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.
Hi Josh! I had a quick question regarding informing people about a FLC. Since one of mine is currently in the "urgently needs reviewers" box, I'm thinking of leaving a notice on a few WikiProject talk pages. The issue is that I'm not sure whether that would be canvassing or not (because obviously members of certain WikiProjects could be biased). Thanks! :) SirMemeGod13:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
No issue @Sir MemeGod. I've done that for some nominations needing reviews in the past and I encourage you to use Template:FC notice, as it's neutral. The idea is to just make sure that your notification is neutral, which the template is. It makes perfect sense to notify the groups that are most interested and knowledgeable on the subject, it doesn't inherintly mean that the reviews are going to be biased. I use Gonzo Fan2007 as an example of this. We both love American football, but few people grill me harder about my nominations than they do because they're so in the know on the subject. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Well of course, now I look like a total numbnuts for reporting a globally locked LTA just for a username vio. But I wish the WMF would make it slightly more obvious when they do. I mean, our block notices are generally impossible to miss. But even though a Glock is even (far far) more severe a sanction than a local block, the info's buried away in the contribs page. Talk about counterintuitive. Hope all is well! SerialNumber5412917:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
No worries at all @Serial Number 54129, you'll never look like a numbnuts for trying to help protect Wikipedia :P I've done the same thing myself in the past! I agree, it would really be nice if the strikethrough option that some of us have enabled for blocked users also applied to globally locked users. That might actually be a useful request now that I'm thinking about it... Hey man im josh (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
That was quick, I was just replying with "That would be a great ida" :) I'll try the new script now. Thanks very much! Anything to save my blushes at UAA! Cheers, SerialNumber5412917:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
@I dream of horses: That's actually one of the few LTAs I'm familiar with, and it's not obvious to me at this time whether that's them or not. For clarification though, that page, when I deleted it, was a redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for patrolling the redirects I just created. I enjoy seeing my watchlist refresh and update with reviews :-) LR.127 (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
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:
My company topic submission declined due to it's not adequately supported by reliable sources and i don't have enough resources that mention my company or the website. Ahmed-reda-galal (talk) 08:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment at the tectonic plate lowercasing RM, now relisted
Thanks, and the RM at the talk page of Eurasian Plate was relisted on the 15th, so not much time left. Logic and commonsense would keep the uppercasing on the 90+ plates under discussion, but lowercasers are using the casing guideline, which some of us have countered with WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE which is under fairly intense discussion. If you agree with this approach, or even have more comments, your additional participation may be useful. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
I hope this message is being sent to all participants to avoid the illusion of canvassing @Randy Kryn. With that said, it's the same three that typically show up to support Dicklyon's proposed moves. I don't think IAR is necessary, as there seems to be a fairly clear consensus against the move which some folks are attempting to bludgeon against. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Actually the relisting editor mentioned that the opposers had no guideline or policy reason to keep the uppercasing, so the IAR route may be the only one that might hold up as actual policy. And of course, the lowercasers should also have a chance to comment on the further relisting and use of WP:IAR but some already have. I'll notify all but they seem to know about it. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: My POV is that COMMONNAME and sources were fairly clear, despite cherry picked sourcing and the nearly always useless ngram usage that certain editors always rely on to downcase anything that has a common noun. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, but the relisting editor Amakuru put their thumb on the scale by disregarding Commonname, IAR, and any other points in what seemed to me to be a logical overwhelming consensus. There is quite the discussion taking place on Amakuru's talk page which may be of interest. I hope you keep track of the RM, as it will likely be challenged once closed. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: Amakuru is not an unreasonable person, so it'd be best to speak to them directly about it. I've found it best that I walk away from RMs because far too many people bludgeon the absolute hell out of them and cherry pick stats, while ignoring relevant context, in order to down case anything with a common noun. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, Amakuru has been quite reasonable, which is why I was surprised at their thumb-on-scale comment, and I opened the discussion at their talk page a couple of days ago. Commonname would be argued by the existing n-grams which, although their approach is errorfilled, nonetheless are being used to lowercase what would be a massive change in Wikipedia's geology collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Ngrams are absolutely useless for anything that includes any type of common noun imo @Randy Kryn. It's why so many clear proper names end up being downcased with an argument of "inconsistency", even when relevant context and subject matter experts are brought up. I've basically accepted that some of our processes are flawed enough that some editors are able to continue to cause anything with a common noun in it to be downcased. Certainly not an improvement to Wikipedia, which makes us as a whole look worse, and some people should find better ways to contribute. