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.
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request the restoration of the Wikipedia page for Rituraj Kishore Sinha. I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines on notability and verifiability, and I would like to provide additional information and reliable sources to support the notability of Mr. Sinha.
Notability and Contributions:
Business Leadership:
Managing Director of SIS Group Enterprises: Mr. Sinha serves as the Group Managing Director of SIS Group Enterprises, a leading security services company in India. SIS India
Revenue Milestones: Under his leadership, SIS crossed the ₹10,000 crore annual revenue mark for the first time in FY22. Financial Express
Political Involvement:
BJP National Secretary: In July 2023, Mr. Sinha was appointed as the National Secretary of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), representing Bihar. Jagran
Industry Influence:
FICCI Leadership: He serves as the Chairperson for the private security sector at the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FICCI). OneIndia
Supporting References:
Economic Times: Coverage on Mr. Sinha's role and contributions in the security industry. Economic Times
Financial Express: Reports on SIS's financial achievements under his leadership. Financial Express
Jagran: Announcement of his appointment as BJP National Secretary. Jagran
Given the significant roles and contributions of Mr. Sinha in both the business and political arenas, I believe his notability is well-established. I kindly request the reconsideration of the deletion decision and the restoration of his Wikipedia page. If there are specific concerns or additional information required, please let me know, and I will be happy to provide further details.
Thank you, Josh, for your valuable contributions to Wikimedia. Your efforts are truly commendable, and editors like you are essential to the growth and success of Wikimedia. Cheers! Baqi:) (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
I was told by Sbaio that the above referenced template should be used. As such, it was added to the CFL, MLB, MLS, NBA, NFL, NHL, and WNBA pages. Assadzadeh (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Per Template:Official URL documentation This template is for use in infoboxes... and the rest what is written there. In addition, I am not sure why this particular editor is running around through various talk pages and making all the fuss. I am not interested. – sbaio15:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
@Sbaio: Thank you for the link. For what it's worth, it looks like {{Official website}} should also be acceptable for use in infoboxes. The main purpose of {{Official URL}} seems to be to pull the data from WikiData. Do you have any thoughts on the influence of "www." in the links in infoboxes? Personally I'm not a fan of it and, based on the usage of the two templates (~322k for official website vs ~15k for official URL), it seems to be used much more widely. I suspect this may have something to do with the ability to pipe with {{Official website}}. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
I would like to have a private conversation with you, but am not sure if your Talk page is the correct venue. Please advise. Assadzadeh (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
@Assadzadeh: Truthfully, I prefer most of my communication to be on site unless there's an explicit need for privacy. In most cases, asking questions or for clarifications, there is not. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
No problem! I like the general consistency of this, as I don't think most should fuss since it doesn't affect article content. (Unlike Gielgud/Richardson editors when people try to implement infoboxes. Haha, futile endeavors…) Especially glad you changed Ingrid Bergman's too—I forgot about hers, but that one irked my OCD because the title just kinda plunked. Sounds better now! --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk21:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
@Cinemaniac86: I'm a big believer that lists should follow the same naming scheme when they're about the same content, just with a different focus (person). I'm considering doing more RMs and sets of moves to further standardize things that have been mildly neglected. These things just sort of happen over time when no one is keeping an eye on it and people are trying to contribute constructively without realizing there's already existing naming schemes. Ah well, we can only do what we can do. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Sorry @Tarone Winstonn, I do not review pages upon request because if I did I'd be getting a lot of requests on my talk page for such. You're always welcome to go through the WP:AFC process if you want a second set of eyes on your work. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Contesting the speedy moves of pages like NBA championship–winning head coaches
As I explained on Category talk:NBA championship–winning players and on the editor's talk page who requested the moves, User talk:BittersweetParadox (who didnt answer my request), moving from "NBA championship-winning players" to the ndash "NBA championship–winning players" is improper English. Compound words like "championship-winning" always use a hyphen. I don't think there is any exception. Hyphens join words and ndashes separate words/phrases. And even when using ndashes (like 2024 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles) the ndash would have a space on either side. BittersweetParadox said in the speedy move that he wanted the categories to match "Category:NBA championship–winning head coaches" right here... well he failed to realize that the head coaches category was wrong to begin with. Please void all these moves and fix the original category. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): I cannot simply reverse the moves without discussion or sending them to WP:CFDS. I understand you tried to contest them, I see that now, but I believe the expectation would have been to contest it WP:CFDS. You're welcome to send them back to WP:CFDS with an explanation of this mistake, or to nominate them at WP:CFD. Truthfully, CFD is probably your best bet, since I believe they renamed at least a hundred plus categories that used this style. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
