User talk:Hey man im josh/Archive 14

Asking a few for help
Hi Josh. I received this message from another editor and I'm reaching out to you and two others for some guidance. Any help is appreciated. Message I received: (So, I’m trying to add information about one of my relatives who played for the Browns and the Lions but it gets taken down because there is no source and i cant find a source, is there like a form or something that higher ups can confirm first hand information from family members? regards, kayvon4mvp Kayvonthibodeaux4mvp (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC) Again, I'm contacting the only three people I would ask for an answer on this. Regards, John Bringingthewood (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Turns out this is about an article I wrote! I'm not sure of the policy on this so I'll leave it to Josh though. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey @Bringingthewood and @BeanieFan11. This is a tough one, but it sounds like WP:COISELF and WP:OR. Perhaps if they want to suggest something on the talk page, or ask for help in finding proper sourcing at WT:NFL then we might be able to find something that verifies what they're saying. Otherwise, we really can't document something that's not verifiable. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Two requests
Hey Josh! I'd appreciate if you could fulfill these two admin requests for me: First, I came across a few of your WP:G5 (sockpuppet creations) deletions and saw one that looked promising based on the Google Cache that I saw: Buck Simmons. I asked a question about G5 at the CSD page and it seems that admins are allowed to restore G5 content if they get a valid request and agree with it. As for Simmons, he seems to have been a pretty prominent racer and had a book written about him. I do see that there was an "additional citations needed" tag, so if you could restore it to draftspace so I could clean it up and get the article back up I would appreciate it. Now, my second request. Early last year I think there was a mass move of poorly-sourced Uzbekistan articles to draftspace; I came across one that looked promising and added a note that I was going to work on it. I forgot about it and it appears to have been deleted since then. I don't remember the exact title anymore but I think it was something like "[something] Mosque". I appear to have ~500 deleted contributions, so could you do a CTRL-F for "mosque" and see if you could find it? If you do, could you restore it (to draftspace) so I could continue to work on it? Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hey @BeanieFan11, yeah I can help you out. Do you have a place for a draft about Buck Simmons yet for me to dump the refs? I'll look to see what I can find about the mosque. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @BeanieFan11: I found it and restored the draft at Draft:Deggaron Mosque.
 * As for the Buck Simmons request, here are the references that were used:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * These are the external links that were added:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Hope that helps! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, I was thinking you could restore the whole thing to draftspace and I'd clean it up from there; as I'm not a racing expert and thus have no idea how to do those tables, the infobox, etc. If that's asking too much, let me know and I can start a draft, and maybe you could at least add in the tables/infobox and refs? Also, thanks for restoring the mosque draft. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert on restoration of G5 deleted articles, but, based on the conversation that you linked, I'm inclined to think that if I share more than the references that were used to create the article that attribution would be required. The goal is to not acknowledge the sock or the work that they did and, if we restored the article, we would be doing so. I'm not opposed to another admin restoring any or all of the article if they are interested in doing so, but I recognize that my experience in this area is limited and I don't feel comfortable restoring the whole article because of that. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand. I might ask a quick question about this case at the CSD page and if it is not considered worthy of restoration, I'll just start it over and use the refs you provided. Thank you. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * By all means, please do! It'd be a good opportunity for both of us to learn :) Hey man im josh (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Left a comment there. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Request on Nikolas Bentel
Hello @Hey man im josh, i hope this message finds you well. can you please look into this page (Nikolas Bentel) and review it? Daremize (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy holidays!


— m w  (talk) (contribs) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Regarding this notification
I apologise if it was an inappropriate notification, or if I shouldn't have left an invitation there for any other reason. By way of explanation, I notified WT:PAGEMOVER of the discussion due to the fact that the proposal made was related to editors with that user right, and in case editor(s) watching that page had any input they wished to add to the discussion from a page mover's point of view (& if not, for the general information of those interested in the user right). However, I apologise again if I shouldn't've done.