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, and this is a big one as a major change to Wikipedia's geology and geographic collections, of long-term proper names, and in the size of the items under discussion - the largest named structures on Earth! The "improvement" and "maintaining" aspects are why maybe only IAR can save the uppercasing, but time will tell. Thanks again. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia has now lowercased the largest named structures on Earth, its tectonic plates. The lowercasers can party like it's 1899! Randy Kryn (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Ah what a shame that "inconsistent capitalization among sources" leads to downcasing against what subject matter experts state. Seems to only be necessary to show that there's ANY inconsistency, which is obviously going to happen when those unfamiliar with a subject don't realize that the nouns in some proper names are meant to be capitalized and misreport it without the capitalization. Self fulfilling cycle, leading to a worse state of Wikipedia. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
This, though, is a major one, this now-present error in Wikipedia (uppercased in Britannica and many other sources) presents a societal shift in how the plates are viewed. This one should be challenged, but maybe someone other than myself should do so as I was quite active in the discussion. Do you want to address this in a challenge or maybe one of the geologists would be better (although the first step, of course, is to ask the closer to overturn). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
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:
In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies for a vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
I accepted the redirect here because it was mentioned in the target article, just hidden behind a collapsed table. You declined the redirect - and so the page section at WP:AFC/R shows that it was declined even though the redirect was created. That looks to be the only edit conflict I could spot. If you want to look over it again, that would be great. Cheers :-). LR.127 (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm curious why you marked Bairakanda as "reviewed". I don't know much about NPP, but I am surprised that this article, which was moved out of Draft space by its creator after being moved there because there is no evidence that the article's topic exists, and is tagged for AFD and has no verifiable references, merits "reviewed" status. What am I missing? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: It's simply standard practice to mark pages sent to AfD as removed. The idea being it's undergoing a community review in a sense, making an individual NPPer reviewing it redundant and unnecessary. Our time can be better spent on other articles, so we do so with the knowledge that, if kept, it's already marked as reviewed, and if deleted, it really doesn't matter. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Instead of rapid fire deleting pages from areas that are not in Canada but are under the jurisdiction of WikiProject Illinois, why did you not instead try to improve them with information that was provided on those pages from the government of Illinois? Rhatsa26X (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
This was what was done in neighboring Edwards County, which like Wabash County and around 20 other counties in Illinois. Rhatsa26X (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
@Rhatsa26X, excuse me? What pages did I supposedly delete? I'm not sure what relevance Canada is to the discussion, but for reference, there is no such thing as jurisdiction on Wikipedia. It's not my responsibility to improve pages that I don't have an interest in. I simply marked redirects as reviewed because the redirects were valid, if they stayed as redirects. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
@Rhatsa26X: You're definitely misunderstanding something, because I definitely haven't nominated any precincts for deletion. Please look at your notifications again, you'll see that I marked the redirects as reviewed. Someone else redirected the pages. So I'll ask again, what does Canada have to do with evaluating whether a redirect to a target is logical or not? Even if I had nominated them for deletion, the fact I'm Canadian is entirely irrelevant, so I encourage you to not attack editors and imply their opinion is irrelevant based on where they are from. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
RfD nomination statements
Hi. Normally I wouldn't worry about this but as you make a lot of RfD nominations, note that it is redirects for discussion (not deletion), so your nomination statement should include a recommended action (or at least be clear that you aren't specifically suggesting anything) as often it seems as though you are advocating deletion but haven't stated so explicitely. From WP:RFDHOWTO step 2 "The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.". Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 03:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
@A7V2: The implied desired outcome, when one is not stated, is deletion. I don't think that's unexpected in any way when I state something is not mentioned at the target and there's no relevant information there. When I believe there may be a better outcome I absolutely do state the desired outcome / suggestion, historically speaking. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
There's a joke ot be made about the Lions winning a Super Bowl and me having the most FLs in the WikiCup, I'm just not clever enough to make it haha. Thanks John! Hey man im josh (talk) 11:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
By the way, I will get back to editing 1992 Summer Olympics medal table as soon as I can wrap of the accolades list for Oppenheimer FLC. I've been sidetracked by many things in life as well as Internet Archive being down.
