User talk:Hey man im josh

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

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This talk page is automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 75 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

	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: LaundryPizza03
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Administrator changes

• Giraffer
• Goldsztajn

Dennis Brown

• Cyclonebiskit
• Nohat
• Someguy1221

Bureaucrat changes

Barkeep49

CheckUser changes

0xDeadbeef

Oversighter changes

GB fan

Moneytrees

Miscellaneous

• Sign up for The Core Contest, a competition running from 15 April to 31 May to improve vital articles.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

You already re-capitalized everything I had lowercased. The question now is about whether you can fairly assert that the lowercase is a miscapitalization, in all those articles that about rivers, schools, and such in a region, as opposed to being about the admininstrative Region unit itself. This is where you're being unreasonable, claiming proper name status for every occurence of a term even though it's most often lowercase in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect, you changed all the links to lowercase as well, which I've been working to revert. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HowAboutThemApples92 (talk • contribs)

Are you familiar with the recently created report Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations in template space? That's where I learned about a bunch of your recent miscap tags that I thanked you for. I haven't fixed all those yet, but I'll probably do a few more tonight. This is a great aid to keeping the numbers down at Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware and have it watchlisted, yes. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this draft Draft:Parbad_Kali_Mandir_(Temple) that failed to meet notability and was declined. A reviewer before me also declined the draft. The creator (likely same TheCoolContributor477, 2405:201:a400:725c:5cb6:39a7:9f77:c885) of the page moved the page to mainspace without any changes. An editor moved it back to draft but the creator again moved it back to mainspace and now I have moved it back to draft. Can you add move lock on this page? RangersRus (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @RangersRus, but AfC is technically optional. Your only route now is to nominate it for deletion, as opposed to move warring the page between main space and draft space. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was trying to edit my comment right as you replied, and I'm worried that it may have returned the page to the state before you commented—not sure how the software handles simultaneous inputs. I tried to check to see if your comment had posted or if my edit had unwittingly reverted it, and I think it did (the latter); but I'm not sure.

Just a heads-up; if you need to revert my (second) edit (the first edit took about 1 second & I don't think it's at fault, just my longer OCD formatting edit, heh) to get it back, no worries.

Cheers,

Himaldrmann (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edit history, edit by edit, it doesn't appear that either of us inadvertently undid the other @Himaldrmann, so that's good news! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whew! Well, now I feel even dumber...

Y'know, I wrote all that... and I'm considering changing my vote ("vote") to a "Yes" anyway—due to something (funnily enough) another "No" comment said: capitalization can indicate at a glance whether a source is a paper, a book, etc. Keeping source formatting would indicate this; otherwise, the rule would have to be something like "title case for books, sentences case for papers, ...&c."—not sure if that's even on the table, and even if it is, it eliminates one of the reasons I've been advocating for "No" (that using some visually-consistent style is easier to check: well, now you have to check anyway to see what kind of publication it was!...). Hmm...

Himaldrmann (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, nothing to feel dumb about, you had legitimate concern over not screwing something up!

Regarding the at a glance issue, that's exactly part of the issue with the idea that it's supposed to be "at a glance. Books retain capitalizations in some cases, but what happens when those are mixed in with someone who prefers sentence case? Why do we retain the capitalization only for books then and not other works? Pretty much every citation style is ridiculous in its own way, and "at a glance" doesn't pass the sniff test when you really dig into it. It's all about, in my opinion, consistency. If it's applies consistently, and even if I don't like it, then so be it. That's at least my perspective. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Josh, I came across that category you speedy renamed last year and wondered if it was a mistake that the country wasn't added from the former name Category:Ministers of Housing, Territorial Planning and Environment of Uruguay. Nobody (talk) 05:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

