Jump to content

User talk:Hey man im josh/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Hey man im josh
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 20:40, 3 May 2025 (Archiving 3 discussion(s) from User talk:Hey man im josh) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24

About your revert

Hello. I saw that you reverted some edits on Only on Earth because of COI concerns. However, the version you reverted to is clearly promotional and unencyclopaedic. I cannot revert right now because I am on a smartphone, but are you able to go back and find an appropriate revision to revert to? The text before the revert, while not entirely NPOV, was more neutral than the current text. QwertyForest (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@QwertyForest: I think it has some puffery language, but I'm not sure I'd go as far as saying it's clearly unencyclopedic. I actually think the version I reverted away from was more promotional and that the version I reverted to includes less puffery. I do think the revert is an improvement on the state of the article, but I also recognize the article can definitely be improved upon. Pinging Rickyurs, the article's creator, regarding this. Also noting it could use a few more sources for various parts of the article. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

January 2025 NPP backlog drive – Points award

The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia   
This award is given in recognition to Hey man im josh for accumulating at least 500 points during the January 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 16,000+ articles and 14,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 19,791.2 points) completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! – DreamRimmer (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

January 2025 NPP backlog drive – Streak award

Unnecessarily complicated Gears Award

This award is given in recognition to Hey man im josh for accumulating at least 150 points during each week of the January 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 16,000+ articles and 14,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 19,791.2 points) during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog!– DreamRimmer (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2025

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * Sent manually via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Sterling Sharpe

My understanding is that a player isn't inducted into the HoF until the induction ceremony. Re this edit, isn't it technically premature? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh gosh, you just reminded me that we (NFL editors) had a similar discussion last year in which I think we basically decided to reflect the announced results? I can't say for sure though. By all means, you're welcome to revert it @Gonzo fan2007. I think he's TECHNICALLY in the hall of fame already, based on the web page, and based on this, but that the enshrinement doesn't take place until August 2nd based on that second link. The second link also says The Hall of Fame’s membership, including the newly elected class, now stands at 382., which leads me to believe they consider them hall of famers. The time between them being announced and the ceremony is annoying because of the ambiguity of it all. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Thanks for the clarification. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

WikiBullying?

Hello Josh, Please do not attempt to wiki bully me with threats. Thanks. LgShai (talk) 08:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I see that you're a new admin. Two more experienced admins didn't threaten me. Please do not abuse your new admin powers to threaten or passively wiki bully wiki users. Thanks. LgShai (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
@LgShai: I'd certainly not call myself new to being an admin after being one for 16 months. I'm not seeing any admins aside from Liz and myself on your talk page. Additionally, Liz did say you'd be blocked, that's what "loss of editing privileges" means.
Let me be extremely clear. As mentioned elsewhere, if you continue to harass others with entirely inappropriate personal attacks, I will not hesitate to block you. This is meant to protect Wikipedia and its editors.
I'm sorry you feel that you're allowed to harass and insult others without consequences, but I do not feel that way. There will be consequences if your behaviour does not improve, as you've been told by multiple admins. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Just noting some diffs for my future reference:
The reason I didn't go ahead and give you a short-term block was because, on your talk page, you promised to use Wikipedia "correctly" in the future after Vanderwaalforces reminded you that there's a person on the other side of the screen that you're insulting. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Tells editors they're morons and brainless fools and then complains about feeling bullied? The chutzpah is strong in this one... Serial (speculates here) 14:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
You must be mad lol. Falsely accusing me of editing pages, then searching other places to attack me. LgShai (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
@LgShai: Do not get into fights on my talk page or try to antagonize others. The only one mad here seems to be you, and entirely unnecessarily so. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

"The Most Expensive City In The World For Expats" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The Most Expensive City In The World For Expats has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 8 § The Most Expensive City In The World For Expats until a consensus is reached. | Looks like it's an outdated redirect, but can be fixed real quick to direct to a more updated page! Lukeh486 (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Tangent-peacockery, maybe???