@Birdienest81: Oops, I missed this comment. The 1992 medal table is pretty much done, but I got bummed out and held up because there's such a terrible lack of pictures which are relevant to add to these lists. I really need to learn more about image uploading and find a source for some of the podium stuff, or for the individuals that are the first of their country to win, or have led the games in medals. I do intend to give your list a review when I can, I've just been busy unfortunately. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
@Ratnahastin: A checkuser block is not the same as a block for being a UPE. I do not have access to the relevant ticket to read more. I do not generally object to redirecting articles, but, if the socking is as prolific as implied, it'd be better to get an outcome at AFD to have it stay as a redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
WikiCup 2024 November newsletter
The 2024 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round being a very tight race. Our new champion is AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who scored 2,283 points mainly through 3 high-multiplier FAs and 3 GAs on military history topics. By a 1% margin, Airship beat out last year's champion, BeanieFan11 (submissions), who scored second with 2,264 points, mainly from an impressive 58 GAs about athletes. In third place, Generalissima (submissions) scored 1,528 points, primarily from two FAs on U.S. Librarians of Congress and 20 GAs about various historical topics. Our other finalists are: Sammi Brie (submissions) with 879 points, Hey man im josh (submissions) with 533 points, BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 432 points, Arconning (submissions) with 244 points, and AryKun (submissions) with 15 points. Congratulations to our finalists and all who participated!
The final round was very productive, and contestants had 7 FAs, 9 FLs, 94 GAs, 73 FAC reviews, and 79 GAN reviews and peer reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!
All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.
Generalissima (submissions) wins the featured article prize for 3 FAs in round 4, and 7 FAs overall.
Muboshgu (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 15 In the news articles in round 1, and 36 overall.
Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2025 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!
Awarded to Hey man im josh for being one of the eight finalists in the 2024 WikiCup.The featured content reviewer prize, awarded to Hey man im josh for conducting the most FAC/FLC reviews in the 2024 WikiCup, with 110 FA/FL reviews overall.The featured list prize, awarded to Hey man im josh for submitting the most featured lists in the 2024 WikiCup, with 23 FLs overall.
Hello Josh, Hallowme moved Tyla to multiple titles without reaching any sort of consensus and went as far as to create a duplicate titled Tyla Laura. My guess is that they were trying to get the credits for creating the Tyla article. Can you please look at the article, its talk and subpages and check if there's anything wrong? I can't locate the GA1 page associated with talk. Thank you. dxneo (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
@Dxneo: Ugh, that's not ideal. I'm on mobile right now, which isn't the best for investigating these sort of issues. I had planned to take the laptop out shortly, at which point I'll take a look if someone else doesn't beat me to it. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
An error: Punctuation? or something omitted. Between the words "1979" and "Greek epic" there's no linking phrase, or perhaps a period is missing. Dmmsj00 (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
@Dmmsj00: I see what you mean. You're more than welcome to make the appropriate change yourself at Stichic, but that's not my area of interest or expertise, so you may be better equipped to make the fix than I would be. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068
Well, I am a (former) scholar of classical Greek (Homeric, Attic, and Koine' (demotic), but I suspect this is a mere punctuation omission. I'm reluctant to make such a change because, well, I'm a reluctant editor. Further, I don't know what the intention was of the text; as I noted, there may be some prose omitted. 104.177.133.202 (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
I ran the band's website through MS Edge's built-in translator - the result was identical (verbatim) to the article. I've deleted per G12. (I suspect I might like them though - I wonder if I can get a CD somewhere, I don't do spotify...) GirthSummit (blether)15:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
