This is an archive of past discussions with User:Hey man im josh. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
And I've also included this particular flamethrower, because it comes with safety catches. Use with care, and only after AGF has been exhausted. JBW (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm quite sure you are going to do really well. Cool head, helpful, knows policy, admits when you're wrong, pays attention to detail. These are all thing that, in my noobish and humble opinion, make a good admin. Well deserved I say. Knitsey (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
A pie for you!
Here's something to chew while you try to manoeuvre your way through the new buttons (at least that's what I hear). Many congratulations on your successful RfA. Cheers 👏👏👏🍾🥂 - Volten001☎03:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
There are a lot of new buttons that I'm both intimidated by, and interested in smashing because "ooo buttons!" I am however proceeding cautiously and carefully. Thank you for the pie and the congrats! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Hehee... I get you and it's a nice idea to tread carefully while you familiarize yourself with them buttons. Anyway, you're most welcome and see you around! Volten001☎15:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Firstly, congratulations on your new Admin status. Thanks also for the visibility changes on the Spaghetti House siege vandalism. There was one edit earlier in the day that could also probably be changed - this porn image. If you're able to do that, I'd be much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the rev/dels. Midori No Sora asked for them earlier but I don't think the admin has been back on Wikipedia yet. Knitsey (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Hey man im josh, thank you for your good works here, please your attention is needed on article She Must Be Obeyed, please have a look and assist accordingly.
I got an email saying that you deleted my Wikipedia page on Prince Anahobe. It was set as a draft as I was still working on it. The email didn't give me a reason as to why it was deleted so could you tell me why? Camillz (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Hey @Camillz: When you moved the article to draft space, you left behind a redirect (entirely normal, cannot be avoided unless you have WP:Page mover). Redirects from the main space to the draft space are deleted under the R2. Cross-namespace redirects criteria. So, in short, nothing you did was lost, but redirects from the main space to drafts should not exist and are routinely deleted. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Mr. Admin. (Sorry, I had to do that). I changed a couple of team draft pick templates to a lower case "d" for draft, after seeing tons of templates and very few in caps. Then I did some detective work and saw that you created the 2022 Steelers Draft template, using caps for Draft. So I stopped editing right there, lol. Was there a rule put in place for this that I missed? To change them all to upper case now would take forever. Thanks in advance. John - Bringingthewood (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Hey @Bringingthewood: I based those off past draft boxes which, if I understand correctly, just follow the capitalization of the draft articles (which do have Draft capitalized). My understanding is that "NFL Draft" is considered a proper name so the word "draft" is capitalized. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree, 100%. But I'm not going there. Too many have lower case and it's something that should be saved for a project, lol. Hope your work here is going as smoothly as possible. As always, I appreciate the response. Bye for now, John Bringingthewood (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Congrats on becoming an admin![a] I just missed the closing but I saw you were overwhelmingly voted in. Anyways, I was wandering around this fine encyclopedia, when I saw the articles for review backlog elimination drive.[b] I was curious on how this exactly works and how much encyclopedia knowledge I need to have. I have done some assessment of ITN articles but I'm not much of an article writer myself. Could I easily learn how to do this and continue on my Wikipedia journey or do I need to gain serious knowledge? ❤HistoryTheorist❤04:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Hey @HistoryTheorist, I think you definitely could pick it up. I encourage most people to pick an area they're already familiar with at WP:NPPSORT and to go from there. With that said, I think your AfD contributions are lacking. Most permission granters will typically look for contributions at WP:AfD and at WP:AfC as an example of relevant experience. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
There will always be more work to be done at NPP @HistoryTheorist, that's simply the nature of things. We usually have about 2 backlog drives a year, so you will be able to participate in due time if you keep at it :) Hey man im josh (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Invitation to Cornell study on Wikipedia discussions
Hello Hey man im josh,
I’m reaching out as part of a Cornell University academic study investigating the potential for user-facing tools to help improve discussion quality within Wikipedia discussion spaces (such as talk pages, noticeboards, etc.). We chose to reach out to you because you have been highly active on various discussion pages.
The study centers around a prototype tool, ConvoWizard, which is designed to warn Wikipedia editors when a discussion they are replying to is getting tense and at risk of derailing into personal attacks or incivility. More information about ConvoWizard and the study can be found at our research project page on meta-wiki.
