Jump to content

User talk:Hey man im josh

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

"Award" as part of proper name?

[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Review: Copernic Space

[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

Abdel Kader Coulibaly

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Question

[edit]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Electoral district of Oakford

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Request

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

ITN recognition for Lynne Marie Stewart

[edit]

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)[reply]

Promotion of 1952 Summer Olympics medal table

[edit]
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)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 February 2025

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

WikiCup 2025 March newsletter

[edit]

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)[reply]

You're too much!

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ah gotcha. To be honest I really don't recall, I'm sorry. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

FAC comments inquiry

[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Reference capitalization

[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Not conversations exactly, but these recent review comments: [1], [2]. Dicklyon (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

Joseph Cursare // Wiki Deletion

[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

fwiw

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Some fun reading material...

[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Request for Article Copy to Edit in Draft Page

[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2025

[edit]

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)[reply]

Growth Newsletter #33

[edit]

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

Constructive Activation Experiments

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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)

Sahar Hashmi

[edit]

Hello,

You G5-speedy deleted the page Sahar Hashmi, that was being discussed at AfD. I seem to remember having (as well as other users, more significantly, thus having, if I am not mistaken, "substantial edits by others") edited the page myself, but even if that is not the case, would you please consider providing me with the text of the deleted page or, if you wish, undelete the page, to keep the history, and make it a Draft/User page (as you like best), so that I can work on it? Thank you very much. -Mushy Yank. 19:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank: The only edit you made to the page was to add a Wikilink. As for other's edits, they don't rise to a level that had me not considering G5'ing the page. I typically exercise caution when considering doing so. I'm sorry, but in this case, I'm going to decline to restore the content. It was a fairly short article, and given your experience, I think if you started from scratch you'd end up making it better than it was. I think if it was a longer article that was more difficult to recreate I'd give it more consideration, but in this case, based on the length and the socking, I'm inclined not to. I'm sorry. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK! I might ask a willing sysop to provide me with the text then, to save time, then. Also, thank you for marking Bikini Girls from the Lost Planet as reviewed. I didn't find the way to thank you through the Thanks script (maybe not possible for this kind of actions). -Mushy Yank. 23:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I have no issue with that @Mushy Yank. I just personally am not comfortable with it but I will not stand in the way if another admin is. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Weeping Worm

[edit]

Hi! You recently deleted the page The Weeping Worm and redirected it to the page Lil Ugly Mane discography under the reason that it doesnt meet the WP:NALBUM criteria. This album however meets the first point in the listed criteria - it appears on multiple news websites. At the time of deletion, there was only one article listed but I found another few articles talking about this EP or at least mentioning it. Im asking if I can revert your changes and add these references to the page, also possibly including more info about the EP. Thanks ;) Xrup69 (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xrup69: I actually didn't delete the article, I just redirected it. There's nothing stopping you from disagreeing with me doing so and improving the article to addressed concerns that it doesn't meet WP:NALBUM. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Ill try to improve it so it meets the criteria more. I also wanted to ask a question. Travis Miller released three albums called: Three sided tape Volume One, Three sides tape Vplume TWO and Third Side of Tape. They all syare similar idea (most songs being his older unreleased things) and they can all be considered as a part of one project. Im planning on creating article for these, but Im unsure that they dont meet the criteria (especially the first two), so I wanted to ask if it would make more sense that they would be under one page called "Three Sided Tape" or if it would be better that they would be under separate pages. Thanks :) Xrup69 (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Xrup69: It sure sounds like it logically makes sense to put them under the same page. If the article gets expansive enough that individual articles make sense it can always be split out from there. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright Xrup69 (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article flow

[edit]

Hi Hey man im josh. We are working again on a project for NPP which exists practically all but the scripts and js tooltips. It will not only much reduce the number of new articles to review but it will also greatly reduce the blowback reviewers get. Please take a moment to have a look and let me know what you think and if you would be interested in the workshopping. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up @Kudpung. I'll give it some thought and chime in with any thoughts I may have. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are an NPP coord, a task I did as lead (most of it alone) for a decade, I think your input would be essential. If you are under time constraints and prefer not to be involved in the work group, that's fine too. We have time, the only thing that is a bit pressing is finding a solution to the perpetual backlog. All other ideas have been exhausted. It has nothing to do with notability or any other PAGs that may be under discussion and does not and will not change the way the reviewers work. A discussion has begun here. As soon as there is a work group of about four (it is not limited to present and former NPP coords, but it is hoped to be driven by experienced long-term reviewers), we will continue with the round of video conferences we began two years ago before I took a 'leave of absence'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Summer Olympics medal table leaders by year and Template:Winter Olympics medal table leaders by year