254 days and nobody noticed this?? Damn! Yes, it absolutely was a mistake @1AmNobody24. I'll nominate it for speedy renaming now. Thanks for catching this and letting me know. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow the bot at Wikipedia:WikiProject Taylor Swift/Recognized content still categorizes 1989 as a Good topic and not Featured topic... Could you help look into this? Many thanks, Ippantekina (talk) 09:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Ippantekina. I felt so confident at first that I could help, but as I looked into it, I'm just as confused as you are. I'm not sure why the bot isn't detecting it, given that it's being properly reflected on the article talk pages (it should show it's a good topic on article talk pages instead of featured if it wasn't correct) and is properly counting the articles at Category:Wikipedia featured topics 1989 (album). This is a bit strange. It might be worth reaching out to the bot operator, @JLaTondre, about this. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is something off with the categories. While Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/1989 (album) shows it's in Category:Featured topics at the bottom of its page, if you actually go to that category, it is not listed. If you go to Category:Wikipedia Good topics, you will see the page listed (just past midway of the 0–9 section). You could try editing the talk page; maybe it is some type of caching issue that will be fixed with a change. -- JLaTondre (talk) 10:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed weird... totally outside my scope of knowledge. Ippantekina (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Hoyt is accomplice of Manson but her page looks bad hasn't been improved since never and seems even early looked non notable, do you think it should be put for articles for deletion or maybe to be merged with Charles Manson page? DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @DarkHorseMayhem, I'm not that familiar with all of the Manson stuff, but if you are, and you don't feel the notability guidelines are met, you can absolutely send it to AfD. It's possible that the result may be delete, or redirected to Manson Family. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thats point im no very good at it actually im pretty bad so can you help? DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry @DarkHorseMayhem, I'm just not comfortable evaluating that given my lack of knowledge about the Manson stuff. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've organized a lot of NPP-related stuff, I was wondering if you had any advice about the logistics of drives in general? I had an idea about something (still brainstorming and refining off-wiki) but I'm less certain on the how aspects like getting the word out, central notices, etc, once I've progressed beyond that. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Clovermoss. I'd say the best way is to start a page for it first and foremost, link to it from your user page at the very top (those who visit your page then become aware of it), and add it to the central notices. The first one may not be the biggest hit, but once folks become aware of it they're more likely to participate in the second, third, etc. That's half the battle, getting people aware that this type of backlog drive may exist. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User talk:103.225.136.41 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Md Mobashir Hossain (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Josh, Hope you are fine and this message finds you well. As a New page reviewer, When I review an article on Wikipedia, the reviewed article is seen only in page curation log not in the patrol log. Only some of the article is seen in both patroll and curation log. Please tell me, How it will be seen in patroll log? Fade258 (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, it's not all that clear to me why they appear in different logs sometimes @Fade258. This may be a question better asked at WT:NPR. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hey man im josh! I wanted to ask if I can be temporarily granted NPP rights for this account. I know that I don't meet the edit criteria but, if you consider my compromised account(Xiphoid Vigour (talk · contribs)), I meet the criteria of edits. I've also been recently patrolling new pages feed. No problem If it can't be done. Best wishes! _saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 17:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:- Forgot to tell that I need it for the Drive._saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 17:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ophyrius, I don't typically grant requests based on user talk page requests. Additionally, neither that or this account, or the experience when combined, would likely result in me granting the perm at WP:RFP/NPP. Consider contributing more at WP:AFD, making policy based votes and arguments. It's not about the rate at which you match the outcome, it's about an understanding of our guidelines and displaying that. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. I used talk page for a better feedback. I will be contributing more at AFD but, I know that edit count doesn't reflect quality of edits and I'm familiar with the policies. Thanks for taking time to reply. _saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 03:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 28 April at 23:59 UTC. To reiterate what we said in the previous newsletter, we are no longer disqualifying contestants based on how many points (now known as round points) they received. Instead, the contestants with the highest round-point totals now receive tournament points at the end of each round. These tournament points are carried over between rounds, and can only be earned if a competitor is among the top 16 round-point scorers at the end of each round. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far. Everyone who competed in round 2 will advance to round 3 unless they have withdrawn or been banned.