If this sounds like it might be interesting to you, you can use this link to sign up and install ConvoWizard. Of course, if you are not interested, feel free to ignore this message.
If you have any questions or thoughts about the study, our team is happy to discuss! You may direct such comments to me or to my collaborator, Cristian_at_CornellNLP.
No worries at all, thanks for letting us know! For what it's worth, the signup form will remain open for at least a few more months, so if sometime in the near future you end up having more free time you are still welcome to join then. Jonathan at CornellNLP (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.
Technical news
Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)
Hi Hey man im josh, I have closed your request for adminship as successful. Congratulations for both your overwhelming, landslide victory and for your place on WP:RFX300 - becoming the fourth-most supported RfA in terms of supports posted is astounding...well done! As always, the administrators' reading list is worth reading and the new admin help pages are most certainly available if you feel that you might require some practice with the tools in a safe environment prior to applying them elsewhere on the project. Good luck! Acalamari14:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much @Acalamari! Absolutely insane to me the amount of support I received, I never expected to end up that high on the RFX lists. Today is going to involve a lot of reading. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
It's a phenomenal level of support! I respect your ability to be humble about such a commanding show of confidence from the community - that attitude will serve you well! :) Acalamari14:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Congratulations Josh: I know you've heard this from me a couple of times by now, but well done! This is a serious accomplishment. Happy admin-ing and enjoy the new buttons :) Schminnte (talk • contribs)14:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Best of luck Josh! If you ever feel the burnout and need to relax, don't be afraid to take a break. I'll be excited to see your name on the NPP/CSD patrol! The Night Watch(talk)15:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Congratulations, Josh! This is overdue, you've been ready to become an admin for a while and I'm glad that it's official. My only advice is to never hesitate to ask for a second opinion on any situation that you are unsure about. I still do that and I've been an admin now for 8 years. No one can be an expert in all areas of the project but I'm sure that you will find your place handling different aspects of admin work. I recommend helping out at WP:REFUND, it's generally a more positive place than many other varieties of administration.
If you find yourself looking for things to do though, we can always use more admins closing deletion discussions if you feel comfortable taking that on. Otherwise, I'm sure I'll run into you reviewing expiring drafts! All the best, LizRead!Talk!20:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Liz! You've been so incredibly supportive and helpful to me for as long as I can remember and I cannot say enough positive things about you. I'm big on the belief that nobody can know everything on this site and that it's okay to ask for help, so I'm glad to hear that same sentiment echoed by others. I definitely plan to help out at WP:REFUND. I may help out at WP:RfD at some point, but I don't expect to be closing WP:AfD discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I've been a bit inactive recently so I hadn't noticed that you are suddenly an admin! Congrats, you 100% deserve it! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Joining in here, congrats! I noticed your work years ago and every so often when I saw your username pop up in NFL-related areas I kept thinking to myself that you were clearly on the path towards adminship. Sorry I missed the RfA, but glad you passed with flying colors. Welcome to the club! Eagles24/7(C)03:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
To the administrators who've been deleting my many user pages as I clear out the chaff: I imagine its tedious work, and thank you for your patience and professionalism! I'm finally done, and further want to express my appreciation for the expediency all of you demonstrated. I wish you the best! — Fourthords | =Λ= |16:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you SO much for moving my article to the right name. I really appreciate that. I couldn't figure out how to move it. You seem to know your way around here, and I am brand new (although trying to learn, and do reviews constantly to familiarize myself with all the processes). I have another issue right now I am trying to figure out. joined Wikipedia, because I wanted to try to write researched and factual bios about people that may not generally be highlighted, but that I think have performed tremendous actions and have had impact on other people's lives. For my first attempt to write a bio, I reached out to the person (Brian E Kinsella). He was so kind to send me some photos he said I could use of him. But they were just deleted by a bot. What do I do? I'm not sure you have time to respond, but if you do, that would be so wonderful.
Would you mind working on this chronically backlogged page with your new mop? As an NPP coordinator, I assume you would be good at deciding whether a user should get the perm. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Hey @QuicoleJR. I do hope to eventually help out there, but for the time being, I don't feel entirely comfortable with granting permissions just yet. HJ Mitchell and @Joe Roe have been doing a good job of staying on top of it lately and I imagine one of them should be getting to it within the next day or two (do not take this as a guarantee though please). Hey man im josh (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Hey! I noticed you hid the edit summary for a page move vandal. However you forgot the revision for the talk page. Wanna hide that one too? ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf19:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
@Daniel Case thank you so much! But I actually finished with the 4th most supports, per WP:RFX300.