LOL! I always knew that, my attempt at humor was to prevent you from responding, "John, I'm from Canada you idiot!!" Jokes really need to be presented face to face, lol. No matter the country, you'll always get a congrats! Regards, John. Bringingthewood (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
On the page of Emma Iranzo
Hello! Regarding Enma Iranzo Martín, I moved the page from "Enma ..." to "Emma ..." without giving any reference, sorry for that. You reverted back (with good criterion, of course :) ). I changed the page in several languages and forgot to add references, or to review the source of the article. She was a mayor of my hometown and I know her name. For reference, you can check her X (Twitter) account: https://x.com/emmair
As I don't want to revert back your edit (no fights here :') ), I just first wanted to talk to you to discuss if we revert back the article again or not. You have way more experience editing/managing wiki articles than I, so I prefer checking with oyu first. Thanks! WikiCholi (talk) 09:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
"No significant coverage"
You tagged approximately a dozen of my articles with template {{No significant coverage}}. What the heck does that mean? I have been creating articles about sports events for many, many years, but this has never happened to me. How about the following article? – 2024 Centrobasket Women. Do you think it's okay? Should I take that as an example of how an article with a "significant coverage" should look? Maiō T. (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
@Maiō T.: I found them while reviewing pages, as part of WP:NPP work. While I believe the events I tagged the articles on are notable, articles are typically expected to contain independent significant coverage in their references. I do not think they'd end up being deleted, which is why I haven't nominated them for deletion, but it's a maintenance tag to signify that the articles would be improved with references from independent sources. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Hello Josh, I have noticed you have experience with creating and managing editing drives, such as the one for NPP. Is it possible you could refer to me to an admin who could run a drive for adding short descriptions?
Oh it's been my pleasure to work on those lists! As for someone to manage a drive... why not you? You don't need to be an admin to recruit for and manage a drive =) It'd be nice if there was a way to automatically track it, but I don't think the numbers would be anywhere close to accurate. I think you might end up needing to have areas where a user simply submits a list of articles they've added a short description to, you award a point for each short description, and you then hand out barnstars for certain mile stones. The only admin-y aspect that would be necessary would be a mass message to recruit for the drive, which can be requested (see Wikipedia:Request a mass message). You could start by having the recruitment message sent out to Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions/Members, and having the drive listed on watchlists for a week leading up to the start (request at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages). The first drive is the hardest, but it's a worthwhile effort that anybody can take on if they're up for it. Happy to help with questions you may have on it @1ctinus. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello again, and again sorry if my comment about your decline sounded too personal or harsh; I was only pointing out what might have been caused by distraction, and expressing my concern about a much more general issue. I thought that it was clear and apologise if it was not. However, I don't think it was necessary to comment the way you did subsequently: Things happen, but your attitude is what leads to a giant backlog instead of people making genuine efforts to help others. But, given your bad attitude, I suspect this will fall on deaf ears. It sounds like a very personal remark and the responsibility you seem to associate with what you call twice my "attitude" (was it about that message or did I miss something?) sounds a bit extreme. Thank you for your time. Mushy Yank (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jairam Kumar Mahato. 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. ~~~~
Hey @I dream of horses, sorry for not responding sooner, but I typically don't edit on weekends except for quick replies sometimes. It looks like someone else has non-admin closed the thread, which should resolve this for now. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
A goat for you!