Hey josh, quick question since I don't know who else to ask and I just saw you reviewed Drf (thx):

The bad editing practice of starting to talk about some tangent that's only somewhat related to, and itself not even the subject of the article, what is that called? It's at the tip of my tongue, but I can't remember what the term for that here was. It goes something like this:

Fnord is an oncologist. His second cousin twice removed Fnorberg once composed a symphony that premiered at the Royal Albert, where it was very well received [and here are some citations].

Do you know what I'm talking about? I swear I read something about this sort of thing somewhere here, maybe an essay – and maybe there's even a Template: or something, but I can't recall the actual details. Thanks for your attention. ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Here for unrelated reasons - I think you want WP:HATSTAND (unfortunately I have recently become very well acquainted with this essay) Rusalkii (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
THANK YOU! Yes! That is what I was looking for. ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 09:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Article idea

Hi, since you are a very prolific NFL editor and as an administrator, would it be possible without violating wp:NPOV to discuss the bogus conspiracy theory that the NFL rigs games to favor Kansas City? I’ve heard it for a few years and it’s gotten some press coverage. I am concerned about potential violations of WP:NOTNEWS. Thanks! -1ctinus📝🗨 16:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@1ctinus: I actually discouraged someone about creating an article on the subject. Fact of the matter is, reffing in of itself is subjective, and there's so many places errors can be made. There's also the aspect that certain players know how to play the game and get more flags, Josh Allen and Patrick Mahomes being two examples of it. I don't like it, but that's exactly how it is. Additionally, one thing a lot of people don't consider, is that good coaching staffs can pick up on ways that players often foul and give the refs a heads up mid or pre-game, as something to look out for. This is entirely appropriate and normal, and it's something that happens pretty much every game. I have very strong feelings about the fact that people seriously overestimate and overstate how NFL games are rigged. As mentioned, some people just know how to draw flags and get favorable calls, and if the Chiefs were to be explored in that regard, I'd urge folks to look at the 2010s Packers, they got so many phantom calls from my (Lions) perspective that it certainly felt that way. As I've grown and learned to understand the game more, I've found that a lot of people throwing fits about the flags often don't understand that some folks are actually calling flags to the letter of the rule, and that the refs are human and just miss things.
That's also a big reason why we need more technology in the game so that things like first downs and ball placement aren't just being guessed at by eye sight. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

List of Detroit Lions in the Pro Football Hall of Fame

Just a note on the above, when I changed the table format and add the Career accomplishments section, I was really thinking that the "Awards" column would be true awards, those handed out to players/coaches at the end of the season (i.e. List of Green Bay Packers award winners type of stuff). The reasoning was that these type of things are what are considered for enshrinement, whereas for most of these, the anniversary team recognition came much later after enshrinement. Not saying you have to remove them or anything, just wanted to note what my intention was. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:09, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I think your point regarding the anniversary teams is solid for some candidates, but I also think it's a significant accolade that does help for enshrinement in a number of cases now. The article is in decent shape for now, but I'll definitely give it some thought prior to moving forward with a nomination of it some day. Thanks for the feedback @Gonzo fan2007, always appreciated! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of What Happens Next (webcomic)

Hi, I'm Sparkle & Fade, and I recently saw that you accepted a speedy deletion request for What Happens Next (webcomic) under criteria A7, but I believe that this was mistaken and I would kindly like to request undeletion. In the "Reception" section, (I believe) it makes a credible claim of significance, stating "[The comic] has accrued over 1 million views", which is sourced to the comic's webpage where it does indeed verify the view count on the statistics section (not sure if it counts as primary or selfpub), and also brings up multiple notable publications/people who received it positively. (I would have taken the tag off to contest it, but I was unavailable at the time.) I would have taken this to WP:DELREV, but WP:DELREVD says: Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. I'd like to know your opinion on it, though. Thanks. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 23:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@Sparkle & Fade: Sorry for the delay, I don't typically edit on weekends. As for the reception section, I don't typically view hit counters, which are notoriously inaccurate, as a valid/significant claim towards notability. The other references include a YouTube video and an interview that doesn't even mention the comic.
Frankly I don't think this will survive at AfD if sent there. Never the less, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt, restoring, and moving to draft space at Draft:What Happens Next (webcomic). Hey man im josh (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll be working on the draft there so it can hopefully be brought back to mainspace. Again, thanks for your help. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 22:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Hi Josh, Maxquayle1997 (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
^thanks for reconsidering the deletion! I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt. Sparkle & Fade has already added some great secondary sources to the draft, I'm looking forward to getting back to editing in the morning.
Just to clear up any confusion, the interview I was referring to does mention the comic; specifically, the title of the first chapter, Dog Names. Hope this makes things clearer!
All the best,
Max Maxquayle1997 (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Ah, chapter name makes more sense. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Virginia Halas McCaskey