Thank you for the advice, I'll get it right next time. Please do feel free to reach out again if I can be doing anything elae better. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I have rewritten these pages that you reviewed and added tags to. I have added multiple newspapers sources to each page. Can you please review. Thanks:
You where so kind to help me with my first article in the draft review queue: Draft: Brian E. Kinsella. As you know, I worked really hard on making sure I adhered to all the guidelines, but am of course still not a super user or perfect at both reviewing other articles (I reviewed a lot since we wrote last) nor thinking I’m being perfect in my own draft I had submitted. My article was just declined today by User:Johannes Maximilian although other seasoned reviewers than you told me my article looked perfect, and I was in the draft queue listed as a predicted Class-B with no issues page.
I’m a little discouraged of course, because I tried really hard, but not quite ready to give up.
I know you are probably super busy on here, but if you have any time to perhaps look at my article again and provide feedback on what I can improve, I would be so grateful. The assessor only said I was lacking reliable sources, but as you know, I have 28 sources listed, from publications like The Wall Street Journal, Business Insider, Yahoo! Finance, FOX Business, and more, which I thought was reliable sources.
It's absolutely not Johannes Maximilian. You are trolling me around! Everywhere I'm asking for help to get better at this, you are following me and instantly writing inaccurate things about me. I really don't understand what I did that is so noteworthy, other than trying to learn to write on Wikipedia? This is my first article. I'm sorry it's not perfect, but at least I'm trying! Mwikiforce (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not usually very active on weekends. It looks like you're getting feedback in a couple of other places already so I'll leave you to that instead of overwhelming you from multiple directions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Hey man I'm josh, I appreciate the note. I haven't actually received any feedback, but I found some great help on IRC.
I've updated my draft, and would love feedback on that. I'm currently updating link refs. based on Johannes Maximilian guidance (the long bullet list on the article itself).
Hi there, I'm not sure if you're the right person to go to regarding this. If there is someone better, please let me know. The author (Busition) of this article (also main contributor) requested it to be deleted on this AfD. I believe this falls under WP:G7. Conyo14 (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Hey Josh! I'm oblighed to tag you about a dispute resolution case, though I don't think youre particularly involved and actually did the right thing anyway. (Your action was un-drafting a bunch of articles I moved to draft space, which was the right call ... but those articles are still a problem.) So the above notice is mostly procedural -- I hope you feel free to decline to participate or to add your two cents, whichever you see fit. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for the heads up @Mikeblas. I do think I'm likely not to chime in, unless I'm asked to based on the limited amount of involvement that I had with this issue. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Hey man im josh. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Now that you're an admin and handling deleting G13s, I thought I'd share that on 10/12, we have a gigantic list of close to 800 drafts due to be deleted. This influx of drafts was due to BD2412's use of AWB which has happened with other editors who use this editing tool. I spoke with BD2412 and they have gone through the list and delayed deletion of some drafts through edits but each draft still needs to be checked which will be time-consuming. Unfortunately, I have a lot going on tomorrow, when many of the drafts "expire" so I hope you can help out. Thanks, in advance, for your assistance. LizRead!Talk!01:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
@Liz: I actually spoke on FloridaArmy's user talk page with them and they've postponed those drafts again. Lever the less, I will definitely be working on the list tomorrow :) Hey man im josh (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I would wait for the AfD before ticking this as reviewed and make it public. This article is written as promo after all
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|FuzzyMagma}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hey @FuzzyMagma: It's standard procedure to mark a page as reviewed if sent to AfD. It does not mean that we are endorsing the page, it just means that we are removing it from the queue of pages to be reviewed, as it's undergoing a community review. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
sorry, I checked the WP:NPP which states Articles considered unsuitable are nominated for deletion or, in certain circumstances, moved to the draft namespace for improvement. Articles considered suitable for inclusion are marked as 'reviewed'. Corrrect me if I am wrong but this means it is not a standard procedure to mark a page as reviewed (suitable for inclusion) if sent to AfD.