All the best, &zwj;—&zwj;a smart kitten[ meow] 23:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hey @A smart kitten, it's not a problem at all that you notified the group. I'm not sure that page movers really have anything to contribute to the conversation, as this change really only affects the NPP queue and not how page movers conduct themselves, but I can't see it causing harm. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

NFL & ALF season title infobox headings
I'm gonna have to bail out on my idea. Apparently the entire infobox has to be replaced with 'Infobox sports season'. Rather then just the name. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Well that's a bummer, way too much work to be practical. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

"Green Bay Packers first season" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Green_Bay_Packers_first_season&redirect=no Green Bay Packers first season] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk)  @ 22:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Mail
BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Wide Right II resubmitted
The article has been resubmitted for review. 131.247.224.207 (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I commented on it and removed the "Tyler's version" portion of the lead, but I'll leave it up to somebody else to accept or decline the draft. I think it'd be unfair to you if I was to decline it 3 times and maybe someone else will disagree with my evaluation based on the improvements you made. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Way to find an archived copy of List Of Predictions article
Hey so I noticed that you were the one who deleted the original article and I was wondering if there was a way for me to find a copy of it, I'm kinda new to Wikipedia so if there's a simple way to do that sorry for bothering you. I don't wanna reinstate it I just wanna see it (eye)rizz (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @(eye)rizz, unfortunately, no. List of predictions was deleted as a result of this deletion discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Sports redirects for deletion (chat)
I did not initially think you were trying to be disruptive. A rampant deletionist with no clue what he was on about, yes, but not disruptive. Though it would be warranted to say such a large volume of deletion nominations - for any page type - in such a short period could be considered disruptive no matter the nominator's intentions.

Then I saw your replies and you have only swayed me to think you are a bit of a rogue. I would like to be convinced otherwise. It's not necessarily what you say, though as I noted, the seeming diversion (demanding your unfounded hypotheses are disproven by !voters and then, when they are, coming back with something else) is disruptive. It's that I have to believe that at least some of what you are saying is lies, or your nominations don't make sense, and that you are telling these lies simply to annoy anyone who good faith !votes against your stance, because I can't see any other reason.

Again, I would really like to be convinced otherwise. I know you have extensive redirect appraisal experience - someone who does, as I see it, would not mass-nominate redirects that they may not personally understand but, as a collection, have logic. Someone with such experience would not nominate redirects that they may not personally understand but have no valid rationale for deletion (generally, are not misleading). Someone who claims to edit extensively in sports would hear or read "Country Year" (or for Olympics, "City Year") all the time, it is in sources from all English-language markets as I have now searched - unless they only edit domestic sports. Based on this talkpage, that seems accurate to your edits. Why would get annoyed at that being noted? It doesn't make sense to me.

Of course, some of your nominations seem valid (as nominations) - the England Women's Euros ones, for example, I assumed they were nominated based on the year confusion because of the pandemic postponement. It is valid to discuss that. I wish that RfD stuck to that discussion, but had not once anticipated that the mere format was being called into question. Or the Men's Euros which had group matches all over - too many countries, nobody used the name. Again, the fact the shorthand wasn't used for that event seemed like the reason for nomination. Then I got to the log page and saw so many more.