@Hey man im josh: Hmmm. Per speedy moves at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy it says, "If you belatedly notice and want to oppose a speedy move that has already been processed, contact one of the admins who process the Speedy page. If your objection seems valid, they may reverse the move, or start a full CFD discussion." So it does sound like you have the power to change them if you feel my argument is sound. Can't you talk to a couple other speedy-moving admins and see what they think about my argument? Then I don't have to bring up a new CFD. If it's against the rules of normal English and Wikipedia, it seems they may agree to the reversal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
That's all I ask. I don't really work on basketball articles so I have no skin in the game, but I recall some of these questions at tennis articles with titles like "US Open – Women's singles" or badminton articles like "Badminton at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's doubles" and I knew immediately this was a category bad move. If it wasn't me, someone would have eventually pointed this error out. I'm surprised the editor requesting the speedy move didn't since I explained it to them on their talk page, but they have made many edits since my post and ignored answering for reasons unknown to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I should have just pinged you right away about this, but would you mind looking into this @Ymblanter? I know I'm active at CFDS, but I don't actually process the requests personally, so I think your experience here would be useful. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
As a non-native English speaker, I have no opinion whether the dash is correct or wrong. In the past, I had users coming to my talk page asking to reverse a (recent) speedy move. When I found the objections valid, I would just add a bunch of categories back to speedy processing (bypassing CFDS), after which anybody is welcome to go to CFD. In exceptional cases, when there were a lot of categories, and it was clear CFD is inevitable anyway (like with LGBT categories) it could be advantageous to go straight to CFD with the understanding than no consensus outcome defaults to moving the categories back. Ymblanter (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Hey, Josh! I wanted to let you know that I unmarked Lino Tom as reviewed. Unfortunately, the creator has created many AI-generated articles, all of which appear to hallucinate dead references. I have now removed the dead references, which has left the article unreferenced. While Lino Tom is likely notable as a member of parliament, sources need to be added for verification. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.
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:
I noticed that you recently created a lot of redirects that were somehow deleted when an admin "nuked" the contributions of a sockpuppet. This seems like an unintended consequence. I have recreated a few of them but you created quite a few so I thought I'd alert you in case you wanted to restore them all. Just go into your Deleted contributions and you'll see them all listed. Sorry for all of this unnecessary work. I still am unsure how they were caught up in this mass
deletion of sock pages. I hope you have a great weekend though! LizRead!Talk!08:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Just to elaborate a bit further, it has to do with requests made by socks of TotalTruthTeller24. One of the ways they get around the redirects they want to create being deleted is to request them at WP:AFC/R. I'm actually pretty familiar with them and, frankly, I should have known better when I was processing requests. I was just absent minded, and I do support the deletion of those redirects and deleted many of them myself. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Hello there,
Sorry to interject but I had a hand in dealing with the AFC redirect requests and I must object strongly to this mass deletion. Other reviewers (including yourself) and I found them to be independently valid and therefore created them. It’s illogical to delete redirects simply for who the requester (not creator) was. By the logic presented in the past, I could simply recreate every single redirect and they would suddenly be acceptable. This seems like a “cutting off your nose to spite your face” situation. Why spend a bunch of time taking destructive action simply because someone who the community has labeled as “bad” happened to be involved in the original contributions? Please consider restoring some or all of the redirects. Garsh (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
@Garsh2: I personally had what looks like 361 redirects deleted, most of which I deleted myself, some of which were deleted by Ponyo. Truth be told, I followed @Ponyo's lead, who has much more experience in dealing with socks. Though I wouldn't have started the deletes off myself, I disagree that it's illogical and I do actually agree with Ponyo in this case. The idea is to discourage the sock because they're getting what they wanted by evading the block and requesting that others edit on the blocked user's behalf. Frankly I'm more annoyed at myself that I didn't catch what was happening sooner, I know better, I know that user's behaviour, but I was in autopilot of sorts. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
I understand the argument behind discouraging the socks, but I don’t think it actually happens that way as this seems to be a repeated issue. To me, a contribution is either constructive or it’s not and deleting things that are constructive is simply destructive. Since this is a multi admin thing, I’ll bring it to the admin noticeboard for others to comment. Garsh (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