This goat clearly adores you. Take good care of it :)
Hey, I have to say I was originally going to RFD it, but changed my mind. I cant get my head around it being plausible though. No one is going to double bracket disambiguation search it. They would give up and get multiple hits before that point. Is it worth taking, or is it very unlikely and im wasting my time. BletheringScot20:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
@Blethering Scot: I feel you on this one. I'm on mobile at the moment, so I don't have access to my typical bookmarks and references, but consider searching for double disambiguation at RfD. I think I've nominated similar redirects at points and found that they were kept. There are a number of redirects styles that I personally don't like, but I've accepted are not likely to be deleted. I could very definitely be wrong, but double disambiguations are stuck in my head as not inherently deletable for some reason. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
If you don't mind, could you please make another permanent link for me which is nearly identical to this one, but with the text "Eastern " (the space after Eastern is important) removed? It is also crucial that they are red links, so that I could create them as redirects quickly and efficiently. I tried to make one myself, but I'm not smart enough with my word processor to add the "[[" before the numbers without messing them up. If it's in any way a hassle for you to make, then it's fine. Thanks for your previous help and God bless. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞?17:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
@Bis-Serjetà?: Absolutely, no problem! It may be a few hours before I can do so, but it's super easy for me to do once I'm not on mobile and will only take me a couple moments. They're useful redirects in my opinion so I'd absolutely like to help. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Hey @Bis-Serjetà?, so sorry for the delay. I was out of town on Thursday and Friday and forgot my laptop charger and I don't typically edit on the weekends. I've created this permalink for you if you're still interested in creating these redirects. Let me know if this isn't actually what you wanted or there's any tweaks you'd like, I expect to be available most weekdays to help you out if need be, and thanks again for the work you're putting in! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
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:
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
@Sarim Wani: what might this "key evidence" be, then? The new article I subsequently deleted presented precisely zero evidence of notability; and lest we forget, notability is what the AfD discussion you refer to was there to determine. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I was trying to reopen the discussion but if you want to "discuss" it here fine
the following person Jairam Kumar Mahat was responsible for launching a movement in the state (Jharkhand India) so basically languages considered to be from outside Jharkhand like Bhojpuri, Magahi and Angika were included in the list of regional languages for state-level examinations in 11 districts. soo He led the protests with the demand that only the local language should be promoted. He also demanded that natives of Jharkhand should get the jobs in the state and no one from the other states should be allowed due to this he (the person) falls underWikipedia:Notability (people) (Any biography) "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field" and under Politicians and judges "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" it is also to note it does not qualify under "People notable for only one event" due to "However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified"
I understand that the nomination of the article may have been frustrating for you. However, it's important to remember that we're all here to improve Wikipedia and ensure that it remains a reliable and verifiable source of information. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia operates under a spirit of collaboration and good faith, and our actions are aimed at maintaining quality, not criticizing individual efforts.
I encourage you to engage constructively and openly in discussions, as this helps strengthen the community and improve articles in the long run. Let's work together to build a better Wikipedia! Sarim Wani (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
@Sarim Wani: nothing in that constitutes evidence, which is what you said exists. (I'm not even sure it constitutes a credible claim of notability, but that's beside the point here.)
Closed AfD discussions are not reopened. You can take the matter to a deletion review (WP:DRV), but as there is no question of the discussion having been closed against consensus, you would need to show newly-available proof of notability. So we're back to the question of the missing evidence.
Finally, when did I assume bad faith? Please point to what I said which demonstrates that. Absent of which, may I ask that you in turn assume good faith. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
@Sarim Wani: I was asking you to produce this evidence that you say exists, so if that's what you mean by "cite it all", then yes.
If it makes it easier for you to do that (cite your sources), I'm happy to restore the deleted article into the draft space, as long as you agree not to publish it again without sufficient evidence of notability. I would strongly suggest that you put the draft through the AfC review process instead. Let me know?