So I don't know what to make of it. Given you did invite me to your talkpage, I am assuming good faith. And, as it's not relevant to the RfDs themselves, perhaps you could take this opportunity to explain your thoughts and rationale, because it's still confusing behaviour to me. Kingsif (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hey @Kingsif, I'm sorry for the delay in responding to you, I wasn't able to take the time to do so until now. I'm not really sure where to start on this, so I'm sorry if my reply jumps around a bit or I miss part of what you were hoping for me to address.
 * Disruptive rogue deletionist, none of those 3 terms are how I would describe myself and I don't they're fair generalizations to apply to me. You're mentioning a large volume of deletion nominations, but it was only 23 redirects over 10 discussions, which is far from outlandish or uncommon at WP:RfD. You keep mentioning no valid rationale, can you point to what discussions did not include a valid deletion rationale? As, unlikely search term is a valid rationale when nominating redirects for deletion. It's fine if you disagree with this, I respect your right to do so, but using that as a rationale is not a reason to attack somebody's integrity, as you've done numerous times.
 * There were a number of your responses at RfD on the 24th that I felt were inappropriate:
 * It's literally what people call it. Give it up, mate.
 * C'mon now, how is that supposed to help move a conversation along? I think Tavix said it best . Include a source or two to prove me wrong since it's meant to be a discussion and not simply a vote.
 * . "You then come up with a different reason to try and dismiss this. I am trying to assume good faith. It would be easier to do so if such... diversion... wasn't being used to try and get redirects you just don't seem to like deleted.
 * This was an inaccurate representation of my response. You my nomination rationale and accused me of coming up with a different reason to dismiss someone else's keep vote, which is an inappropriate conclusion to jump to. I believe you may have misinterpreted the "search term" portion of nomination as referring to Google searches instead of Wiki searches. I did not, and still do not, believe it to be a useful Wikipedia search term. I believe this is also what you're referring to in this comment on my talk page when you said It's not necessarily what you say, though as I noted, the seeming diversion (demanding your unfounded hypotheses are disproven by !voters and then, when they are, coming back with something else) is disruptive.
 * Josh's apparent expectation seems so implausible (who searches for one of the periodic reviews of new NAFTA, let along expects it to exist, let alone to have its own dedicated redirect) that I have to believe he's simply made it up to try and add weight to his proposal that people might be searching for something else. Meanwhile, he is adamant on deleting every sports redirect on sight despite surely by now recognising these redirects are so widespread exactly because everybody (else) uses such names.
 * This one might be the worst of the bunch. Why would you accuse someone of making something up to add weight to their nomination? We live in two different worlds and my interpretation of something may differ from yours, what's commonplace to me and the expectation for a redirect is not the same for you (clearly), and that's why we have conversations about what does and doesn't make sense. We don't instantly attack the credibility of the nominator and accuse them of making things up just because we disagree with them. You continue on to imply I'm a deletionist (then outright stated it in this discussion), despite the opposite being true for redirects (look at my ratio of RfD nominations vs reviews). If something is widespread then help me out with a source or two. If I'm so adamant on deleting so many sports redirects then I'd love to see the mountain of examples where I was wrong and didn't learn from it. Not that it changes how inappropriate your comment was, but I have actually closed this discussion because I may have been off the mark here, which I can recognize and accept.
 * "Josh, I think you might be the one person who has managed to go through life without seeing major sports tournaments called "Country Year" en masse, please stop nominating all these valid and useful redirects."
 * As I mentioned on that discussion, I don't think it was appropriate for you to react the way you did. Was it really necessary to go after me personally instead of responding stating that it's common or showing a reference or two? I started 10 discussions for a total of 23 redirects on the 24th, far from "en masse". It's not uncommon for certain experienced editors to start 10+ deletion discussions at RfD in the same day.
 * "Perhaps it's because I have come to RfD and seen in just today's log that it's all you nominating all of these, and with every new nom I found it more unbelievable, sorry about the first part of my comment being dismissive. However, I stand by the view that you shouldn't be nominating these - and certainly not so many at once... if there are lots of identically-formatted redirects for similar events that's probably because it is what it looks like: common parlance."
 * I appreciate that you acknowledged you were dismissive in your previous comment, but calling the nominations "unbelievable"? Really? They're far from flagrant enough to warrant that type of classification. This also, as mentioned, was not an excessive or inappropriate number of deletion nominations. As for the point about these types of redirects being common parlance simply based on the number of them that may exist, I don't believe that type of thinking should apply when all of those were recently created by the same user. This is another case where actual examples of it being common would have been helpful.
 * There were a number of other comments that I had issue with that but I didn't feel like they needed to be analyzed along with these. You've repeatedly implied that I lack experience in sports and redirects based on my nominations, but I've reviewed over 58,000 redirects. I say this not to try to give any more weight to my arguments or to say I'm infallible, I'm absolutely not, but to stress that experience isn't the problem. I made nominations based on what I've learned and seen when patrolling, from past RfD discussions, and with the approach to learn from how various discussions go (I've actually withdrawn two of the nominations made). I absolutely make mistakes sometimes and I do appreciate when others give constructive criticism so that I can do better in the future, but I think you're silly to imply that I "just don't understand" instead of providing sources that back up your claims. As an admin, and as an NPP coordinator, when others approach me with feedback I listen and try to learn. It's important to me to learn from past experiences so that I can continue to guide people in the right direction and not give them the wrong information or advice.
 * It sure hasn't felt like good faith assumptions. You chose to attack me directly in numerous ways during these discussions and that was inappropriate. There was no reason to go after me personally the way that you did instead of actually focusing on the discussion(s) at hand. I'm open to learning from these discussions and I will. I also may need to redefine what my view of what a "rampant deletionist" is based on my XfD log. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to reply. I am an advocate for people who do not necessarily agree or even like each other (not that I don't like you) to be able to get along and work productively and am glad you seem to think the same. No worries about the delay - I think this reply will be quite long, so don't worry about response time again.
 * From your response, I see your perspective. I perhaps would have liked to see more of your thoughts on why you made all the nominations - perhaps it is a regular amount for someone very active in RfD, but it seemed like a lot. I know if I nominate anything for anything, I want to be available to give my full attention and thought process to the nom and how discussion unfolds and, having not even been nominator but active in multiple AfDs at once, don't know how someone could manage more than 2 or 3 (if that). So that's where I'm coming from when I felt like it was a lot.