[edit]

Hi there, the template is show the top nation in every edition, that means only count the top nation in madel table, not seeing most gold & total medals. It's not counting the nation win most gold & total medals. That's all. You've already change the template title. It's very clear in the template meaning. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevencocoboy: It's absolutely not "entirely clear", and I still think it's not clear, there's ambiguity and I literally couldn't figure out how/why it represented the data the way it did, inconsistently. I've obviously spent a lot of time working on medal tables, which is why I feel as though I have an informed opinion on the matter. Personally I think the nation who wins the most medals overall holds a better accolade. As for the sorting of medal table, it varies. Some do go by total, some go by gold. I have a number of medal tables I'm waiting to nominate at FLC, all things considered, why shouldn't I sort them by total? "Topped the medal table" is not a term that's defined. Additionally, it's better to phrase it as "top NOC", as opposed to nation, due to a number of non-nation specific teams leading in medal count (both gold and total). Hey man im josh (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly this type of logic and focus on "leading the table" (whatever that's meant to mean) and over focus on the US is why I don't expect I'll ever be able to nominate 2024 Summer Olympics medal table for featured list status, despite the efforts myself and others have made towards promoting all the medal tables. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you have done and thanks for your contribute in it. But the gold and total medals results are different. It make us confused. In fact, show the top nation in template is very clear and we use it in a long time. I don't see the other users change the title & information. That means the templates are very clear and all we know what does it means. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Stevencocoboy: That's the problem though, it's not clear and it's not defined in the templates now that you've reverted my change. The IOC does not have a recognized "standard" medal table, as they make very clear a number of times they've discussed it. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection of Geno Smith

[edit]

News has broke that he has been reportedly traded to the Las Vegas Raiders. Could you semi-protect the page to prevent vandalism from random IPs? Vataxevader (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Vataxevader, it looks like the page has already been protected. In the future, I encourage you to use WP:RFPP/I for such requests instead, that way you're not left waiting for a specific person to address the issue. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thank you. Vataxevader (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page deletion

[edit]

Hi, Hey man im josh! Well, I was doing some userbox migration and it looks like I made too many mistakes. Could please revert all the moves and delete the pages please. Xiphoid Vigour ||⚔|⚔|| 11:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xiphoid Vigour: It looks like I missed this message the other day. You're always welcome to use the {{db-move}} to request a page be deleted in order to move it there, as well as the {{Db-g7}} template to request deletion of redirects which you've created after moving from a bad title. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your advice! Xiphoid Vigour ||⚔|⚔|| 15:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Hey man im josh! I had made an account few months ago for a friend of mine who wanted to join Wikipedia. Layer, he abandoned the account and asked me to delete it. Obviously, he didn't know we can't delete an account. So, I started using it as my alternate account. I came across his new account, which had been blocked indefinitely due to vandalism. I fear that he may use this account now. I've lost access to it, so I can't change the password. Could you please block it indefinitely for pprevention. I don't want his awards be given to me.humor Xiphoid Vigour ||⚔|⚔|| 09:11, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Award

[edit]

I award you the Editor's Barnstar, I hope you can reward me with this award too.

The Editor's Barnstar
For professionalism and editing of Wikipedia

Spectra321578 (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Spectra321578: Awarding barnstars and requesting that others return the favour is frowned upon. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of Kristiyan Stoyanov

[edit]

Hi. As you recently deleted the Kristiyan Stoyanov article and the draft about it, I would want to ask you to return the draft at least, so I could add a new info about the player as he is now called for the national team of Bulgaria, rather than redoing a whole new article about. 12:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC) Chris Calvin (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris Calvin: The draft page in this case was simply a redirect to the article in main space. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Olympia.London

[edit]

Hi,

I just saw you recently blocked this user because they are a "spambot". However, their one edit hasn't been fully reverted and it was just updating an article. How are they a spambot?