@Sarim Wani: IMO it was unnecessary to open that DRV (still without showing any of this evidence you keep referring to, I might add), but you of course must do what you feel is right. However, now that you've opened it, I'm minded to await its outcome before doing anything else. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Anyways, I do appreciate @DoubleGrazing chiming in. It looks like the DRV has been opened, so I'll let that run its course, but I don't believe the AfD could have been closed any other way at the time. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, and the truth is there was not another way to close that AfD. The truth is WP:DRV is not a place to re-litigate a discussion, but to assess whether consensus was appropriately assessed. The truth is, as much as you may dislike the result, proper procedure was followed in this case. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
@Sarim Wani: At this point, your best bet would be to start a draft about the subject instead of fighting for the result of the AfD to be overturned. You are certainly not barred from attempting to demonstrate the subject is notable. Remember to make sure the draft is as neutral as possible and includes reliable sources that help to establish notability. You could start the page at Draft:Jairam Kumar Mahato if you so wish. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
It is to be noted that I had already stated the page and am requesting that page to be turned into a draft. wich has been agreed in the delete dission I request you please reinstate it back as a draft thanks :) Sarim Wani (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you changed a “quote” code to a “bquote” code over in the Reservation and disallowance article. Not disagreeing with you, but could you explain the difference between the two? I’ve always thought of them as the same thing? Thanks. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Hey @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, it looks like you're talking about this edit at Disallowance and reservation in Canada. Quote is simply a redirect to blockquote, and if you apply general fixes with AWB, it typically tries to bypass a number of redirects to templates. I have AWB set to not make these minor edits as the only edit on a page, but AWB wanted to make an edit on this page specifically to replace hyphens in date ranges with en dashes (MOS:DATERANGE). Since it was already making an edit, and that the bypassing that redirect wasn't the only edit it was making, it applied all of the fixes along with the hyphen fix. I may not have explained that perfectly... But, in short, it's "don't make these edits unless there's an actual other non-cosmetic edit to make". So, feel free to continue to use quote if you'd like, there's absolute zero harm in doing so and they do do the same thing, AWB just wants to bypass it. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, redirects for templates are entirely fine to utilize @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz. Frankly I'm not sure WHY AWB does that fix, but I kind of just assume there must be a reason and it's not breaking anything, so I haven't tried to fight that part of the edits because it would reduce my productivity :P Hey man im josh (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
National Voice of America Museum of Broadcasting
Hi, I have a question about two users/user pages, the first of which I recently reported/tagged and you blocked/deleted as a result (National Voice of America Museum of Broadcasting (talk · contribs) [no ping]). I have coincidentally come across the second user in question, LeeHite (talk · contribs) [no ping] (created in 2020 but only started editing more substantially three weeks ago), because they have made, let's say, noteworthy (as in "worth paying attention to") edits to the article Voice of America Bethany Relay Station, and I just saw that they until recently had this content on their user page. Now to my question: If my memory doesn't let me down here, I believe this content is veeery similar (if not almost identical) to the content of the (now-deleted) user page of National Voice of America Museum of Broadcasting; could you perhaps check whether that is the case?
If it is, I have tried quite a bit to find those sentences on the Internet but was unsuccessful (although the museum's official website contains a bunch of sentences similar in structure and voice), which in my view would make it a pretty big coincidence that both users added it to their user pages within a few days of each other. {some info removed by josh, just in case} the user LeeHite also added works this person has written about the museum/station as external links to Voice of America Bethany Relay Station, see diff of all their recent changes.) Let me know what you think, thanks! Felida97 (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
@Felida97: The user that you tagged was exactly identical to the one that user had. I could definitely see a connection, but let's be very careful about any sort of potential WP:OUTING (I may be going overboard, but I'm erring on the side of caution here). It may be worth a report at WP:SPI, because I definitely see what you see. I encourage you to check out Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Conflict of interest reports instead though and send an email there with the information that I've now revdelled. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
(Sorry for the delayed reply.) Thank you very much for confirming my impression, your assessment of the situation, and directing me towards the ArbCom page (I have just written them an email with the information, as you suggested; let's see what they do with it)! Regarding the RevDel/potential outing: I considered the issue and chose my words carefully, but I can definitely also see that I may have ended up on the wrong side of the line regardless. FWIW, I noticed on the day that you had revdelled my revision but didn't look at your reply until today, because I had a feeling that you did it because I had violated WP:OUTING, and I then promptly had a bad dream the next night about being outed myself, so the next time I will definitely be erring on the side of caution as well :) Thanks again! Felida97 (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Zulmarys Sánchez and Miss Universe 2025
I'm starting to think maybe an "articles for draftification" process would be useful. A place where articles that technically don't qualify for a unilateral draftification can get consensus for a non-unilateral draftification without getting irritation for wasting peoples time at AfD.