 * You'll also appreciate that I saw in my watchlist two discussions - for the most recent Men's and Women's Euros – and I went in with good faith because of reasons mentioned in my comment above. It was only at the log did I see so many others, so coming from my perspective it looks like someone suddenly just wanted to delete. That was my perspective on how the nominations all happened, which was informed by how I came to see them all, the quantity, and the similar nom reasons. I am glad you have included in your response that the noms weren't arbitrary but based on your experience, and didn't seem excessive to you – hearing your perspective, I can see that the nominations were made genuinely.
 * That's (mostly) what I was seeking to learn about. You've brought up other things, so I will address them, and if we're not exhausted of discussion afterwards (I will let you respond), perhaps some specific questions?
 * I do take issue with your statement that I've repeatedly implied that [you] lack experience in sports and redirects based on [your] nominations. At least in terms of redirects, the opposite is true: I have acknowledged your experience, though in regards to how this added to my confusion. As for sports, yeah, I did, but it doesn't need to be a bad thing; I think you do lack experience in the sports relevant to the redirects you've nominated, and I don't think pointing that out when expressing shock at so many deletion noms is inherently negative. It wasn't done to undermine you, but as part of my reasoning when I was trying to work out why an experienced editor would be making noms that were so confusing. As I say two paragraphs above, you have explained yourself enough for me to see that any experience or lack thereof in sports is nothing to do with the noms (more about redirects), and I am satisfied.
 * I did not try to/think I was attacking you - this is genuine - but with your comments laid out I see it and I am sorry. I don't think you're exaggerating and I'm not slow or anything: I assume I have a higher tolerance for people being annoyed in discussions, as I know I have encountered far ruder and not thought of it as an attack, just someone being a little shitty. I suppose I shouldn't be a little shitty, either, but then again I generally just ignore it from others if it's not disruptive. Another thing: as this is a written medium, I do think the tone one expects affects how they interpret what's written - I mention this because you bring up [4]. With that, I was writing to you as if I was seeing a friend dig themself into a hole. We aren't friends, but I know it's a tone I'd like to hear if someone thought I was making such an error. That you have read it in a different tone and seen it as inappropriate is something I should have considered given the number of replies to your nominations I was making, so I am sorry for this, too.
 * If I can respond, hopefully briefly, to your numbered points?
 * [1] and [2] I think you have it right, that I misinterpreted what you meant by the search term, and how I saw your responses to another user was affected by this. I think by the time I saw that nomination, I was already wondering what to make if you, and this can't have helped how I judged that. As for the phrasing of [1], I've responded to that at the nomination itself.
 * [3] I would like to address your comments on it first, specifically where you mention your track record on sports redirect deletions and why I would think you were a deletionist despite it. To this, I point you back to my third paragraph of this reply. I came to your talkpage, being as honest on my thoughts as possible to try get an equally honest response to help me understand you, asking to hear your perspective. I have and I understand it. In return, please consider my perspective - I couldn't know your record and just saw a variety of identically-formatted but fairly different redirects all being put up for deletion by one user in a short span. I now understand why you did it, but you have to understand it looks like deletionist behaviour. It also wouldn't be terrible if you were a deletionist - it's a different attitude on content retention, and a mix of attitudes will hopefully lead to the best outcome - although, yes, I see a nominator being a deletionist as something to consider (but never a deciding factor) when appraising XfDs.
 * So [3], my comment - this is gonna take a bit to get to, bear with. We live in different worlds, and it may be true that you are more familiar with new NAFTA than the World Cup. However, we both 'live' on Wikipedia, too, and that's where I was thinking from: the expectation of an article or redirect for a future review seems implausible. I didn't write it kindly, and this was not only unfair to you, but also distracted from the discussion, so I am sorry for both those things. Of course, I didn't say it seemed like you were making it up just because [I] disagree with [you] - that is an inaccurate and, I think, unfair characterisation of my response. From a "would this exist on Wikipedia" perspective, it seemed implausible. Again, I am sorry for how I expressed that thought/!vote explanation.
 * [4] Besides what I have written above about this being an attempt at being jovial (it was one of the earliest replies I think?), where I said "en masse" I was referring to the frequency of sports tournaments being common-named in such a format (major sports tournaments called "Country Year" en masse), I wasn't talking about your noms.
 * [5] I mean, I wasn't using "unbelievable" in the perfectly literal sense, but in the common sense. I've said it a few times but yeah, based on my perspective encountering the successive noms, it was an experience. For the record, I have already warned the user who created the redirects about how such mass-creation can be seen as sketchy, too . I am kinda glad to see that you acknowledge "a lot in a short time span" does look suspicious, though 😅
 * As a final thought, I think part of the issue here is the subject: I was (still am, in truth) utterly surprised the format was questioned. My approach to the noms was undoubtedly affected by this. Kingsif (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry again for the slow response @Kingsif, I don't typically edit on weekends.
 * I understand how it can seem like a lot of nominations for those who do not regularly visit RfD and I understand we had different perspectives about this. Thank you for acknowledging that these nominations were genuine and not with mal intent. While you may not have intended to attack me directly, that was how I perceived it when I felt that the conversations were shifting away from discussion onto the nominator (me) instead. I too would normally ignore a few comments here and there, but it felt like a lot in this instance, and I felt as though we needed to clear the air, which I feel like we have. On the internet tone is tough to read, so I can see now how your comments may have been intended as one thing but received as another. I very much appreciate your response to point 3 and I don't think we need to rehash much more, I think we've both gotten our points across. To round it out, I'll just say that everybody has to make mistakes to learn and, as I always try to, I'll learn from how the RfDs go.
 * What are the specific questions you had in mind? Hey man im josh (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ha, I've been quite absent this past weekend too, thanks and I'm glad we understand each other. At the minute I can't remember the specific questions I was thinking, nor whether they were about your nominating philosophy in general or any of the noms in particular, but I'll get back to you if editing jogs my memory. Kingsif (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- C. A. Russell ( talk ) 03:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Template:Carolina Hurricanes first-round draft picks
Hello, Josh,