Just curious Plantman (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantman: That says spamublock, not spambot. It's simply a reference to the block template (see Template:Uw-spamublock), which is meant to be used on editors with a promotional user name who are also making promotional edits. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, my bad. How come their promotional edit hasn't been undone yet? Plantman (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Plantman: It was undone almost 2 hours ago. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't? Sorry to keep bugging you. I'm merely curious Plantman (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only thing that happened was the image was re-added Plantman (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Fixed. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, on an unrelated note, can you move a category? Plantman (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your best option is to nominate a category for renaming at WP:CFDS or at WP:CFD. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What should I do with Category:Cochlicellidae whose members have all been moved to Category:Cochlicellini? Plantman (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well ideally you'd have nominated it for rename before, but I've tagged it for deletion as an empty category. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciated. Plantman (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was erroneously put as a family when it was actually a tribe, so I took the liberty of moving all the members of Category:Cochlicellidae to Category:Cochlicellini. Do I still CfD? Plantman (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bradybaeninae-stub

[edit]

Hi,

Sorry to bother you again, but when I moved Template:Bradybaenidae-stub to Template:Bradybaeninae-stub (because of a taxonomic name change) it got rid of the documentation and now it looks weird. I was wondering if you could help me out since you seem to have a lot of experience on-wiki. Thanks Plant🌱man (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The template still works fine but it's included in a list of error stub templates, and the documentation is gone. Plant🌱man (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, never mind, I fixed it. Plant🌱man (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tribe Gaming

[edit]

Hi there. I came across this article today, and I don't know what to do with it. Someone moved it to draft already, and then it was moved back, so I guess I'm not supposed to draftify it again. You were involved in the last AfD for it, so I'll leave it here. Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MediaKyle: You would want to use the {{Db-g4}} template on the page if you want it deleted based on the last AfD, which I do think is appropriate. With that said, I won't be the one to process it based on having been a part of the discussion, but I have gone ahead and tagged the page with {{db-g4|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tribe Gaming}}. Another admin will be along to process the request if they believe it to be appropriate. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revoke my NPP right

[edit]

I don't know if this is the best place to do so, but the guidelines just mention ask an admin and not where- can you remove my NPP right(sorry if I shouldn't have asked, as it is temporary and would get removed by itself in a month)- I have retired from editing so I wouldn't be needing them anymore. Thank you! DWF91 (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete pages from a blocked user possible?

[edit]

Hey Josh, nice to meet you again. You recently blocked user User:Jisshu for sockpuppetry. A shame because they were making some quality contributions especially more toward my area. Is it possible to undelete some of the pages they created? They had contributed a lot (imo). Here's a list of what was deleted that I'm specifically interested about.

Battle of Sutlej ----- Siege of Ballabhgarh (1757) ----- Jahan Khan (Afghan general) ----- Siege of Agra (1757) ------ Sack of Mathura (1757) ----- Battle of Gokul (1757)

I had also edited these pages a fair bit so I think they could also fall under the clause of substantial edits? Please let me know and get back to me, thanks. Noorullah (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the person who made the articles is User:SouthAsia78, Jisshu is the original sockmaster* Noorullah (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Given that Jisshu was originally blocked for source falsification and copyright issues, I might caution against restoring their articles. (Pedantic moment alert: Josh didn't block them, he just handled the G5's) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see, can they be drafted instead so I can touch upon them and see what might be of concern?
iirc, the articles were mostly fine. I was working on the same topic with Ahmad Shah Durrani and the content seemed to be perfectly in-line. (with his articles) Noorullah (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The annoying thing about cleaning up their creations was, if I remember correctly, that very often the information seemed good - it was just copied from a random source that may or may not even have been cited. Which... you know, wasn't the best. It sucks, cause they're clearly a passionate editor and they were really good at finding obscure sources. Maybe, as sort of the best solution I can think of, (and I don't mean to commit Josh to anything here, obviously I can't speak for him) an admin could pull out the references and any text you added and drop them in a draft for you? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @Noorullah21, based on the articles being sock creations, and based on what @GreenLipstickLesbian has mentioned, I do not intend to restore those articles. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed

[edit]

Hi, what does it mean that you've marked the page Good American Speech as reviewed? A rough consensus emerged to redirect Mid-Atlantic accent to that page. Now one editor has reverted that and been silent the last couple days. Myself and other editors are awaiting a response. Wolfdog (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolfdog: I marked the redirect as reviewed because the redirect is valid. I have no position on whether it should be a redirect or article, I was simply marking it as reviewed based on that to remove it from the new pages queue. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted user talk page

[edit]

Hey Josh, I saw you deleted User talk:Cutlass/Archive 2. That page actually contains a lot of their talk page history and not just archives -- it's everything from 2021 until October 2024. I was planning on histmerging it but I saw you deleted it under U1. Are you happy for me to merge it into their current talk page to preserve the history? Thanks, Giraffer (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Giraffer: Of course. Always feel free to restore anything related to a U1 if you're helping the user out or they requested it. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Figured it was worth the heads-up. Giraffer (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page - Brotherhood of Myriam

[edit]

Hey I just came back after a period of absence, I noticed you deleted the page Brotherhood of Myriam on which I was working on. Is there any way for you to restore it as a personal draft for me so I can keep working on it? Many thanks! Pincermitosis (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Pincermitosis, I do not intend to restore that page, partly because it seemed as though it was not generated by a human, and partly because it was deleted at AfD. I believe you'd be better off starting from scratch in this instance. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rospotrebnadzor

[edit]

Hello there, Federal Service for the Oversight of Consumer Protection and Welfare needs to be renamed to Rospotrebnadzor - for notability and because that's how the health agency is known as and also as per WP:COMMONNAME.