@Garsh2: I really think we could have waited for Ponyo to chime in and give their input. As mentioned, I was just helping Ponyo with a task they were working on. At the end of the day, discussion typically is far more beneficial and constructive than a noticeboard, and by going to the notice board, you're prematurely you're feeding the trolls. Never the less, it's there already, so it is what it is. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
To be blunt, I'm actually pretty upset this went right to WP:AN instead of allowing a conversation to actually finish. Very disappointed we couldn't continue the discussion here until we actually hit a road block and, for all we know, maybe Ponyo / I would have reverted what had happened. Instead, now I have the stress of a noticeboard discussion over my head. Consider allowing discussions to run their course @Garsh2. Things don't happen in less than six hours all the time. There was no reason for the rush before we even hit a point where the discussion was going nowhere. Now this discussion doesn't matter at all, so I guess that's that. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
I did not intend to jump the shark, upset anybody, or feed any trolls, but this relates to an issue that has been ongoing for months. This is a broader issue and I am confident it is not something that can be resolved here. Nobody is attacking you or Ponyo and in fact, I made sure to clarify in the post that it wasn’t something I was doing. I’m posting about the (lack of) policy, not the redirects were deleted in specific. You don’t even have to view that discussion, as nobody is accusing you of doing anything wrong. Garsh (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Chiming in late, but this isn't just a situation where a sock is tricking editors into violating WP:PROXYING. TotalTruthTeller24's entire M.O is to create redirects with one sock, then create problematic articles on their pet subjects by having another sock overwrite the redirect with the same type of content that led them to sock in the first place. They're creating a walled-garden of characters from comic book, manga and anime and are extremely prolific in doing so. Usually they're caught quickly when they create the redirects themselves, but obviously discovered they were more likely to go under the radar if they have a trusted editor at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects create the redirect before they create a new sock to overwrite it. This needs to be shut down as soon as it's detected and the proxied redirects deleted, and policy and the community supports the deletions. -- Ponyobons mots20:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
I need some guidance, can you help
This is related to a page I have created, Anil Lamba. I created it without enough references and it was tagged for notability. But, then I have improved it. Do you think someone will help remove the tag, or how the process would be? How can i request for the tag to be removed? Please, guide. I know you will always be there to reply. Thank you for your kindness. take care. thanks. IQR (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much for telling me what to do with categories in my sandbox.
I really hope I my mistake didn't cause any problems and I thank you for your patience. I find the nuts and bolts of Wikipedia very Very VERY CONFUSING. I've tried reading the help pages but after being confused by enough walls of text that refer me to other confusing walls of text as an explanation of the first confusing walls of text I just gave up. I mean, I've been on the verge of tears. That was just silly. It was time to push away from the keyboard for a good bit. I keep coming back because the people here I've interacted with always uphold Wikipedia standards of not biting newbies and being very kind.
So I really, really don't want to cause problems or extra work for admins or patrollers and I will continue to try my best to avoid that. However, I think I'm going to be a newbie for a long time. Wikipedia's nuts and bolts have taught me I'm not the brightest button in the box. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
It's so minor I'd hardly even call it a mistake @Oona Wikiwalker! Wikipedia is indeed confusing to many, myself included sometimes. That's why we have reports to help out with things. All we can do is do our best, listen to those who approach us about issues, and keep going forward. You're doing fine, don't stress having the categories enabled in your draft, it's extremely common until people learn about it. As a brief explanation of why we disable them, it's because we don't want to pollute categories that are meant for articles with items that are still being drafted. Again, no biggy, just something some of us help out with from time to time :) Hey man im josh (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Then add sources to the article that support that name and make the more @Namoroka. At the time of the move, nothing there supported your change and an edit summary which just says "preferred spelling" doesn't help to explain that. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
That's my fault. I was primarily editing on Wikidata and Commons, then I was going to add more content to here later on.--Namoroka (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I understand you enjoy to redirect everything into everything. I got that and I can't stop you, not in mood to start long discussions. but putting categories into them is something I can't understand. you reverted some of my edits about Karate at the Asian Games categories. Wikipedia:Redirect says Redirects are not usually sorted to article categories with few exceptions. I can't see this applies to any of those exceptions. probably you say that's Subtopic categorization but by my understanding that applies to something like this Figure skating at the 2002 Winter Olympics. there is a subsection for every single event but about this Karate at the 1998 Asian Games there is no section about any of those events, nothing except the medalists names. as I said I'm not in mood to start long discussions. just want to know why you are doing this. Sports2021 (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
@Sports2021: Alright, well, if you want to keep it short, I don't see a reason not to sort these redirects into categories, they fit the criteria at WP:ACATR. It's standard practice for sub topics a lot of the time and that portion of WP:Redirect is most likely referring to things such as typos, alternative names, etc. , Hey man im josh (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