I am sure you were not endorsing the page but I just starting patrolling recently, and I think for newbies like me it is good to include senior editors when I make a decision that might contradict theirs, hence why I send my message, so I can have this discussion with you.
It's consistent because the intro to NPP isn't meant to be exhaustive of all the steps. The later section discussion how to nominate for deletions more fully documents it. (Not saying it couldn't be written better in the lead, most things could be.) For an article that is unsuitable and nominated via AFD, the full process is to nominate them and then mark as reviewed (processes that any singe editor can decline, like PROD or CSD, should not mark it as reviewed). The community will either delete it or decide to keep it, so the NPP job was done.
If your concern, as above, is about making it "public", I don't think you need to worry. Pages with an AFD template on them have the Template:NOINDEX template transcluded, so for pages created fewer than 90 days ago, we will continue to tell search engines to not index the page. Skynxnex (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks both @Skynxnex and @Hey man im josh. Tbh having spent more time reviewing, I really think it make sense to tick the article as reviewed to avoid other editors needing to review the same article. Having said that, I think the intro of NPP as used might need better wording to not confuse newbies like myself. FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
@Liz: Would you be able to take a look at this for me? I'd like to know if you think the redirect should be restored and your expertise would be very much appreciated in this, since I'm still a noobie admin. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to put this. ANI seems too much, AIV doesn't seem to fit. So I'm following the page's advice and "contacting a recently active admin" instead.
Hey @Fermiboson. I've been away, but it looks like this has been handled already. Sorry that I wasn't around to help with it, but I think if you had included diffs you would have been good to post this at ANI. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Hey man im josh, Hello, Congratulations, You are an admin of english Wikipedia and sorry for delay for wishing to you. :) Kind regards~~ αvírαm|(tαlk)12:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
After I submitted the draft for review, IP user 81.34.93.251 blanked the draft and published their own exact copy (Sabine Wren) into mainspace without attribution. The draft itself was restored, which you reviewed; meanwhile the duplicate article was separately nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabine Wren), and it was briefly mentioned in that conversation that a history merge may be applicable to provide attribution. That discussion has resolved with the decision to keep the article, but nothing has been done with the draft. Do you have the ability to perform a history merge, or do you think that this is necessary?
Hey @TNstingray, thank you! I took a look and I do think a history merge should be done for proper attribution. Unfortunately though, I don't think I'm the best person to handle this. I'm still treading carefully with my new tools and this is a more complex history merge than I've performed thus far, so I'd like you to make a request at WP:REPAIR instead so that someone more experienced with history merges can handle it. Someday I'll have a good handle on these types of merges, but I'm just not there yet, sorry! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Congratulations!
Hi Hey man im josh,
Congratulations from me too! Thank you for all the help on my draft as a newbie. I really appreciate all your help! :-)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think you have made a serious mistake closing the discussion as Keep. I would like you to review the closure as you have not given any reason. There is in-depth discussion that the individual does not pass the GNG threshold. The article has been expanded with primary sources, passing mentions and stuff by the subject. Not reliable independent third-party coverage, where the subject article is the article's subject.
Can you please explain what I believe to be an erroneous closure as keep and can you please explain how the article meets the GNG threshold?
I don't wish to say this negatively, but it appears you have added up !votes instead of reading the substance of the !votes, and the substance of the discussion.
@PicturePerfect666: I'd like to remind you to assume good faith. In short, I agreed with the arguments made by those voting keep and I was not convinced by the responses from you to every keep vote. The article has been improved significantly since the beginning of the AfD discussion (WP:HEY). There's been 23 more references added, a number of which are considered reliable sources. Based on the depth of coverage in the sources, and the number and quality of sources present, there's enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. If you do not agree with my assessment and feel the need to take this further, you can request that the closure be reviewed at deletion reviewHey man im josh (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
I support this closure although I think it could also be closed as No consensus. A brief explanation of your closure decision is usually helpful for editors who have questions about it but that's just a comment to consider for future closures. If this went to DRV, I would endorse. LizRead!Talk!00:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
I would like you to also assume good faith. I would like to make clear I have assumed good faith. Please be far less defensive of your decision being challenged. I also resent and reject your characterisation and personalisation of the discussion. Lines like this do you no favours when you have to be objective when closing "I was not convinced by the responses from you to every keep vote". When that is false and a gross mischaracterisation. AfDs are discussions and not a wall of !votes with statements attached without challenge. I have in no way 'responded to every keep vote'. In no way have I made any personal attacks on you or assumed bad faith. I have simply asked for an explanation.