For example the article Roscosmos is not named State Corporation for Space Activities Roscosmos,
article Roskomnadzor is not named Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media,
article Rosreestr is not named The Federal Service for State Registration, Cadastre and Cartography,
article Rostekhnadzor is not named Federal Service for Environmental, Technological and Nuclear Supervision,
and article Russia is not named Russian Federation and so on.

DA HK (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DA HK: It sounds like the examples you've included should actually be moved from my perspective, based on how much I've worked on related to departments and ministries of various countries. As mentioned, please start a WP:RM requested move discussion at Talk:Federal Service for the Oversight of Consumer Protection and Welfare. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

[edit]

I really didn't mean to do this. I was trying to click "thank" but I missed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries lol, misclicks happen all the time! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Carney Super Protection

[edit]

Hello. Please lower the protection level on Mark Carney. I can't believe I'm seeing this. Even Justin Trudeau's page did not have this level. More people need access to it because they will notice omissions/facts, or, remember a specific incident, want to add as history is being made...This seems kind of 'elitist' and will not help Mark Carney's image. It seems suspicious and I hope someone on his PR team did not request it. Are you on it? This is very strange. Another 'protector' is trying to get his wife's page removed. JayElk33 (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JayElk33: I fail to see how the current protection (no such thing as 'super protection') is elitist. Carney's image is not affected by the protection level of his Wikipedia page. Any person or site that argues as such should probably be avoided.
As for alleged factual errors, you're more than welcome to make requests on the talk page. The level was set based on many users who were registered making unsourced changes and edit warring. Additionally, it doesn't really matter what protection another page had/has. What matters is protecting a page from harm. There's nothing stopping productive changes from being made.
Additionally, let me tell you that you need to assume good faith. It's entirely inappropriate to accuse me of being in on some weird PR campaign. A number of users actually requested the protection.
Lastly, his wife's page and any discussions surrounding it are entirely irrelevant to a discussion about the protection level of the article.
You have not given a good reason to lose the protection, whereas I saw edits that gave me good reason to make it this level, and I believe there's a good reason to keep it this level for a short while longer. I will not be lowering the protection level of the page. In the future, when you make requests of folks, consider not levying baseless accusations at them. That type of rhetoric actually reinforces the idea the article should be protected when such conspiracy theories are about. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to offend you and I did not think you would take it so personally. I thought wikipedia was 'open' and more 'free' and its main objective was to allow anyone to add facts they find. More heads are better than a few. I was completely shocked to see this protection as I have never seen it. I still believe this move seems unusually restrictive, unfair and elitist. JayElk33 (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not 'elitist'. I think the word I'm looking for is 'exclusionary', or, not inclusive. JayElk33 (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JayElk33: We absolutely do support anybody and everybody improving Wikipedia, it's a core concept that helps make Wikipedia what it is. Unfortunately, people of certain high profiles, or who are in the news for various reasons, end up having to have their articles protected to prevent abuse or unsourced information from being repeatedly added. It's not that we want to stop people from editing the articles, but we want to protect them from said disruption. That's why we have WP:Edit requests. Those are typically what are made by being on a talk page of a protected article and, when a source and explanation is provided, they're typically responded to quite fast by regular patrollers of such requests (the requests enter a queue that those interested in answering them can monitor).
So, in short, we need to strike the right balance between stopping disruption and allowing open collaboration and contributions. Sometimes that means we protect an article. I don't like it, wish we never had to, but that's life. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of 1932 Summer Olympics medal table

[edit]
Congratulations, Hey man im josh! The list you nominated, 1932 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, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NFL category moves

[edit]