On 8 February 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Virginia Halas McCaskey, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. charlotte 👸♥ 07:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Wow, Josh working on something that isn't a list? charlotte 👸♥ 07:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
See @Queen of Hearts??? I can do other stuff! I expect I may get another ITN recognition soon as well for Dick Jauron! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of 2026 Indian Premier League for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2026 Indian Premier League is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 Indian Premier League until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Vestrian24Bio 10:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Vestrian24Bio: Strange, the only time I edited that article was to nominate it for deletion at WP:RFD. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
The page creator is indefinitely blocked. But, I don't see why Twinkle sent the notice to you. Vestrian24Bio 11:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
@Vestrian24Bio: I think I actually figured out why. This is an assumption, but I think Twinkle may be recognizing me as the first person to convert the redirect to what it perceives as an article. I think this may be the case, as when redirects tagged with the RfD template are marked as reviewed, they're incorrectly counted as article reviews until the template is removed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Deaths in 2025

There are two basic agreed rules in this project which affect your recent edit in the above. 1) only simple cites are used, to reduce coding clutter by the end of the month; and 2) only three total credits are allowed per line - you can choose which three but there need to be only three. If in any doubt, you can bring it up on the talk page. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 14:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Why did you delete the article of the Najd revolution

It's really a revolution and it's in a lot of books and it's not on Wikipedia, and I put it and put a few sources with it, why delete it?' Please bring her back. Well, I'm so tired for her Abdalluh23 (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Abdalluh23: I did not delete the article, it exists at Draft:Najd Revolution. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Dick Jauron

On 12 February 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Dick Jauron, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 13 § Category:May 2023 sports events in Monaco

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 13 § Category:May 2023 sports events in Monaco on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

RD2

Hey Josh, starting with revision 1185492232 on List of NFL nicknames is a BLP violation that I removed. It's eligible for revision deletion under criterion RD2 of violates our biographies of living people policy. I would support the use of revdel in this case, as I could not find any reliable sources that this is a notable nickname. Cheers, -1ctinus📝🗨 15:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey @1ctinus, revdels are a weak point for me, so I asked in a chat with some admins who are more experienced than I am (three of which have oversight perms). They were on the fence about it, but there seemed to be consensus against revdeling the edit based on the information in the lead of Deshaun Watson. My understanding, based on the discussion with them, is it would be more of an issue if it were not widely discussed at the article. It's obviously vandalism and not appropriate, but not it's making an allegation or anything that's not reported already.
I don't like the edit either for what it's worth, and I'm going based off the suggestion of more experienced folks than myself. Sorry. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
If you want another opportunity, the vandalism on Chinese culture definitely needs to be scrubbed from the revision history. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Done. Sorry for the delay. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Regions