It looks like you've gotten notices about this but there are a lot of these templates on draft picks that are coming up for deletion soon. I'm not sure if you wanted to continue to work on them or move them to Template space.

Hope all is well with you. Liz Read! Talk! 07:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hey @Liz. There was actually a general consensus against these templates and the ice hockey WikiProject. I moved them to draft space in hope they'd be used, with the understanding it was unlikely, and with the expectation they would get G13 deleted. Then hopefully one day if consensus changes someone can request a refund of the templates and not have to start from scratch. All is well with me and I hope the same for you! Hey man im josh (talk) 07:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, you could always delete them CSD G7 yourself but if you would prefer the CSD G13 deletion, then so be it. Given when they "expire", you will probably not be receiving any further notices about them which is what prompted my original message. But it looks like you have already received Firefly notifications so there is a record in the page history. Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Liz: While I know G7s can be refunded, I think people are less likely to request it, which is why I wanted to leave the door a bit more wide open with G13s. Do you see any issue if I G13 them myself a day or two ahead of time? Hey man im josh (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Red-tailed hawk · Robertsky
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ameliorate! · Ancheta Wis · Anthony Bradbury (deceased) · Cobi · Ev · Moondyne · Worm That Turned

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Worm That Turned



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Enterprisey · Izno

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news
 * Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size.

Arbitration
 * Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
 * Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous
 * Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
 * A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
 * Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
 * The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 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!

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Just making sure
Hi Josh. I'm almost certain you've seen this. Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Just wanted to make sure that nothing was being done in a sneaky way. Stay well. Bringingthewood (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm reading and I know you saw it. It's a shame when some editors that have a talk page looking more like a rap sheet have to keep rattling their mouth. Well, good luck with everything. I tell you, things are much easier dealt with face to face -- much easier. ;) Best regards, Bringingthewood (talk) 05:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know @Bringingthewood, but as you saw, I've already responded :) For future reference, when submitting a thread at ANI, users are required to notify the person they're creating a thread about (they did in this case). If this doesn't happen it's usually caught pretty quick by responders. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome, and yes I did. Not sure about the thread deal, but I saw that 'Mr. Above the Law' kept you involved. I'm stopping now. No good deed goes unpunished, right? Hey! Send them here ... I have all night. ;) Good luck again, my friend. Regards, John Bringingthewood (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrative action review in which you have been mentioned by username. The thread is Self-requested review of blocks of LTA impersonator accounts. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 20:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Double-Congrats!
Congrats x2!! Great job, Josh! All the best, Bringingthewood (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Bringingthewood thank you!!! More to come :) Hey man im josh (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Concerns
Hello, Josh,