Thanks for fixing some of them post-move. Not sure if it was the bot or me that did it incorrectly as there were 100s of them, but there's still another batch that was overlooked that I'll get too later. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dissident93: I haven't checked whether the nom was listed incorrectly or it was just submitted for processing incorrectly. If you notice any that are messed up or moved to wrong target I can mass move them all tomorrow when on PC if you don't have the tool to do so. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know, but just to be clear I meant there were ones that weren't nominated in the first place that I was going to do a 2nd nomination on. Are you able to move those or must it still go through CFD? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dissident93: I think, based on that discussion, it should be fine to move most of them. I actually just nominated 207 categories (the sub cats of Category:NFL seasons by team and Category:NFL standings templates by season) for speedy renaming based on that discussion. I think most categories would fit the C2C rationale at WP:CFDS, aside from the main one and any articles that were left at the full name, which should have a category that matches that name. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again

[edit]

Hey man. So can I apply for and get approved again for the WP:TPE right? I'm only requesting it now so that I can edit school colors over at Module:College color/data. There's a bunch of outdated URLs over at that module, and I'd like to possess the template editor right so I can help out. What do I need to do? I mean, I've accepted that there is a broad WP:CONSENSUS that there's several editors opposed to adding |border=2 parameters in the |basestyle of NFL team templates. I'm moving past that. I only would like the WP:TPE right so I can update school URL references for color codes over at Module:College color/data. CharlesEditor23 (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh and CharlesEditor23:, I don't really dabble in user rights that much. I have no prejudice with Charles regaining their rights, but with the corollary that any additional poor editing conduct will lead to a block instead of just user rights removal. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually missed this entirely. To be honest, I'm hesitant because they're over eager about it and there's been so many issues in the past... Hey man im josh (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my comment above, @Hey man im josh and CharlesEditor23:, I would not oppose another admin giving you the right, but I am unlikely to grant it myself. And if another did grant it, I want you to understand that future abuse of that tool would lead to more severe consequences, such as a block or a topic ban on the template namespace. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:12, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, how many days must have elapsed before I may be able to re-apply for the template editor right again? It's been at least 3 months (108 days, to be exact). Should I wait a little longer? What would improve my chances of being re-granted the template editor right? BTW, I've submitted another request to be re-granted the right. Should I not have? CharlesEditor23 (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:User pages on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FL Source Reviews

[edit]

Could you explain to me what I would need to do in order to conduct a source review of a FL nomination? Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah!

[edit]

Hi Josh. I do like those older 'year' promotions! Congratulations! Hope to visit you again soon. Regards, John. Bringingthewood (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for speedy renaming

[edit]

Hi, I'm newly back to wikipedia after a long hiatus and slowly getting back into the guideline changes, you recently marked a number of categories for speedy renaming that have the word racewalker in them to change it to race walker. I never knew CfD all that well and even less so now, could you point me in the direction of any discussion/outcome on that as I believe it should have ended. I was just about to propose some new stub categories for Japanese athletes would like confirmation of which title to use. Waacstats (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back @Waacstats! I proposed the mass renaming based on the outcome of the move discussion at race walking, which resulted in the page being moved from "racewalking" to "race walking". Based on the outcome of that, and it being an attempt to align with the article, I proposed the categories for renaming based on the C2D (match the article) at WP:CFDS. There was not a CFD regarding the categories, I proposed them under the impression that matching the article itself should be uncontroversial. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your rational, and find it odd that these were at racewalking to start with. When do we find out the outcome, is there somewhere I can keep an eye on that particular discussion. CfD In itself is not something I am generally interested in, unless it crosses my path somewhere. Are we just waiting for someone to have the time and willingness to make the moves? Waacstats (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Waacstats: There actually isn't a discussion to watch, but, for whatever reason, the bot hasn't processed these. It's usually propose the change and if it's unopposed for 48 hours an admin moves the noms to WP:CFDS/Working or Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Large (which is where they currently are). It's unclear to me why they haven't been processed, but I'm going to ping one of the more experienced admins that works in that area in hopes they can sort it out. CC @Fayenatic london. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Waacstats: it looks like they have all gone through at last. I suspect the /Large page became too large to process. I hived off a load of completed moves for checking elsewhere, after which JJMC89 bot III finally woke up from having a rather lazy day. – Fayenatic London 22:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: @Hey man im josh: thanks for that.Waacstats (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic, thanks @Fayenatic london! I worked on chipping away at that page, but man, it was so large and such a pain lol. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello, Wikipedia:Featured topics/Svalbard studio albums was recently created but this should be move to a good topics page instead can you action the move please like you did for Yeezus and tell me how it is done? K. Peake 20:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyle Peake: I simply just moved the page, it wasn't anything spectacular :P it just seems like the bot itself creates these templates, when processing a close, at the featured topic title instead.
Might be a good time to mention the template used on all good topics also links to redirects with the talk and edit buttons as well. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 20 § NFL awards