how come they fit that criteria? they clearly do not. looking at this , those pages are all redirected to the main page which is also in the same category. Again I have to say this says the opposite of what you said. you have to find a reason to categorize them, not doing this because you see no reason against it. Sports2021 (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
@Sports2021: It certainly does not say the opposite. On the page you linked see WP:SUBTOPICCAT. Consistency with established category a clear reason to categorize sorting regarding topics and sub topics is a valid reason to categorize redirects, and it's quite standard. You're welcome to patrol new redirects, as I do, if you want to see just how common this is. You may also want to implement something that highlights redirects in different colours, as I do (shown at User:Hey man im josh/common.css) which would highlight the frequency and normalcy of this. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
You would move the page to main space to remove the "Draft:" prefix, see WP:Moving a page. However, I do not currently recommend that @AbchyZa22. The page needs work on the references used and could use more references. I suggest working on the draft further and pressing the "submit" button at the top to get more feedback from dedicated draft reviewers. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:59, 10 December 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:
I left a note at User talk:Brendanconway/Archive 2#Stale PP requesting a 2013 indef PP be reviewed. He has failed to respond, despite contributing prose several/many times, a few thousand bytes.
As your name appears in the section immediately above (the wikilink), would you be able to remove protection? I could use an {{edit protected}} request, but I feel there is insufficient reason to justify such long-standing protection. Thanks, (Steve ).-- 82.13.47.210 (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi Josh. Thank you for your recommendations. I have already edited the articles with sufficient citations from reputable sources. Can you help me getting it published? Padreburgos2020 (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I read the AFD and looked at the headings of the participants without reading the rationales in detail, and then started to write my Endorse. After I had written it and before I had posted it, I saw that you said almost the same things, including that the draftification gives the proponents longer to find sources than a Relist would. So I didn't say As Per, but have wound up saying almost the same thing as you did. Maybe that is more of an argument than saying As Per would be. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
@CharlesEditor23: As discussed on your user talk page, you continued to edit war for your preferred version after multiple admins told you to start a discussion, and after a different admin than myself gave you a final warning about such behaviour. Based on the litany of messages and warnings on your talk page, as well as your blocks for edit warring on templates, it's clear this is a long term issue that you've failed to address. Frankly I wouldn't have been unreasonable to block. Learn to start discussions and perhaps it won't be unreasonable to grant you back the permission. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I just did start a new talk page message at WT:NFL. I don't know why every time I try to start a new talk page message to discuss it, I get ignored. Why are you ignoring me? How am I supposed to ask right for a comment? CharlesEditor23 (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
OK. I'm sorry for WP:Editwarring with you over the wiki-code formatting. I'm also sorry for attacking you. How long must I wait before I can re-apply for template editor rights again? I've tried to start a discussion at WT:NFL. Did you see it? I'm not trying to be intentionally dense or obtuse; I know what I have to do. Please tell me it's possible I can have the template editor rights again? I know I screwed up. What else do you want me to say? CharlesEditor23 (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Did you see the thread I created at WT:NFL? If you have a moment, would you please comment? Also, what do I need to do or say to have my template editor rights restored? CharlesEditor23 (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I was the first person to reply to the thread @CharlesEditor23. You're doing better about explaining the intents at this point in time, but I'm concerned that if you were re-granted the permission you'd go right back to the old habits / issues. I have zero doubt you're trying to be constructive, but you've been having similar issues for years now. For instance, I see several other admins over the years on your talk page about issues, most notably issues brought up by @Eagles247. Nobody wants you gone, but it's a very frustrating thing when you have plowed ahead and made some bold changes that shouldn't have been so bold. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
@CharlesEditor23: Would you be upset if I suggested you keep at it with discussions for a couple months, then ask for it back? I don't think that would be unreasonable, and the requested edit functionality exists for the specific pages you may need to edit with the permission. It would show you've gotten better at communicating intent and the purpose of such edits, while also giving them a chance to be contested. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