Can you elaborate on how you have taken the what is primary and self-published content to pass GNG? What is the SIGCOV beyond being in a couple of trade unions with some passing mentions and publishing things yourself...Reliable verifiable and third-party coverage is what is needed and I am dismayed you have effectively gone yeah someone published a lot about them and got passing quotes from their political activism in the bottom of an article on a bandwagon they have hopped on passes GNG.
Volume of references is not a substitute for the quality of references and the volume of references was dissected by Alpha3031 Here - volume does not equal notability or verifiability when the sources are not primary about the article subject and they are a passing mention or they are a quote or a passing mention.
I find it unbelievable you have closed as keep...I could have understood if you had closed as no consensus...but keep, shows that in my opinion, I think you have counted !votes and volume of sources. Not read and understand the discussion as a whole. This is not a personal attack or bad faith but an honest observation of a new administrator closing this.
@PicturePerfect666: I have explained why I closed the discussion the way that I did, but, instead of accepting that sometimes people disagree on things, or making a counter argument, you accuse me of just counting votes and not understanding the discussion. I'm absolutely always open to criticism and when I make mistakes I will always try to do better, but I do not believe I've made a mistake in this instance. As I said, I believe there's enough significant coverage of the individual in reliable sources to meet GNG, that is my rationale, not the number of votes.
I mention your replies because, as you mentioned, AFD is not a matter of just counting votes, it's a matter of weighing the arguments that have been made. You responded to every single keep vote and tried to explain to them why they were wrong, but I found your arguments and statements to not have the same weight as the comments you were responding to. Additionally, when you disagreed with two admins who had voted keep, you accused them of not voting based on policy.
To be blunt, I'm not sure there is an explanation I can give that would satisfy you based on what I've read on your talk page. You're welcome to take this to DRV and if I am found to have made a mistake then I will do better moving forward. With that said, your WP:BADGERING and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality are not going to do you any favours if you plan to contribute long-term. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment and you should consider how others may perceive the way you interact with them and also think about when it becomes appropriate to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Please stop pushing this incorrect line "You responded to every single keep vote and tried to explain to them why they were wrong," I also reject your claims of badgering and battleground, I think you are mistaking vigorous discussion and thorough responses with those things. This could though easily be different approaches to discussions. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 03:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
As a final point on this, you like to throw a lot of claims about a lot of things which you think means that I am not editing in a way you approve of. Please stop throwing around terms and aspersions of Bludgeon, badgering and the like. It is really quite offensive and frustrating as it seems you are exclusively focusing on me the contributor and not the content discussion at hand. Alpha was right what you term one of your many descriptors is just engaging thoroughly in the process. If you dislike this have you considered trying to talk about this before throwing around the colourful and unhelpful descriptors? It could easily be we both have different interpretations. I do though feel the more people use their colourful descriptors the more they are basically saying 'Shut up you have used up your reply quota'. Which in my opinion is no way to have any form of discussion and it stifles discussion by making me and potentially others fearful of replying to other users in discussions. None of this is a personal attack on you as a contributor, just my perspective of how you (and others) are coming across. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
@PicturePerfect666: I would not have said you were bludgeoning/badgering the discussions unless I was sure of it, which I absolutely am. Your behaviour has fit every definition of the behaviour and that's not something I say lightly. It's frustrating that you feel the need to tell everybody who disagrees with you that they're wrong and that their votes or comments are not based in policy. As myself and others have tried to make clear, no one is trying to stifle you. We'e trying to point out how this type of approach to a discussion is disruptive and unproductive, it becomes a war of attrition where the person who gives up last gets their way, which is not how we do things. @PicturePerfect666: I would not have said you were bludgeoning/badgering the discussions unless I was sure of it, which I absolutely am. Your behaviour has fit every definition of the behaviour and that's not something I say lightly. It's frustrating that you feel the need to tell everybody who disagrees with you that they're wrong and that their votes or comments are not based in policy. As myself and others have tried to make clear, no one is trying to stifle you. We're trying to point out how this type of approach to a discussion is disruptive and unproductive, it becomes a war of attrition. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
So what in your opinion is 'too much' and are replies allowed at all in your opinion? In your opinion does an AfD allow replies and does it allow discussion or is it just unchangeable !votes and statements? PicturePerfect666 (talk) 02:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Moderator Tools newsletter - Issue #1
Welcome to the inaugural Moderator Tools newsletter! We’ll aim to publish new issues whenever we have big new updates about the projects we’re working on.