[edit]

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 March 20 § NFL awards on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth @Dissident93, these probably could have been renamed at WP:CFDS based on the C2D (match the article) rationale. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 March 2025

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing as miscapitalized

[edit]

Have you had a change of heart about what is OK to mark as miscapitalized? Before you were saying that a capitalization that's common in sources should not be so marked. Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The difference in what I tagged yesterday was that I tagged lowercase versions of proper names. What you have historically asked for was to tag proper names that are downcased for Wikipedia's styling, not because they're not proper names. Those are two distinct differences. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it determined that those things that are commonly lowercase in sources are proper names? I thought your point was that if they're "correct" in some styles, per sources, then they're not errors on Wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe all the ones I tagged had failed RMs with attempts to downcase. Wikipedia often erroneously downcases proper names which contain common words, but to keep something capitalized is a difficult task on this site. Titles downcased are often proper names, such as the name of an event, making the capitalization not an error. It just doesn't necessarily conform with Wikipedias's silly NCCAPS guideline because of said common word. Titles kept at upper case means that lowercase is clearly an error. It's rather straight forward in my mind. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had actually checked some before coming here, and didn't find any that had been considered at an RM discussion. Can you point to a relevant failed RM attempt? Dicklyon (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The NFL Draft ones that I had tagged as miscapitalized and you reverted actually did have RM discussions that determined that lowercase was the correct case for them on Wikipedia. We should fix all those, or roll back all your tags that had no such discussions, especially those that are demonstrably very often lowercase in sources while you're acting on them as proper names. Or both. Dicklyon (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon: They're clearly not errors in capitalization considering the style guidelines the NFL uses, which consistently capitalize the names of the event. Unless you can get consensus to change the purpose of the rcat, I will not support the changes to these redirects. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Televsion" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Televsion 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 March 24 § Televsion until a consensus is reached. Xoontor (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've never edited that redirect, nor have I marked it as reviewed. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Josh, you !voted in a previous redirect for discussion. Xoontor is contacting everyone involved, as mentioned in the new discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add it to the main site?

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93Persian_War_(1821%E2%80%931823) Could you add the Mandali war to your homepage template? BEFOR01 (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're asking @BEFOR01. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a template containing the battles in the 1821-1823 Ottoman-Iranian war. There are the battles listed under this war template. I would like to add this battle there. Our resources are available. I wish you a good day. BEFOR01 (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Leo Prantner

[edit]

You moved the page I created Leo Prantner to a draft for having no sources, but take a look at the history. It has been there, but has been deleted, and undeleted multiple times. I have no idea what, but it honestly looks like sapotage to me given the lack of explanations. Fregerslev (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to move it back if you believe they're notable. I remain skeptical, even with the addition of the sources. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As if he is relevant to write an article about? At the time of writing is he on course to win the Bundesliga and he is probably the biggest Italian talent of all time Fregerslev (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fregerslev: It's about what the sources say and whether you can find enough reliable ones. The article, in its current state, could use more sources. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Suicide methods on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who is your favourite linebacker of all time

[edit]

seriously who is it 2A00:23C5:59D5:5000:D4BF:990A:6D79:23E7 (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-attributed translations

[edit]

Hey there; hope you are well. User:RandomMe98 has now ignored a half-dozen warnings for non-attributed translations, mostly of Portuguese articles, dating back a couple weeks. They have hundreds of creations, too, no doubt many (most?) of them being direct translations from pt.wiki. Any way to give them a more serious warning? JTtheOG (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that I don't know how to attribute the translations to their original authors and articles. RandomMe98 (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, instead of learning how to do so by reading my messages, or even asking me for clarity, you ignored every single message and continued to do exactly what you were doing before? JTtheOG (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @JTtheOG, I've been away for a few days for work. Hope that this has been worked out. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have just picked up on this issue now. I'm also not very active at the moment, but came across the same problem and eventually ended up here: the editor is ignoring the messages and continuing. I have also found problems with the translations themselves in the articles "borrowed" from Japanese. If you have a chance, please check on whether this has been handled when you have more time; it seems likely that this will need to go to ANI if we don't receive a satisfactory reply, given the number of articles involved. Dekimasuよ! 03:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of administrators without tools

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

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Username change

[edit]

Hello, is it OK if you please rename my account to Caveman С and my alt account to Caveman В in preparation for when I return to Wikipedia in 2032? Thanks Kia Cee'd (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kia Cee'd: I am not able to assist with account renames. For that you should see WP:RENAME. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review Article