Please stop moving articles to make "region" in their titles lowercase, such as Public transport in the Wellington Region to Public transport in the Wellington region. I do understand that you're just making it consistent with the article Wellington region but that page move was done by two people without any proper discussion, and a move request is now at Gisborne District to make the "District" lowercase which is facing some opposition so it might be better to wait for the outcome of that discussion before you move any more articles. ―Panamitsu (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@Panamitsu: Those moves I made were based on the results of a concluded RM (which closed 15 days ago) and for consistency with the names of the main articles. It wouldn't make sense to have the main region article at "Wellington region" and then "Public transport in Wellington Region". If you disagree with the result of the RM you can start another and argue that it wasn't appropriate. Besides, moves are pretty easily reversible. If the regions are moved back to the capitalized title I'll be more than happy to help with the clean up.
In short, I'm not the person you should have an issue with in this case. A RM discussion was held and it's been over 2 weeks. I did some follow up cleanup work that, based on the current situation, was appropriate. The cleanup of moving for consistency is also done now and didn't include very many pages. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
I understand that, I just assumed that you were planning on moving more as out of memory (I hadn't checked) it seemed to me that there were more articles with a capital Region.
New news: A few (but not all) of these region articles have been moved back, such as Canterbury Region but not Wellington Region. ―Panamitsu (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
@Panamitsu: I have no intention of boldly down casing any region/district article titles, as I'm aware that those are often times proper names. I just do a fair bit of cleanup after moves, typically waiting a couple weeks to do so. With that said, I'm not sure it's appropriate to reopen a discussion 15 days after the fact @Cremastra. Personally I'd have preferred a new discussion being started instead. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Noting that I went and untagged the 326 categories I had tagged for speedy renaming. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes I did see that, thanks. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Request

Can you clear the talk page of my former IP? 191.9.61.200 (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@191.9.61.200: Do you remember your former IP address? If you can provide it, Hey man im josh or I can look into it. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
@Z. Patterson: User talk:191.9.57.3. 191.9.61.200 (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
@191.9.61.200: It is not best practice to blank someone else's talk page except under special circumstances. The original talk page does not appear to meet either of the criteria listed in the deletion policy, and we should not remove declined unblock requests. Although the account is currently not blocked, it is best practice to leave them intact for historical reasons. Z. Patterson (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
@Z. Patterson: Can you at least remove the Vivek hidden comment and only leave the block things? 191.9.61.200 (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
@191.9.61.200: I do not know if it would be a good idea to do so. Z. Patterson (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
@Z. Patterson: Just do it, please. It's just a hidden comment. It's not like they can't revert it back if it is really wrong. 191.9.61.200 (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
@191.9.61.200:  Done Z. Patterson (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
@Z. Patterson: Thank you! 191.9.61.200 (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thank you Nabulowa (talk) 10:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks so much @Nabulowa! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

"2025–26 College Football Playoff" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2025–26 College Football Playoff has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 20 § 2025–26 College Football Playoff until a consensus is reached. CycloneYoris talk! 07:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Promotion of 1980 Summer Olympics medal table

Congratulations, Hey man im josh! The list you nominated, 1980 Summer Olympics medal table, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase III/Administrator elections

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Great work!

Congrats on yet another one, Josh! See you soon. John. Bringingthewood (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

P.S. Another congrats .. on your '4 Nations' win. (Painful, but I had to do it!) ;) Bringingthewood (talk) 05:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

GO CANADA!!! And thanks John. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Lol, you got it! Regards. Bringingthewood (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

We would like to resubmit Draft article for Dr. Steve R.S. Curtis

We've revised the article and believe we've addressed the redirect issue(s). We also entered the publication ISBNs manually (instead of using the template) to ensure they don’t link to the Wiki page.

Could you kindly let us know if the issue(s) have been resolved or if there are any remaining concerns? We appreciate and welcome your help.

Best wishes.

ScreenSage ScreenSage (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

"Award" as part of proper name?

Wondering what you're thinking. See search. Dicklyon (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

This is about AP NFL Coach of the Year Award and AP NFL Assistant Coach of the Year Award. You prefer to see Award capped on those? Or just want to have a discussion? How come? Dicklyon (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Maybe you like it better as AP NFL Assistant Coach of the Year? That was suggested on my talk page. Join us there if you prefer. Dicklyon (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Review: Copernic Space

Hi I saw you reviewed the page which was nominated for deletion. I'm still not sure what it means. Thanks Twicebefore (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

@Twicebefore: It's just standard practice to mark pages nominated for deletion as reviewed. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
For a second it wasn't clear what it meant. The subject of the article is well covered from the secondary sources cited. Though the nomination is still open right.? Twicebefore (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding, I don't typically edit on the weekends @Twicebefore. Yes, marking as reviewed does not mean the nomination has been closed. It is, in fact, still ongoing. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Abdel Kader Coulibaly