No. If that's what it takes to get it back, then so be it. At this point, though, that's the only discussion I can think of that I'm engaged in, but who knows? Maybe more discussions will happen in the future. CharlesEditor23 (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I applaud you for your patience, Hey man im josh, but as far as I can see, nothing with Charles' behavior in the last four years has changed for the better. They get template editor removed, they go along with making discussion threads where they repeat the same thing over and over again and then change their mind a day later, implement the consensus changes, and then after convincing another unsuspecting admin to give them the template editor right again, go back to edit warring a month later. The username changes and threatening retirement is a new development, however. As I said four months ago on Gonzo's talk page, I would support a community ban and I think the latest problematic behavior should convince the rest of the community. Eagles24/7(C)19:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
"They"? Well, I guess challenge accepted then. Time for me to show improvement. Whatever it takes to avoid a community ban. If you have a problem with my editing behavior, then please bring it up with me on my talk page. But I'm going to show y'all I've changed and I'm going to show y'all I won't make any future edits without discussion first. CharlesEditor23 (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
@Eagles247: You could choose to pursue a ban now, but I think at a minimum, @CharlesEditor23 is aware now (if not before) of the negative perception they have garnered, and seems to be treating this as a last warning. —Bagumba (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
@Bagumba: I already took them to ANI in August 2020 over similar behavior, where they promised if given one more chance to learn that it will stick this time. They said the same in their request to regain the template editor userright in October 2020, and again in February 2021 when they were given back the userright. They were blocked five times from 2015 to 2017 for edit warring, disruptive editing, and personal attacks. If things were to ever change they would have years ago. Charles, there are currently six discussions I started on your talk page about implementing changes to templates without consensus or general disruption, is it really necessary to add a seventh when the first six didn't change anything? Eagles24/7(C)15:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
@Eagles247: Sorry it's taken so long to respond, but no, there does not need to be a seventh discussion on my talk page about implementing changes to templates without achieving WP:Consensus or general disruption. I've gotten the message. Also, it's my mission to prove to you specifically that not only am I capable of change, but that I intend on changing my editing behavior. Experience is the best teacher, and this whole experience over the 14+ years I have edited on Wikipedia has taught me that I simply cannot impose my wishes against the established consensus or against objections raised by other editors without consequences. No further need to impose a community ban against me. I will prove to you that that is not necessary. I will also prove to you that I am responsible and knowledgeable enough to have the WP:TPE right again, whatever it takes. CharlesEditor23 (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I saw that you reviewed the page Cupra Kiro which is a redirect. I wanted to ask if that page could be deleted because it's not used anywhere and it is unneccesary. In articles related to Formula E that use it, Cupra Kiro is linked separately like CupraKiro. Cupra is a car company and is supposed to be linked separately like shown above. I'm not sure why Sendanlang redirected Kiro Race Co to Cupra Kiro, but it was unnecessary. It would be more confusing to have this redirect exist and for it to just go to Kiro Race Co and not have Cupra be present. SteeledDock541 (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
@SteeledDock541: We don't delete redirects just because they're not linked anywhere. Often times, a redirect is a possible useful search terms in some circumstances. If you want the redirect to be deleted, which I'm not sure is entirely unuseful (though you may know more than me on the subject), you'd have to nominate it for deletion at WP:RFD. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Hey Josh, I wrote my first article recently about the Aharoni-Korman conjecture and it got drafted, I was just wondering what I needed to do to make it an appropriate article? Something I'm quite interested in so I'd be happy to write more it's just difficult writing math on wikipedia. Thanks. Roblewi (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
You are welcome to make changes, specifically adding relevant citations, and either move the page back to main space or press the "Submit for review" button to have someone review the draft and give feedback. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks for cleaning up those two pages I redirected and did not totally wipe. They were my first go after it was suggested instead of PRODing and I must have failed to select all the text. Hopefully it won't happen again. Best wishes. Shrug02 (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Quangminhvilla, one of the editor on Wikipedia. I hear that you are one of the admins on Wikipedia, so I want to ask you for help. In the few months before, the article 2023 AFC Asian Cup had an user name RealLifed was vandalism the article so many. Since the 2019 AFC Asian Cup, there was no third place match. But he always edited the third and the fourth ranking on the 2023 article, which lead to many user have to reverted the article many times. He always said that the reason was he used it from the AFC website, although there was no source about it. I have already gave him a warning for this, but he said threatly for me and always said by using CAPSLOCK to tell many user when they said to him politely. I think this user not only used incorrectly sources but he also one of the dangerous user that threaten anyone. So this message today is can you help me block this user please? Because if anyone warning to him about it, he will not change and still violated to them. Thank you for reading this message. Hope you have a good time during this week. Quangminhvilla (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