PageTriage
PageTriage NewPagesFeed - October 2023
We’ve now wrapped up our work to support the English Wikipedia’s New Pages Patrol community by tackling some major technical debt in the PageTriage extension. The final project update gives an overview of all the work that we did over the past 6 months.
Automoderator
We’re currently working on a project called Automoderator, which will enable communities to automatically revert bad edits based on community-defined settings. We’re looking for input and feedback on our plans so far, and have a number of questions on topics we need patrollers and administrators to help us understand better. In addition to the overview and questions on the main project page, we now have two sub-pages with more specific information:
Automoderator - model testing tool screenshot
If you want to investigate Automoderator’s accuracy rate and check out how it would behave in practice, we’ve set up a testing process with data and scores so you can help us find new patterns we can take into consideration before Automoderator is deployed.
The measurement plan is the first draft of our plan to measure whether Automoderator is achieving its goals and not having negative consequences. Want to propose some data for us to capture to help evaluate this project? This is the place to go!
Although we have active engineering projects ongoing, we're always happy to chat about your community's content moderation tool needs - feel free to get in contact at Talk:Moderator Tools.
Hello Josh, I once had my perms removed here because I wanted to gain more experience in WP:AfD and WP:AfC, the latter which I was laser focused on, lately I have been going through (mostly) closed AfD discussions and participating in few, to learn more about WP:N and obviously WP:RS. I have created multiple articles since the removal of my permissions and I'm happy to say I had no problems in doing so (as I'm also autoreviewed). I was wondering if you could check if I'm eligible for WP:NPR perm or if it's still early, I'm ready to tackle the NPP backlog Thank you.dxneo (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I've noticed that lately you've been giving some attention to reviewing PRODs as they inch towards their deletion time. A comment though, typically, as you might notice with AFDs, the admin deleting an article in the main space of the project removes red links that might appear after the article deletion by unlinking mentions of that article subject. What I do with PRODS is delete them by using Twinkle, selecting the CSD option and the PROD deletion rationale appears in a field in the text box. So, it looks like you are doing a speedy deletion but in the deletion rationale, it notes that this is a proposed deletion and supplies whatever deletion rationale was used by the article/file tagger. You might handle them this way already. But after deletion, when the article and any redirects are deleted, there is an option to undo any links. You can click on this link in the text box or, if you forget to, while you are still on the deleted page, you can use the Twinkle menu and select Unlink to undo them.
I should add that there are a few editors who disagree with unlinking deleted articles. But, when I started handling PRODs, this was what I was told to do and I think it's also done by other admins who patrol PRODs like Explicit so I just thought I'd pass along the advice. You are starting off great as a new administrator and I just wanted to thank you for helping out with so many different areas of page deletion. Have a great weekend! LizRead!Talk!22:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.