Hey, any chance you can redraft of restore Abdel Kader Coulibaly? The page passes GNG, despite being made by a blocked user.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry @Ortizesp, I do not intend to restore the page, as the original creator is an LTA. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Ukrainian Figure Skating Championships/archive1

Hello! I responded to your comments on this FLC on February 11th. Have you had a chance to re-examine it yet? Thank you so much for your time! Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Bgsu98, I don't have any further commments. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Is it a Support then? Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Noting that I replied on the FLC. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Question

@Hey man im josh I just wanted to know your thought on Page Cornitos which you have reviewed. Atulkumar.1990 (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Atulkumar.1990: I do not have any thoughts on the page. Any page nominated for deletion at WP:AFD is marked as reviewed as a matter of procedure. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Electoral district of Oakford

district of Oakford

Can the deletion be undone for this page? It says it was deleted under G5, however this page will assist citizens understanding their district in the Western Australian state election following the boundary changes that commenced this year. Pages for affected suburbs of Wandi and Aubin Grove require updating from the electoral district of Kwinana to that of Oakford, these will be linking to this non-existent page. Lewisnet (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry @Lewisnet, but we do not undelete pages deleted under the G5 criteria. You are not restricted from creating the article, but I will not be restoring it. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Request

Hello Josh, I'm bringing this request here as I could see you deal with other such requests. Would it be possible for you restore my user-rights? I surrendered them a few months ago (at Special:PermaLink/1229904442#Permissions) but I am still interested in doing antivandalism work and patrolling here so it would be helpful. Cheers. Svartava (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Svartava: Please go through WP:PERM to make the request. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Lynne Marie Stewart

On 26 February 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Lynne Marie Stewart, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. charlotte 👸♥ 21:07, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Promotion of 1952 Summer Olympics medal table

Congratulations, Hey man im josh! The list you nominated, 1952 Summer Olympics medal table, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2025

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

WikiCup 2025 March newsletter

The first round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 26 February. As a reminder, we are no longer disqualifying the lowest-scoring contestants; everyone who competed in round 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned from Wikipedia. Instead, the contestants with the highest round-point totals now receive tournament points at the end of each round. Unlike the round points in the main WikiCup table, which are reset at the end of each round, tournament points are carried over between rounds and can only be earned if a competitor is among the top 16 round-point scorers. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far.

Round 1 was very competitive compared with previous years; two contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and the top 16 contestants all scored more than 500 round points. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

The full scores for round 1 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 18 featured articles, 26 featured lists, 1 featured-topic article, 197 good articles, 38 good-topic articles and more than 100 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 23 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 550 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 26 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2, which begins on 1 March. 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

FAC comments inquiry

Hi Josh, I hope you are well! I was lurking through some music FACs and I wonder if you could provide some comments for my current FAC, on the Taylor Swift song Forever & Always? Thank you very much in advance, and no hard feelings if you are unable to :) Ippantekina (talk) 03:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: I am looking for more to review for the WikiCup, hence my recent foray into FAC. I might give it a go, but no promises. I normally do source reviews at FLC but I'm not comfortable with that at FAC just yet, as I understand they are a bit more strict than we are at FLC. As such, my efforts have been reviewing source formatting for consistency. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Feel free to remind me if you don't have a review by Tuesday. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

You're too much!

Congrats, Josh. Keep getting those promotions for articles before I was even born! Thanks for that .. 1960 .. now 1952!! Fantastic, I'm finally younger than something. Regards, John. Bringingthewood (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Bringingthewood. Progress for the medal tables that Arconning and I have been working on (and others before us of course) can be seen here. All of the Winter medal tables are prepped and ready for nomination or already nominated. 1912, 1960, and 1972 are ready for Summer as well, with 1932 already being nominated. That leaves us with 5 remaining Summer lists to work on; 1900, 1904, 1920, 1928, and 2024 (2024 is basically ready, but has too heavy of a US bias, and there will need to be a talk page discussion about changes before I'm willing to nominate it). Hey man im josh (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
I do like those old ones ... you are the man!! You set out to do things .. and you got them done. That means a lot in my little book that I keep here, lol. You'll never have a problem with me, Josh, that's a promise. All the best, John. Bringingthewood (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Josh, you may want to chime in on this. My talk page is going off the rails because of US or U.S. You were one of the seven I can name that added U.S to players at the time. Am I wrong? John. Bringingthewood (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
@Bringingthewood: I see you've got Bagumba chiming in and I think they may know more than I do on this matter. I don't recall ever being involved in such a discussion, sorry. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
No, no .. I didn't mean you getting involved literally, I think that when you did add a few ... U.S. and not US in the past, you had a preference. That's all I meant. In case I had to call on someone to back us up. John. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Ah gotcha. To be honest I really don't recall, I'm sorry. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Okay, maybe you added one, but it was U.S., lol. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. John. Bringingthewood (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Reference capitalization

