
  • Other: Again, the name of the game is consistency when nominating content. Gonzo fan2007, a prolific admin and Green Bay Packers content promoter (puke, said the Lions fan), links the first occurrence of newspapers and magazines, but not websites. They're consistent in their formatting when nominating pages, and we accept that
I mention this not because I think you're looking to nominate everything you work on, you work on way too much for me to think that. I just think the default is wikilink all, based on the fact you don't always know which reference will end up first if you use a reference from a preciously linked source, so linking only the first becomes a bit harder to manage. Based on not linking having disadvantages, I do believe the default for most is to link.
This is all just a preamble to say that if you want to add wiki links in references, then in just about every case, it's most likely to be an improvement. Especially if someone wants to pick up and promote it at some point. Additionally, those larger players articles, you'll have an easier time adding links and keeping it consistent than keeping them consistently off.
Anyways, do or don't, it's absolutely up to you. Everything you're doing is an improvement even if you choose not to go for this aspect based on its nicheness (GA/FA/FL). Hey man im josh (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed response. I can tell you for a fact that getting featured is nice but not a goal. I have a grasp on what is considered a better improvement than others on here after years of being on here I feel. I wish a common ground could be found. Like if it is consensus for all to be linked, I wish the ProveIt and Citer tools would default to that. Some news sources unfortunately redlink, but on the plus side, it could tell us which of those need articles. I have added enough PFR over the years on my most edited pages to fix those as I come across. I will find a way to incorporate website links into my edits. Maybe not as a single edit, but throwing in those on other single edits to make the change more impactful. If I need to change anything, just let me know and I will be glad to listen. Thanks for all you do. Red Director (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Nafisi

Hello Josh,

I noticed that you've added the "Orphan" template to the article on [[Abdulrahman Nafisi]]. The article currently includes 11 references and a substantial number of links. I've also added more links, so I believe it no longer qualifies as an orphaned article. Additionally, this article is very similar (over 95%) to the corresponding one [1] on the Farsi Wikipedia, which was created over 8 years ago.

I kindly request that you remove the orphan template. If you believe the article still needs more links, could you please clarify how many would be sufficient? Thank you. Erfan2017 Erfan2017 (talk) 04:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Erfan2017: (talk page stalker) The template indicates that the article is not internally linked from any other Wikipedia article. There is no connection between external links cited or added to the article and that template, such as references. The template can be removed if the article becomes internally linked from any other Wikipedia article. GrabUp - Talk 08:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Erfan2017, GrabUp is correct. Per Orphan template you're referencing: This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (July 2024) (note that I didn't add the last two links back to the quote, it's early, and I'm being lazy)
This has nothing to do with your work directly on the page, this is about links TO Abdulrahman Nafisi. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Abdulrahman_Nafisi. In order to not be considered "orphaned", the article must have at least one main space article linking to it. It just means we want something somewhere pointing to the article, but there's nothing currently doing so. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much to Josh and GrabUp for your helpful guidance. As a Wikipedia contributor who doesn't edit frequently, I wasn't fully aware of the importance and types of links. Your explanations have been invaluable. I've now incorporated links to the Abdulrahman Nafisi article in three relevant Wikipedia pages Dezful, Bank Keshavarzi Iran and Hamadan. I hope these changes will remove the "Orphan" status from the article. Erfan2017 (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Erfan2017: If that's the case, then by all means, go ahead and remove the tag. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERM/R

Hey man im josh, Hello and can you review my request on rollback permission page at this time if you feel comfortable. Thanks रोहितTalk_with_me 14:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @रोहित साव27: Nice to meet you, I see you're anti-vandal fighting work is too good and I also see you're request on Rollback request page but I think please keep patient any sysop are going ahead and review you're request and if you write message on other userpage then no need to use ping template for them. Happy editing --- ᗩvírαm7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 16:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@रोहित साव27: Admins who monitor the boards are aware of pending requests. Please be patient and do not reach out to ask for expedited processing unless it's an urgent matter (such as needing mass message sender for an upcoming event). Hey man im josh (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of 2018 Winter Olympics medal table

Congratulations, Hey man im josh! The list you nominated, 2018 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, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Another Believer! Another couple on the way which can be found on my user page if you're ever interested in providing a review (I see your 46 entries at WP:WBFLN). Sad to see you haven't made a nomination since 2013 though, any particular reason why, or any interest in working at promoting lists again? Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Olympics?