@DoctorWhoFan91: While perhaps the redirect itself is bigoted, I do suspect it could be a possible search term for some who are ignorant. We have to toe a fine line sometimes (in terms of inflammatory redirects) and I fully accept that I may be wrong about the acceptability of this redirect. I thought it to be a relevant search term for such bigots who would then, hopefully, learn about the actual condition of gender dysphoria. I wouldn't be upset if you wanted to see what WP:RFD thought of this by sending it there though. It could be an opportunity for me to recalibrate and retune what I view as the line. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
You left me a message about this and I have responded. Do you still think this should be deleted? If so, what more is needed, please? NeroSpicy (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
@NeroSpicy: Nothing, we let the discussion run its course and for those who are uninvolved to weigh in. Then an uninvolved person will close the discussion after determining consensus based on the weight of arguments made. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
What is the key to the symbols? I am looking at the parentheses and don't understand their meaning. Example: parentheses and numbers by all of the teams in the second round. Thanks! Rossidor (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks and sorry for contacting you in error. I had trouble finding the talk page of the article and will look closer - have a great day. Rossidor (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Izno (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Hey @Crouch, Swale. Well that's annoying... I don't object to any move you have in mind, but ugh, it just feels awful to do "south Cumbria" when "South Cumbria" isn't a proper place. Blech. Thanks a lot for merging counties with so many identical names! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I'll defer to you in this case, I don't feel any option is particularly better than another, including reverting to the previous name (which I won't object to). Hey man im josh (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for checking my redirects
Thanks for checking my redirects. wait how do you do it? how do you check redirects? is it just redirects because when I made a new page I didn't get a message saying it was checked? so are there different people to check pages and redirects? I don't think ill ever wanna do it though, what if make a mistake and allow a bad redirect or a bad page to exist and it stays on wikipedia for years, im just cerous/wondering how you do it. Anthony2106 (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Anthony2106. Admins (of which I am one) and members of the WP:New Page Reviewer (NPR) user group have the option to mark pages as reviewed. I see that the article you mention, Angeline (Heartbreak High), has not yet been marked as reviewed, which is why you haven't received a message about it. All of the NPR members have the option to patrol redirects and articles, but each reviewer has their own interests and focuses and there's no requirement that they focus on anything specific. I myself prefer to patrol redirects, as it's often pretty easy to say "well this makes sense, I'll mark it as reviewed", whereas I typically have to do a bit more work for article reviews (not that I don't do them, I've done over 4,000 this year). As for a mistake, well, that happens to all of us. All we can do is our best, skip pages we're not comfortable marking as reviewed, and ask questions when we're unsure. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
You think my new page would of made it past articles for creation if I made it a draft?, I think it would because its just a episode, but I was worried it wouldn't so just made it directly, I thought to myself "if its longer then other page its fine" The Yellow Lotus was way shorter when made. Also if my page is never approved does it get deleted? Anthony2106 (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
I gotta be honest @Anthony2106, episode articles are not my forte and I don't typically review those. With that said, the length of the pages are not typically the primary concern, but what determines notability will typically be the sources available. For articles, if the page is never marked as reviewed it simply stays in the new page queue. For redirects, they're removed from the queue after six months. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
@user:Hey man im josh You know the redirect I made: Mental heath conditions well I didn't realize till after but its slightly pointless because it has a "s" at the end and I ended up not even using it. Do you think redirects with an "s" at the end are pointless? Also I vandled one time, you think this will stop me form becoming an admin? Anthony2106 (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
@Anthony2106: I think possible search terms, which include the pluralized versions of words, are helpful. They're certainly not making Wikipedia worse with their existence. As for adminship, that's likely a couple years away at minimum, but a vandalism edit early in isn't a disqualifying factor so long as it stopped and you build a good body of work afterwords. We all make mistakes. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
@Dclemens1971: You absolutely are. I've openly discussed my issues with Joe's views, and POV pushing, regarding draftification. I think his approach, which leads to more deletions, is far bitier to newcomers than sending something to draft space and saying, "hey, this needs a bit of work". He's actually convinced me of the importance of draftifying, and I've been doing it even more because of that. His views have pushed a number of good people away from NPP and I find it quite frustrating because I genuinely care. Unfortunately that led me to make those comments at PERM which frankly don't belong there and should have been made elsewhere, but I don't think that's how we should be teaching people or changing NPP's approach, with comments at PERM. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Josh what are you talking about? The discussion above is not even about draftifications. Dclemens1971 made a number of criticisms of another editor at PERM which I believe were unfair and so I responded to them at PERM, to reassure the editor that they were criticising that they were not doing a bad job.