I'm pretty sure "don't change reference capitalization" is not among the normal options we use for titles of referenced works. We're supposed to follow a consistent style for referencing within an article, and the styles I can find use either title case or sentence case for titles. I'm not aware of a style that says copy the styling from the source, or that says to capitalize every word including "of", "the", and "by". So consider re-fixing that where you reverted me, or working toward a more consistent style more generally. Dicklyon (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I will not be reverting, as that would make the article worse and I certainly wouldn't want to do that, especially on a featured list.
Why would it be appropriate to editorialize a title? The consistent style IS to stick to what the reference uses unless it's entirely capitalized, in which case it's acceptable to switch to title case. I can tell you that as someone that does source reviews at WP:FLC, and who's had dozens of source reviews performed on his work, this has never once come up or been suggested. I read a lot of source reviews done by others as well to improve my work in performing source reviews, and nothing in those has ever suggested this either.
Find me anything that says we're meant to editorialize a title. Until then, you're implementing something because you like it, not because it's appropriate. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't think of style as editorializing, but I've started this discussion you should join: WT:Citing sources#Capitalization styles of work titles. Dicklyon (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, several different editors are saying that source title capitalization should be consistent with each other, not with the various sources (I searched for "capital"). I guess you missed that. Dicklyon (talk) 23:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: Where is this conversation at FLC? As mentioned, I do a lot of reviews there and when I'm promoting articles from candidate to FL status this isn't something I check for. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Not conversations exactly, but these recent review comments: [1], [2]. Dicklyon (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Two comments does not dictate a norm. It's an unreasonable ask for nominators to constantly editorialize titles from my perspective. Frankly if they became a requirement I'd be tempted to stop promoting content altogether simply due to the ridiculousness and the lack of improvement such a requirement would be. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm obviously not claiming that these comments make the norm; just pointing out that it has come up there, from multiple editors. And I'm not saying it's a blocker for promotion, just that if someone fixes things like this in the direction of conformance to guidelines, you might not want to revert them. Dicklyon (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: Stylistic preferences should default to the preexisting style. It's an expectation not to impose personal preference on articles. As mentioned, being that it's not an improvement to editorialize titles, I'm waiting on relevant guidelines that state we're meant to be adjusting all of the titles within articles. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Joseph Cursare // Wiki Deletion