[edit]

Hi! I got a notification that you reviewed my page. Would like to discuss more about it as I am new to this page? Thanks Adityasharma0701 (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I marked the page as reviewed simply as a matter of procedure, based on the fact it was nominated for deletion. This is standard practice for those involved in new pages patrolling. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Copts on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Brady

[edit]

Hey Josh, appreciate you fixing it up. Just curious if there was any specific reason why you deleted his 5x AFC Offensive Player of the Year awards. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been a mistake in all the cleanup that I was doing @GOAT Bones231012. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All good bro, I’ve added it back in. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2025

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

added
readded Dennis Brown
removed

Bureaucrat changes

added Barkeep49

CheckUser changes

added 0xDeadbeef

Oversighter changes

removed GB fan
readded Moneytrees

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

[edit]

I am wondering why my pages are getting deleted despite me adding sources and making it better? It is a lot of time wasted and I feel they are being deleted for no good reasons, considering there are other examples that have less information staying up.

The information I am putting in is true and there is a lot of profiles in the NRL that have not had a page created for players 2-3 years ago. I tried to make it better by having them created and they get taken down. I try to improve them and still taken down. Lsb997 (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TPA

[edit]

Hi there. Could you please revoke talk page access for Amin Mohammad Foundation Ltd, whom you blocked in December 2024? They are now posting promotional content on their talk page. Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Drm310, I'm not one to typically revoke talk page access, so I'd like to hold off for the moment to see if they do it again. If they do it again, then I'd probably be willing to revoke TPA. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 9 April 2025

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tampa Bay Buccaneers seasons FLC and List of Los Angeles Rams starting quarterbacks FLC

[edit]

Hello,

I left comments on the FLC page for List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers seasons. I hope you can likewise give me feedback for List of Los Angeles Rams starting quarterbacks regarding its own FLC promotion. I would appreciate the help. Birdienest81talk 07:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Birdienest81, thanks, I'm saying I missed that. I'll try to take a look when I can, but I haven't been very active lately. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of List of Philadelphia Eagles seasons

[edit]
Congratulations, Hey man im josh! The list you nominated, List of Philadelphia Eagles seasons, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're the man!

[edit]

In the immortal words of Michael Hegstrand ... "Oooooooooh, what a ruuuuuuuuuuuush!"

Congrats again, Josh!!! - John Bringingthewood (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you thank you! Hey man im josh (talk) 11:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted sock redirects from AFC/R

[edit]

Hi there,

You may remember this discussion on your talk page and this discussion at AN from a couple months ago. I first want to apologize for the way that was handled, I'm a bit inexperienced in certain things around here, and one of them seems to be venues for different discussions (in my only defense, there's quite a few). I never meant to be adversarial or accusatory in any way, and I'm sorry that it came off that way.

I still find there to be good reason for those redirects to exist, so if possible, could the pages that I created be restored? If it helps, take this as me taking responsibility for the content of those redirects. The original AFC request can be found here if that makes your work easier. I can bring this to WP:DRV if you'd rather somebody else deal with it, but I figured I'd learn from the first time and ask here first.

Best, Garsh (talk) 01:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, water under the bridge @Garsh2! I'm confident your edits and stresses regarding the situation were nothing but well intentioned. If you wish to go ahead and create the redirects, there's no reason for you not to be able to do so. The fact of the matter was that we were aiming to dissuade the sockmaster, which we did for quite some time being diligent in our efforts against them. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Region vs region

[edit]