I'm worried about you granting User:Flux55 some editor rights. They have only been editing a month, they are mistagging pages for speedy deletion and drafting articles even though they don't have much editing experience and never informed the editor of the fact that they moved an editor's work to Draft space. I asked them to stop tagging pages for CSD deletion and they didn't even slow down. They are moving way too fast, I've seen it before and it often ends in a block. I went to put yet another warning on their talk page and was surprised to see that you granted them extra privileges. I rarely raise objections to these things but this editor is moving faster than their experience warrants. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 05:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Liz: I'm embarrassed on re-review, thank you for bringing this up. I've removed the user right and I've left them a message. Thanks for reaching out, I'm sorry that I put you in a position where you had to. Hey man im josh (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * No apologies necessary. It's easy to look at superproductive editors and think that they are very familiar with all of the policies and guidelines. I have the feeling that they are a returning editor or they are also active on other Wikimedia projects but time will tell on that.
 * By the way, nice execution of that NFL draft decision, that was hundreds of page moves. I have to look into that Mass Mover tool, I probably would have done all of that article moving manually and it would have taken me a couple of hours. It's great that some editors have spent time creating tools to help with big projects like this one. Liz Read! Talk! 21:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Liz, I always like hearing from you because it's always helpful and reassuring! The mass mover tool is fantastic so long as it's a find and replace type change. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Template:Anaheim Ducks first-round draft picks


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, "Template:Anaheim Ducks first-round draft picks".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗ plicit  14:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Sir,, I have created a page can you guide me?
Dear Sir, I have created a page can you guide me? Mayamam123 (talk) 05:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Mayamam123: I don't have the most time on my hands so I encourage you to ask for help at WP:AFC/HELP. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Josh. I didn't have National Football League D/draft on my watchlist, so I didn't see your elaborate post until now. Thanks for investing the time. Though we took different perspectives, I'm basically of the same thinking as you that it's just one letter, and I'm more concerned with actual content. But gnomes have their place—we all edit whatever we want. For me it came down to what's in the MOS. The MOS is what it is. I once asked (in an unrelated discussion) why MOS just doesn't define what WP considers a proper noun—WP's own house rules—and one of the regulars said there are too many edge cases to consider, so looking at sources was the choice/compromise.