Hey,

I work with the Ex record label and Joseph Cursare to provide a new website to feature on his EPK to show notability and authenticity. Can we talk about this deletion privately? Pcbigbobby (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Pcbigbobby: No we cannot. Please also see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You are required to disclose your conflict of interest and if you're being paid to edit about/on behalf of someone or a company. Note that a website existing for an individual does not contribute towards notability. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
I am not being paid to do this. If you need to be paid to write a few hundred words you should have a chat to yourself. This is a conflict of interest but as the writer of the article I do have a say. We don't even have a website listed so that last bit is utter waffle. Pcbigbobby (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Not sure what an utter waffle is, but you said I work with the Ex record label and Joseph Cursare to provide a new website to feature on his EPK to show notability and authenticity. I was noting that, whether a site exists or not, it's entirely irrelevant to one's notability. If you need to be paid to write a few hundred words you should have a chat to yourself. – What? Hey man im josh (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Utter waffle means I basically don't agree with you. And yes a new website (meaning Wikipedia) does play a vital role in a musicians notability. The music industry is no longer about talent, but numbers and relevancy. Because not every artist can be listed on Wikipedia provides a "Wow" factor to Concert Promoters, A&R, Producers, Record Executives, and Management companies. Just because Joseph Cursare doesn't list number one on Billboards Top 100's doesn't mean having a Wikipedia should be took away from him. This article lists many examples as to Josephs background and his Career. This absolutely does provide an extra layer of authenticity and notability. If you need to be paid to write a few hundred words you should have a chat to yourself. Means I don't agree with paying someone to write a Wikipedia page when it is so easy to do. Pcbigbobby (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Nothing is being taken away from him. It is not up to Wikipedia to help establish someone's notability or career. In fact, this is precisely what we aim to push back against. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
This will take away from his notability. I will say it again, the music industry is about numbers and relevancy, we are using Wikipedia not just for fun but as a source to work with bigger companies in the future. Pcbigbobby (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Bluntly, I don't care. Wikipedia is not for promotional edits or for companies looking to promote individuals. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Delete it then, and we'll go through proper methods to create a Wikipedia page that you can stay far away from. Pcbigbobby (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
@Pcbigbobby: Note that I've now watchlisted the page to monitor if it's recreated again in the future. I am also under no obligation to "stay far away", especially given your announced intentions of using Wikipedia for promotional editing. If you truly believe the subject to be notable it's best to let the discussion at AfD play out. For that same reason, I will not be deleting the page. I'd like to again remind you about disclosing your COI on your user page. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
I never said "stay far away" as a statement. I meant it as the next Wikipedia page in the future will follow the correct guidelines so you wont have to swoop in and delete it. We aren't using it as promotion, we are using it to provide notability authenticity, which if you can't see that's what EVERY Wikipedia page does, why are you so highly ranked on it. How do i disclose COI, as in where do i disclose it? Pcbigbobby (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
See WP:DISCLOSE. I am also not interested in discussing what having a Wikipedia page does for an individual. As far as being "highly ranked" on it, I am not, I've simply been trusted by the community with certain tools. That does not give me more weight in discussions or unilateral authority to utilize said tools for whatever I see fit, only for different things that have been outlined by the community. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Some fun reading material...

Matt Flynn Game :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I saw that popping up on my watchlist @Gonzo fan2007! Good stuff as always! I just wish that the memories of that game didn't make me want to puke lol. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

fwiw

I am going to apologize in advance for this, as it feels very confrontational, and I wish I could come up with a way to make it feel less so, both to me and to you. Knowing you engage in offwiki discussions of editor behavior makes me feel like I'm going to need to ask you every time: Have you been having sidebars? Should we know what was included in that discussion? Should we know who was in that discussion? :( Again, sorry. Valereee (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

No worries @Valereee, I completely understand. Regarding off wiki discussions of editor behaviour, I have never approached anybody in any capacity to issue a warning of any kind. One of the primary things I do on Discord, and that I try to be absolutely transparent about, is coaching people and giving them advice in a back and forth way that many people are more comfortable with. I also always make sure, on both the main and NPP Discord servers (I'm a moderator on both), disallow and tell people not to link to or discuss ongoing consensus building procedures or reports of any kind to avoid canvassing or influencing discussions. I have privately messaged DWG91 twice. Once on December 10 with an invite to the NPP server, I believe based on a discussion that I was watching on the main server in which someone brought up there was a NPP Discord, and at just about 20 minutes ago saying Be good please. I don't stick my neck out like this often. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#c-Hey_man_im_josh-20250303194300-Valereee-20250303193200
As for the discussion itself, it was mostly asking about details of how to conduct themselves when involved in an iban, with folks encouraging them to adhere to it. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Okay. I'd feel better if it was just, "Hey, for transparency, let's take this to my talk or yours." I mean, I do know that discord is not not public. It's just...there are just so many issues. Are we playing favorites, are we coaching our friends, are we doing this behind a door, even though that door is porous. I understand why some folks might find it more comfortable, but that's kind of the issue: why do they find it more comfortable? Because it's more private? I dunno. I do believe you aren't doing anything nefarious, but if it were someone I didn't necessarily trust as much? I dunno what I'd think. I'm sorry to have to have brought this up, I don't mean to add stress. Valereee (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Nah I totally get it, and I'm very conscious of the fear of a Discord cabal that some have. It's for that reason that I make such great effort to be as transparent as possible and try to avoid putting myself in a situation where people have concerns about what is said off site. Personally I prefer Discord for the ease of back and forth and because it feels less formal than I'm inclined to be on wiki. It's led to people asking questions that I think they feel silly asking on wiki (such as in the help or en-wiki channels on the main community Discord). I guess it just feels more laxed and freeform to many. It's been a good opportunity from my perspective to learn and give advice to people, whether they're asking if there's a certain policy relating to xyz, or for feedback on a subject they're working on. I think there's a place for something like IRC and I think that's helped with user retention in some aspects. Not everybody loves the forum style of communication that we have in threads. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Request for Article Copy to Edit in Draft Page