Good day, hope you are doing well. Thank you so much for your great admin work and for granting me pending changes reviewer, I really appreciate it, as I have been able to start contributing more and helping the encyclopedia by reviewing changes that are pending. But, there isn't too much backlog on there as I would love to contribute more. Can I be granted the patroller right? I am already autopatrolled too. I know the policy says 90 days old account, which my account isn't up to currently (but close to), I would love to contribute more on administrative backlogs by patrolling new pages. I usually have special:NewPagesFeed as an open tab (lol, so that I can always get there faster). You can also check my draftification log at User:Vanderwaalforces/Draftify log. Would love to hear from you. Many thanks again! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Hey @Vanderwaalforces. I've been away for a bit over a week and I have quite a bit of catching up to do, both IRL and on Wikipedia. I encourage you to apply at WP:PERM/NPR, as I don't think I have the time to evaluate whether I should give you the perm or not. For future reference, permissions are best requested at WP:PERM anyways. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
PS. I very much appreciate your interest in contributing and I wish you the best of luck on your request @Vanderwaalforces. I always encourage new reviewers to start in their area of expertise / niche of interest by checking out WP:NPPSORT. The process can seem daunting at first, so it's best to start somewhere where you're already comfortable. We also have a Discord server if that's your thing where you can get some help along the way or ask for a second opinion. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
@Hey man im josh Thank you so much for your kind words, I will go ahead and request at the WP:PERM as soon as possible, so that I can assist in the AfC November drive if possible. Also, I will have your advice in mind. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi Josh, thanks for reviewing the Western tulku page. I was wondering if you could take a look here at the AfD since you are a (newly-appointed!) admin and maybe give your thoughts. I want to take a break from creating the page but I'm afraid to leave it, lest I come back to it merged into Tulku and censored (perhaps this is paranoid.) Or, with your approval, perhaps move it into Draft:Western tulku for me (I'm likewise afraid to do it myself.) MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever)13:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
This award is given to Hey man im josh for collecting more than 150 points per week in the October 2023 NPP backlog drive. Thank you so much for your continuous contributions to the drive! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
October 2023 NPP backlog drive – Points award
The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia
This award is given to Hey man im josh for collecting more than 500 points during the October 2023 NPP backlog drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to the drive! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
I just had a look and just like to point out, I said to redirect to Zarzis and not the football club, someone said something else, and two users didn't clarify. But said as above directly under my direction. So, I don't think you set the right target. You might want to review the AfD again and fix appropriately regards. Govvy (talk) 08:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Hey @Govvy. I've re-read the AfD and I see where the misunderstanding came from. I've updated the AfD to note that the page is now redirected to Zarzis instead of ES Zarzis. I don't think re-opening the discussion is necessary at this time. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi Josh, Hope you're having a good start to the week. Not quite sure about this, if it's an unwritten law here or not. The edit you reverted for Tom Brady, that user is adding first team All-Pro to several players with (PFWA, SN etc). Is it AP only? Because some have the second team there already for AP, no first team at all, that's what raised the flag. I can't revert them if there's nothing there to go on. I'll go with whatever you say. Thanks in advance, John Bringingthewood (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Hey @Bringingthewood. I've typically only added All-Pro to the infobox when it's been awarded by the Associated Press, as they're, at the moment, the de facto authority based on the NFL Honors. The issue from past discussions has been who is the "de facto" awarder and why are some awarders more recognized / valued than others? WP:NFLINFOBOX specifically mentions that league MVPs selected by the AP, NEA, PFWA, UPI, and the Joe. F. Carr Trophy are all relevant to include in the infobox. However, it does not make a distinction for All-Pros. This might be a discussion that should take place at WT:NFL. I think you should give it a shot and ask the question there. There are some long time editors who were involved in making these guidelines who should be able to chime in. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good, Josh. I agree with the AP, and I will send a message out there. You see, I said I would agree, lol. Speak with you soon and hope all is going well. John Bringingthewood (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Hello, Hey man im josh. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, Hey man im josh. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
The WikiCup is a marathon rather than a sprint and all those reaching the final round have been involved in the competition for the last ten months, improving Wikipedia vastly during the process. After all this hard work, BeanieFan11 has emerged as the 2023 winner and the WikiCup Champion. The finalists this year were:-
Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the competition, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.
Unlimitedlead wins the featured article prize, for 7 FAs in total including 3 in round 2.
MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in total.
Lee Vilenski wins the featured topic prize, for a 6-article featured topic in round 4.
MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured picture prize, for 6 FPs in total.
BeanieFan11 wins the good article prize, for 75 GAs in total, including 61 in the final round.
Epicgenius wins the good topic prize, for a 41-article good topic in the final round.
LunaEatsTuna wins the GA reviewer prize, for 70 GA reviews in round 1.
MyCatIsAChonk wins the FA reviewer prize, for 66 FA reviews in the final round.
Epicgenius wins the DYK prize, for 49 did you know articles in total.
Muboshgu wins the ITN prize, for 46 in the news articles in total.
The WikiCup has run every year since 2007. With the 2023 contest now concluded, I will be standing down as a judge due to real life commitments, so I hope that another editor will take over running the competition. Please get in touch if you are interested. Next year's competition will hopefully begin on 1 January 2024. You are invited to sign up to participate in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors. It only remains to congratulate our worthy winners once again and thank all participants for their involvement! (If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.) Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