From the little I've tried to wrap my head around it, I still can't come up with objective criteria for what is a proper noun. So I can respect what's in the MOS, as I'm not prepared (at this point) to propose a change I think a crowd-sourced platform can accept. It'd be different if this was my own blog, or I was the chief editor. I hope I haven't come off as an ass in any of our interactions; it doesn't help with the bludgeoning and strawmans abound making everything more tense, and words can get misconstrued. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 07:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hey @Bagumba, thanks for the message. To be clear, my elaborate post doesn't necessarily need a lot of viewership or replies (or I would have posted at WT:NFL), it was mostly just venting and pouring my thoughts on the discussion out. I felt I owed an explanation of where my head is at because I feel as though some of my actions and comments discouraged others from getting involved, which ultimately may have affected the outcome. I also felt as though I should explain why I was going to move forward with implementing and cleaning up post-RfC, as I could see how others might be upset by this. I still can't believe how much time has been spent on the capitalization of a single letter, it's ludicrous, but I'm also recalibrating and focusing more on the content.
 * From the little I've tried to wrap my head around it, I still can't come up with objective criteria for what is a proper noun. So I can respect what's in the MOS, as I'm not prepared (at this point) to propose a change I think a crowd-sourced platform can accept. – This is a really good point, and ultimately the crux of the issue. It's difficult to define what a proper noun is, and, short of changing policy, there's not really much to be done, even if I don't agree with how it's defined in the policy. As you said, the MOS is what it is, and I don't have better phrasing to propose.
 * I have my view, but I also recognize that the close was policy based, it addressed the argument of the venue, it made a weighted determination based on the arguments presented in the discussion, and it explained why the determination was made the way it was. If challenged I don't expect it to get overturned based on the close or venue, so I might as well get on board and get to it I figure. Cleanup continues today.
 * Couldn't agree more on the bludgeoning and strawman aspect, but I haven't viewed you as an ass in our interactions... yet ;) Hey man im josh (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail!
– DreamRimmer (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello Josh, did you check my mail? — DreamRimmer (talk) 06:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey @DreamRimmer, I've sent you a response :) Hey man im josh (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Replied :) DreamRimmer (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Ahhhh, that AP!!
If they did the right thing, T. J.'s page wouldn't have to be protected, lol. Bringingthewood (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Right? Ridiculous. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
I was in PERM last week for autopatrolled because I was thinking of reviewing AfC backlog. This is not a formal request for the right, but suppose I am accepting an article, then it goes into the NPP backlog that is already super clogged. Then sometimes I use NPR to mark it as reviewed and tag it. My question is, is there any way autopatrolled right will help me to bypass these extra steps of adding them into the New Pages feed? Because at the end of the day, it's the same result, right? I accept the AfC and me or some other NPR mark it as patrolled. So, with autopatrolled, I can directly publish the article and then tag it if needed. Am I right or am I missing something? Thanks. — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @The Herald: You're right it would auto mark accepted pages as patrolled but AfC reviewing is not a reason to request AP. If you have NPR there is no reason you cannot mark the articles as patrolled yourself after accepting them. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, cool. So just one extra step, right? Thank you, and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @The Herald: Pretty much, yeah. I understand your line of thought in the request, we just don't grant it for that reason. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 February newsletter
The 2024 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with 135 participants. This is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2017.

Our current leader is newcomer, who has one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher) and 10 GAs and 12 DYKs mostly on New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:


 * , with one FA on Hö'elün, two GAs on Mongolia-related articles, and two DYKs;
 * , with one FA on Doom (2016 video game), one GA on Boundary Fire (2017), and 11 reviews;
 * , with one FA on Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), a nine-article FT on 30 (album), and two DYKs;
 * , with one FA on OneShot and one DYK;
 * , with five GAs and five DYKs on television and radio stations;
 * and, both with one FA and one DYK each.

As a reminder, competitors may submit work for the first round until 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February, and the second round starts 1 March. Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round; currently, competitors need at least 15 points to progress. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (,, and ) 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

National Library in Malawi
Hi there. I’m in Lilongwe and have just taken a few pictures of the national library of Malawi. Do wou want me to add them? Derek J Moore (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Derek J Moore: Unfortunately that's not my area of interest so I don't think I can tell you whether they're necessary or helpful. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I thought i saw your name on these photos. My appologies Derek J Moore (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

AFCR thanks
I went to visit WP:AFC/R and noticed you had marked the requests completed for archiving. This had completely fell of my todo-list and I appreciate that you added the tags. :) NotAGenious (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * No problem, glad to help. Just hope the bug gets fixed soon! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

"Rolling Stone"
Hey Josh, do you mind reviewing the article I made for "Rolling Stone (The Weeknd song)"? I have been able to find coverage on the song and sources relating to it. Thank you! AskeeaeWiki (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

New message from I'm tla
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer. &#x0020;appreesh :) TLA  (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail
BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If you could let me know if you think its alright soon I would appreciate it. (Just trying not to take too long to get it done.) Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Lexington Legends
I saw you marked the redirect Lexington Legends as reviewed. Could you look at the related uncontroversial technical move request? -- Pemilligan (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