@I dream of horses: I'm always open to ideas, there's no harm in at least talking it out. Unfortunately, I think the fear is that it wouldn't have much activity or people would simply say that it should go to AfD instead. There's also the additional concern about whether there's someone who steps up and is willing to take on said draft, otherwise we're just delaying draftification. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello Hey man im josh, Cooldudeseven7 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
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:
Welcome to issue #2 of the Moderator Tools newsletter! It's been about a year since the first one (sorry for the delay), but we're excited to tell you what our team has been working on since then, and where you can guide our ongoing and upcoming work.
Automoderator
Automoderator's configuration page as of September 2024.
Automoderator is now feature-complete for its initial release! Automoderator is a highly configurable automated anti-vandalism tool which reverts edits that a machine learning model determines to be vandalism. It can be enabled, disabled, and configured at any time by administrators via a Community Configuration form. Automoderator is now in use on Indonesian, Turkish, Ukrainian, and Vietnamese Wikipedias, with other projects at various stages of discussion and setup. You can track data about Automoderator's activity so far via a Superset dashboard. To request Automoderator on your Wikimedia project, please refer to the deployment steps.
We are wrapping up our focused time developing Automoderator while we review data and feedback about its impact. We also still plan to provide support for small Wikimedia projects with few/no administrators (T372280), and integrate the multilingual revert risk model, which is an improved version of the model currently in use, with support for 47 language Wikipedias. We're looking for support testing the multilingual model to better understand its behaviour - please check out the testing process and review some edits!
Nuke extension ('Mass delete')
During the 2024-2025 Wikimedia Foundation fiscal year, our team wants to make improvements to the software that moderators (patrollers, administrators, stewards, etc.) are using today, rather than focusing on building new tools. Although it's valuable to build new features, it's also important that we continue maintaining the important tools that are already being used to maintain and improve Wikipedia's quality.
Nuke search interface.
One such project is to make usability and feature improvements to the Nuke extension (known as 'mass delete' on some projects). We have contracted a community developer, Chlod, who has worked on the extension in the past, to help us with this! With the Nuke project, we hope to make a number of improvements, including additional filters, increasing the deletion time range, automated deletion of related pages, and bug fixes. Read more about this project, and provide feedback, at Extension:Nuke/2024 Moderator Tools project.
Recent Changes
As part of our efforts to improve existing impactful moderator tooling, we are working on a project for a few months to make improvements to Special:RecentChanges and related workflows. We will be prioritizing work for this project on an ongoing basis, but have some larger projects that we will solicit input for via our project page. We have a brief survey at Moderator Tools/Survey:Recent Changes to gather input for this project - please answer the questions if you're interested.
Task prioritization
Finally, looking to the future, we plan to research and work on tasks identified as part of the Community Wishlist focus area titled 'task prioritization'. We'll be looking for opportunities to speak with editors about how they decide what needs their attention, and in particular will be investigating the Watchlist to see where we might be able to make usability and feature improvements. If you have thoughts about opportunities in this focus area please share them on the task prioritization talk page, or file a new wish!
Hi Admin, I am requesting your assistance in protecting the Miss Planet International page due to ongoing instances of vandalism. These incidents have occurred since the organization began its current activities, continuing up to the final event. Additionally, there is an issue between the organization and the contestants, and it appears that the vandalism may be coming from individuals in the contestants' home countries. I lack the authority to undo these changes efficiently, as each edit needs to be reversed individually, and they are spread far apart. Thank you for your help. 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 07:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Rc ramz. Page protection requests should be made at WP:RFPP. The vandalism also appears isolated to a specific IP, which typically means it's better to warn the user for vandalism then report them to WP:AIV if necessary. We prefer to block an individual who's vandalizing as opposed to protect a page when there's only one vandal involved. However, it appears they have stopped for now, so it appears no further action is necessary at this point in time. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