Round 2 was quite competitive. Four contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and eight scored more than 500 points (including one who has withdrawn). The following competitors scored at least 800 points:

• BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,233 round points from 24 good articles, 28 Did you know articles, and one In the news nomination, mainly about athletes and politicians
• Thebiguglyalien (submissions) with 1,127 round points, almost entirely from two high-multiplier featured articles on Black Widow (Natasha Romanova) and Grace Coolidge, in addition to two GAs and two reviews
• History6042 (submissions) with 1,088 round points from four featured lists about Michelin-starred restaurants, nine good articles and a good topic mostly on Olympic-related subjects, seven ITN articles, and dozens of reviews
• Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,085 round points from three FAs, one GA, and four DYKs on military history, as well as 18 reviews
• Arconning (submissions) with 887 round points, mostly from four FLs, six GAs, and seven DYKs on Olympic topics, along with more than two dozen reviews

In addition, we would like to recognize Generalissima (submissions) for her efforts; she scored 801 round points but withdrew before the end of the round.

The full scores for round 2 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 13 featured articles, 20 featured lists, 4 featured-topic articles, 138 good articles, 7 good-topic articles, and more than 100 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 19 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 300 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed in Round 3. 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) 01:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve already applied for New Page Reviewer rights and am awaiting the decision. Meanwhile, I received a notice about the May Month backlog. I’d appreciate if you see my stats and grant me temporary NPR rights if I look competent enough for this job so that I can help reduce the backlog and at the same time gain relevant experience. Thanks. Rahmatula786 (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Rahmatula786, permission requests are best kept to WP:PERM. Someone will process your request at their earliest convenience. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You so much for quick response. I have already placed request almost 1 month before. Rahmatula786 (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Rice Purity Test 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 April 30 § Rice Purity Test until a consensus is reached. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Hey man im josh! The list you nominated, List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers 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, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I have read your comments for List of Los Angeles Rams starting quarterbacks for its pending featured list promotion and made the necessary corrections based off of them.

I was wondering if you are up to improving some of the Olympic medal tables that were already promoted from over 15 years ago and improving them to meet currents FLC standards, namely the 1976 Summer Olympics medal table. I think things could be improved and maybe adding one or two more pictures. What do you think? I am busying doing Oscar and film related articles, but I could sneak in an improvement here than there. Tell me what you think.

--Birdienest81talk 04:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Birdienest81, I definitely think the improvements could be made, and it'd be reasonable to do so, but I intend on finishing my current projects before considering something like that. It'd be nice if someone were up for it though. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Route nationale 21 (Madagascar) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 12:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lollipoplollipoplollipop: In the future, when patrolling, you should check whether the page was blanked by someone, as it was in this case. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my bad, good catch //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 12:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It matters! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I may have said this a time or two .. CONGRATS on another article promotion!! Great job, Josh! Regards, John. Bringingthewood (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I'm sorry to bother you. I noticed that you have promoted some articles to FL status this afternoon. Is there any chance World Figure Skating Championships will be among them? I believe it has garnered enough support, but only needs a source review, which I suspect will be quick and easy since I have applied what I've learned from previous FL skating articles. Thank you so much for your time! Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that it was waiting on a source review. I make a habit of not performing reviews based on requests on my talk, so as to discourage folks from coming to ask for reviews, but I've made an exception in this case @Bgsu98. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to delete this and we'll pretend it never happened. ;) Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Josh,

It's User:Chief disambiguator; thank you for responding to some of my queries in March. Earlier this year I published pages for Bruce Douglass and the New England Amateur. I don't think an administrator has been a decision on them yet. If you (or someone) could approve or deny them that would be great. They are complete.

Sincerely,

Chief disambiguator (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in answering @Chief disambiguator, seems I missed this. A member of WP:NPP will review the pages at their earliest convenience. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]