It may be the case that the articles on the administrative regions should use their official names as proper names. But "region" is also used lowercase, overwhelmingly, when talking about areas that contain schools, rivers, and such. That's not about the offical administrative regions, even if the boundaries of those are used to define the regions. It is not logical to call 80% of sources in error, or ignorant of the true status of the terms they use, in preference to your own opinion. There is no consensus to cap such things on Wikipedia, so please stop marking the lowercase as errors. Dicklyon (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As previously discussed, please get consensus that the targets are not proper names @Dicklyon. Until such time, you're being intentionally disruptive by noting that the targets are not proper names, especially considering your attempt to downcase them failed. Despite that, you had previously changed all the links to the pages to lowercase, which is now incorrect. Please consider how to behave and edit appropriately moving forward. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel a need to mark lowercase as errors, why isn't the onus on you to get consensus that they are proper names? Especially in light of the obvious overwhelming lowercase use in sources, which you call errors? Dicklyon (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can make the argument for "overwhelming lowercase in sources", but that doesn't seem to hold weight considering the requested move you proposed failed. Given your failure to establish consensus that these are not proper names, there's zero reason not to treat them as miscapitalizations. I strongly encourage you to WP:DROPTHESTICK before you end up earning yourself block #16 from an uninvolved admin seeing your inability to let a failed RM go. You're beating a dead horse and you already changed all the links, labeling the previous entries as miscapitalizations, which means that these need to be cleaned up. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The RM I proposed closed with a consensus to lowercase. Then it was re-opened and closed with no consensus. But that's on the articles on the administrative region itself, which is not very relevant to the present dispute, except in noting that there has never been a consensus that these are proper names. The "in XXX region" articles are much more clearly talking about territories that are not the entities with the proper names. The n-gram stats make that extremely clear. I don't see how you can argue otherwise. Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The RM you proposed closed with a result of not moved, what are you not getting? It's frankly that simple. I'm not sure why you're seeking to complicate or wikilawyer around it, but your behaviour is obviously not appropriate. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you didn't actually read the close, neither the first one nor the second? Dicklyon (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon if that's how you choose to ignore logic and assume bad faith, that's on you. It's clear you need to consider your conduct and obsession though, because failure to downcase a name obvious means we treat it as a proper name still. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find you amusing. But not sensible. Where's the logic? Dicklyon (talk) 04:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't prove this wasn't a proper name = treat as proper name. I'd find you amusing as well if you weren't so blatantly disruptive. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a reminder, the RM discussion you're talking about is at Talk:Auckland Region#Requested move 20 January 2025. o 28 Jan, the first closer wrote "The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus that "region" is not {{tqq|consistently capitalized in a substantial majority}} of sources per MOS:CAPS; a check at ngrams confirms this: "region" is always either ahead or at worst tied; none of these are mainly capitalised, let alone with a substantial minority." Later, the after it was re-opened for a while, the second closer wrote, "No consensus. In deference to the earlier closure, at that time there were no editors in opposition. Now, we see below strong, P&G-based arguments in both camps; however, there is in this case no agreement whether to keep current titles or to move them." There's certainly no indication that I can find of any consensus that it's a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As previously discussed, if you want a proper name to not be treated as such, get consensus for your proposed change. Until then, you're POV pushing for your preference. YOU tagged those redirects as miscapitalizations initially and changed hundreds of redirects, which I've been working to clean up. If you cannot clean up after yourself, which has become evident based on the thousands of edits I've had to do, then you need to not stand in the way of others doing so. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, can the two of you please stop the edit warring. For future reference for everyone: region (uncapitalised) and Region (capitalised) have different meanings in New Zealand English and are not interchangeable. Without capitals the word means a general but indistinct area. With capitals the word describes a level of local government with defined responsibilities and areas covered. For example - the Staircase school may have been in the Southland region (general area) but not in Southland Region - it's in Otago Region. Similarly, Waitaki Valley School in Kurow is generally considered to be in North Otago, and in the historic Otago province, but is in Canterbury Region. Daveosaurus (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. Hence why, when referring to the proper name of the area, it's meant to be capitalized and why it's important that, when linked, we fix the capitalization changes that Dicklyon previously made. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting your help with deleting an accidental article

[edit]

Hey there,

I, alongside a few other collaborators, have been working on a draft article at Draft:Kupiansk Offensive for the past week. Around two days ago, we were preparing to publish the article, during which one of said collaborators created a red link in the Template:Campaignbox Russian invasion of Ukraine in preparation for our article to be published.

However, during this small time period of a few hours, another editor mistakenly created an article at Kupiansk Offensive so that the red link had a page to go to. After talking with the editor, we came to the understanding that the article was mistakenly created in place of the already existing draft article. Due to this articles existence, it is now preventing us from publishing the intended draft article until this existing article is deleted. There is currently a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kupiansk Offensive, where one of our collaborators, the accidental article creator, and I have come to the consensus that the article is ready to be deleted as it is intended by all involved users to be replaced by the originally intended draft article.

If you could be so kind as to close the discussion and delete the article so we don’t have to go through the whole week-long process to fix this simple mistake, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, IiSmxyzXX (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit busy to look into it at the moment @IiSmxyzXX, but you can always attempt to tag the page with an appropriate speedy deletion tag. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting here that I've deleted the article and procedurally closed the AfD. Giraffer (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 19 § Category:Category-Class 20th Century Studios articles of NA-importance

[edit]

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 April 19 § Category:Category-Class 20th Century Studios articles of NA-importance on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 22:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Deletion review for Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 April 20

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 April 20. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hey_man_im_josh&oldid=1287073336"