A few more
I'm congratulating you on your full and partial stars, lol. I was actually on time with the Bears (2/12), but I didn't say anything then ... never saw the article promotion message on your page. Didn't want to jump to conclusions. I know you still have more bullets in the gun .. so more congrats will follow! Regards, John - Bringingthewood (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Pretty sure why Josh didn't receive the promotion message is because he didn't nominate it, I did! :P Though I'm thankful for Josh for his valued contributions to football-related articles and lists and grateful to be my co-nominator on that FAC, in which was my first FL! :) ~ Tails   Wx  (🐾, me!) 03:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Tails Wx: We were both still credited for the FL but only you received the message, which from what I understand, is not the intended result. I'll reach out in the morning about this. Perhaps the nom was slightly malformed and the bot didn't pick up on it? Not sure, but no big deal that I didn't get a message, but I do think the issue should be resolved. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm, interesting! I was also slightly confused at the fact that you didn't receive the promotion message since you were the co-nominator, but since then I somewhat assumed that only the nominator would receive the message. ~ Tails   Wx  (🐾, me!) 17:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you John! You can track the progress at User:Hey man im josh/Progress and WikiProject National Football League/Featured List Project. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome, Josh. Just think, if there's confusion between the both of you ... imagine how I feel. You both, I didn't forget about you @Tails Wx, deserve lots of credit. Stay well. John Bringingthewood (talk) 06:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Congrats!
Congrats on the 49ers promotion, Josh. Also, thanks for the link, it does help to have it on my watchlist. John Bringingthewood (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Featured list #13 :) 5 more prepped and ready to go aside from the one already nommed :) Hey man im josh (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! GO GO GO GO GO!!!! See you again soon. Regards, Bringingthewood (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

LINE Bank closure
Josh, regarding the retarget of LINE Bank, LY Corporation still doesn't have mention of Line Bank, and Cunard's vote was based on this pre-condition. Jay 💬 05:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Ah crap, thanks for pointing this out to me @Jay, I guess my mind glossed over that part of the reply. That's a reminder to slow down and read carefully. I'll make sure it's mentioned in some form at the target article. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Tallinn Õismäe Gymnasium
Im gonna be making the page really slow it might take years Lolsoina (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Friendly notice
Hey.

Just so you know, I've mentioned you in at WP:AE in relation to the conduct of another editor. You've done nothing wrong and you don't need to contribute there. I just wanted to let you know you'd been mentioned. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I'm sorry I didn't respond sooner, I missed this. Thanks so much @Maliner!! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Awww you're too kind, thank you @Tails Wx!! Hopefully we'll collaborate on another project in the future :) Hey man im josh (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Multiple Article Rejections
Hello. I have created 4 articles stemming from the "List of Toyota Transmissions" Page. These articles fill the void of the absent information. They have been repeatedly rejected by multiple editors who don't understand the nature of the information. The articles I have created are structured the same way adjacent articles have been. Those adjacent articles have existed for nearly 2 decades without issue or rejection. Please approve of these 4 articles. I can list them as needed. Thank You 12DionneJ (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @12DionneJ: I do not review articles upon request, as it would be unfair to others that are waiting for their articles to be processed, sorry. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 3 of them have been outright rejected based on improper reasoning, hence why I have messaged you. 12DionneJ (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @12DionneJ, Help desk is the ideal place to report and discuss these types of issues. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that they could be published without draft reviewal. I have published them accordingly. 12DionneJ (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hey man im josh A false COI statement was made. There was zero reason to delete the page. I do not work for the company that produces these transmissions. I have no affect or stake in any of the info I have provided within the article. 12DionneJ (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not delete the page. As 331dot noted on your talk page, you have a COI. Please continue the discussion there. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 March newsletter
The first round of the 2024 WikiCup ended at 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February. Everyone with at least 30 points moved on to Round 2, the highest number of points required to advance to the second round since 2014. Due to a six-way tie for the 64th-place spot, 67 contestants have qualified for Round 2.

The following scorers in Round 1 all scored more than 300 points:


 * , who has 916 points mostly from one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher), 15 GAs, and 16 DYKs on a variety of topics including New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures, in addition to seven reviews
 * , who has 790 points from two FAs on Felix M. Warburg House and Doom (2016 video game), two GAs, one DYK, and 11 reviews
 * , who has 580 points from one FA on Hö'elün, two GAs on Mongolia-related articles, two DYKs, and five reviews
 * , who has 420 points mostly from nine GAs and seven DYKs on television and radio stations
 * , who has 351 points from one FA on Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), a nine-article FT on 30 (album), and three DYKs
 * , who has 345 points from one FA on OneShot, one DYK and two reviews

In this newsletter, the judges would like to pay a special tribute to, who unfortunately passed away this February. At the time of his death, he was the second-highest-scoring competitor. Outside the WikiCup, he had eight other featured articles, five A-class articles, eight other good articles, and two Four Awards. Vami also wrote an essay on completionism, a philosophy in which he deeply believed. If you can, please join us in honoring his memory by improving one of the articles on his to-do list.

Remember that any content promoted after 27 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, 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 it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)