I would like to get a copy of an article for editing in the draft page. Could you please assist me in resolving this issue? This request concerns History of Science (periodical) and Metafizika (journal). Thank you for your help! Nepre (talk) 08:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Nepre: They have been restored to Draft:Metafizika (journal) and Draft:History of Science (periodical). Hey man im josh (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2025).

Administrator changes

removed

CheckUser changes

removed

Oversighter changes

removed AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new filter has been added to the Special:Nuke tool, which allows administrators to filter for pages in a range of page sizes (in bytes). This allows, for example, deleting pages only of a certain size or below. T378488
  • Non-administrators can now check which pages are able to be deleted using the Special:Nuke tool. T376378

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Growth Newsletter #33

A quarterly update from the Growth team on our work to improve the new editor experience.

Constructive Activation Experiments

This year, the Growth team is exploring ways to help more new account holders start editing—and do so constructively, meaning their edits are not reverted. Our latest experiments include:

  • Gradual rollout of "Add a Link" at English Wikipedia – We are gradually introducing the "Add a Link" structured task to newcomers at English Wikipedia (T386029). This serves as a natural A/B test to measure its impact on activation, retention, and revert rates (T382603). Previous experiments on pilot wikis showed that "Add a Link" increases newcomer participation, particularly by helping them make constructive (non-reverted) edits.
  • Testing in-article suggestions for first-time editors – Many new account holders want to contribute but don’t know where to start. To help, we’re piloting a feature that surfaces structured task suggestions directly in an article’s read view for brand-new editors (T385343). These suggestions will appear for logged-in users with no edits, providing a clear, simple way to begin contributing that is surfaced while they read.

Community Updates

Newcomers often struggle to find their place in Wikipedia’s collaborative environment. While experienced editors easily discover events like edit-a-thons and writing campaigns, newcomers often miss out.

  • To bridge this gap, we launched the Community Updates module for the Newcomer Homepage. This module is disabled by default, allowing Community Admins to decide how (or if) to use it.
  • If your community hosts events, consider setting up a Community Update to engage and welcome newcomers! Learn more on Diff. To configure, visit Special:CommunityConfiguration.

Community Configuration

Community Configuration is now available across all wikis, including non-Wikipedia projects (T383910). Community Configuration allows admins to customize various features like Growth features and Automoderator for their communities, and more recently the Babel extension now allows admins to modify configuration:

Mentorship

Mentors play a key role in guiding new editors. If you’re interested in mentoring, or turning mentorship on at your wiki, check out the Mentorship FAQ

  • Starting February 17, 100% of new accounts at English Wikipedia will be assigned a mentor (T384505).
  • At Spanish Wikipedia, on 50% of newcomers get a mentor. Experienced contributors are encouraged to join mentorship so that Spanish Wikipedia can provide a mentor to all new users.

Looking Ahead

In the coming months, we will continue balancing maintenance work—such as deprecating EditGrowth Config (T367574) and migrating Statslib (T359352) — with user-facing improvements that support new editors and foster the next generation of contributors.

Growth team's newsletter prepared by the Growth team and posted by bot • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hey_man_im_josh/Archive_24&oldid=1288618437"