Hi Josh. Congratulations! Not used to seeing other topics. I see, this isn't going to end soon, lol. Regards, John. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey John, yeah, I'm participating in the WP:Wikicup and I'm taking an unconventional route. Most everyone has good articles and featured articles (worth the absolute most points) in this competition and I'm seeing what I can do with only lists. Surprisingly, I've made it to the final 16 and have a pretty good chance at making the finals (of 8). But, to do so with only lists, I decided that, for this round, I had to take advantage of a scoring multiplier that exists in order to try to make the final round. Based on the number of interwiki links, aka, how many different language wikis a version of that article exists on, you get extra points. Olympic medal lists happen to exist on a LOT of Wikis, and I've always wanted to work on them. Given the Olympics are going on, and the threshold of points to advance to the next round being much higher than the previous round (I track it all at User:Hey man im josh/Wikicup stats), there was no better time for it. I actually have two other Olympic lists I've nominated (check out my user page) that are worth a good deal of points. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All I could say is .. WOW! You just do what you have to do, and if I see something good posted, I'll congratulate you, lol. Good luck and have fun with it. Oh yeah, just wanted to say that you were way more diplomatic than I would have been with that message down there. ;) Best regards, John. Bringingthewood (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protagonism

I'm pretty sure you made this edit to be like "hey folks I'm here too, get me a cookie (cough cough) I mean barnstar", but we don't care about that, we genuinely care about articles' content 5.92.73.224 (talk) 09:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@5.92.73.224: I definitely don't want a barnstar from you based on your behaviour and failure to recognize and adopt standard practices lol. If you want to remove it again I suggest making a talk page post, since we'd need to do so for literally every medal table. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed

Hi Hey man im josh. Thank you for your work on 2024 Bangladeshi military coup. Another editor, Xoak, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Factual Inaccuracy

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

X (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...what? @Xoak: You should provide more context for this message, consideration I've never once edited the page. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, I'm silly and didn't read the section title properly (the fact under it doesn't quite correlate, so perhaps the NPP team can revisit that at some point.
@Xoak: I have marked the article as reviewed again. Standard practice is to mark articles at AfD as reviewed. Hey man im josh (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Favor to ask

A new editor just joined Editor Retention. I want to institute a practice whereby the editor that proceeded them would visit their talk page and welcome them. Kinda like establishing a tradition. Bring a box of candy...some flowers...or just your wonderful self. Good Idea? Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 13:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Buster7: It sounds like what you're suggesting is essentially WP:The admin baton? I mean, sending good vibes and encouragement is basically never a negative in my opinion. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
YES! exactly. Thats why my next job may be a greeter at WalMart! I'm a computer nerd (opposite of GEEK) so it's beyond my capacity but it would be great to create a page like that for New Members. I'm gonna @Isaacl: to get his input. Fingers crossed. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 14:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I started to write a response assuming that the editors had signed up as members of the editor retention WikiProject, but I see now that the link is for the Editor of the Week initiative. I'm not against a welcoming chain, but since this is an active initiative, I'd suggest having periodic threads on the Editor of the Week talk page welcoming new members and inviting them to do required tasks. As always, the most important need is to find new nominations. isaacl (talk) 16:29, 11 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

* 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.Birdienest81talk 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]

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]

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 WordsmithTalk 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 miscapitalizationsomething TBD just to get them to appear on thatsome 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 :) HouseBlaster (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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hey_man_im_josh&oldid=1242578682"