And can I for the second time this afternoon remind you that, while nobody can stop you shit-talking people on Discord, when you comment on Wikipedia you must abide by our conduct policies, which means providing evidence when casting aspersions such as that an newbie reviewer has been reviewing badly,[1] or that my "views expressed are typically done so at the wrong venues and not discussed / adopted at the relevant NPP talk pages",[2] that I am "POV pushing" or that I have "pushed a number of good people away from NPP".
@Joe Roe: Josh what are you talking about? The discussion above is not even about draftifications. Uhhh....? I'm responding to a comment on my talk page that mentioned their usage of draftification. Do you see where they said "Good to know I'm operating in consensus in my use of draftification."? That, that's what I'm talking about.
You are an admin now. Set a better example. Take me to admin recall if you see fit. It's not a crime to forget to come back to a message lol. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I know you're not stupid, so what exactly is the point of pretending that you think the issue with your admin conduct here is "forget[ting] to come back to a message lol" and not you repeatedly casting aspersions on me and other editors? – Joe (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Sorry @Joe Roe, but I'm not really interested in discussing this further if you refuse to WP:AGF of others. I have a lot going on and it's not unreasonable to believe I legitimate forgot to come back to the discussion until I was pinged to it. I do not wish to waste time on conversations if they are not going to be constructive. As for the aspersions you believe were cast towards the applicant, I specifically stated that I hadn't (yet) had time to investigate them, but wanted to note them. It's not unreasonable to request a thorough review of an applicant. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
PS, if you want to accuse someone else of aspersions, perhaps you should consider checking yourself about it? You have, twice today, cast aspersions regarding Discord[3][4], something you have a very thorough history of doing.[5][6][7]Hey man im josh (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
Hello Hey man im josh, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing,
— Benison (Beni · talk) 18:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I did see that! I believe, from the start of them showing that talk page to the end, it was about 20 minutes. They had my signature on screen for most of it as well and I was amused at how they said my name (which I liked and hope others think of as a good way to say it). I did start celebrating when they mentioned sub sandwiches and they support the idea that hot dogs are sandwiches. Those girls are alright in my books! Hey man im josh (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Happy Christmas
Merry Christmas, Hey man im josh! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969TT me23:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks so much @Onel5969! Your work is, as always, greatly appreciated and has a greater impact than you typically get credit for. I've always, and will always, greatly appreciate everything that you do, even if you've moved on from where I first noticed you :) Hey man im josh (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Happy holidays!
Happy holidays and a prosperous 2025!
The Lions's logo is not freely licensed, so you get an actual lion instead.
Josh, thank you for all your help removing some after checking at WP:CFDW over the past year. It is really appreciated :) Beyond that, your work recruiting for NPP and the amount of WP:FLs you have written over the past year are great. Crucially, you wrote List of New England Patriots first-round draft picks, which this Patriots's fan appreciates. (28–3!) Wishing you and yours the best a great 2025, and happy holidays! HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
@HouseBlaster thank you so much for the kind words! They mean a lot coming from one of my favourite new admins and I'm grateful for the recognition as well as all the great work that you do :) Hey man im josh (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the sandbox categories, I usually try to remember to do that (and comment out the PP template) but I forget sometimes. Is there a template or something I can put at the top of the page to always disable them? I know thete is draft cat but that also needs to be reapplied each time. The times I forget after when my computer is playing up I paste any unified edits to sandbox, but I forget to follow up the details after I reboot, so if there's something I can put in the sandbox header that would be ideal? Does the standard sandbox header do that? (Tag in reply please) Industrial Metal Brain (talk)
This page will be placed in the following categories if it is moved to the article namespace.
Hey @Industrial Metal Brain, I'm not aware of anything that does it automatically, no. I personally do prefer the draft cat template you've shared though. That automatically applies the categories once they're in main space, which is great. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
But does it work if I paste it into main space? Or only if I move it? I use that on actual drafts, but most of the things I forget to follow up on after a reboot are alternate versions of existing pages. I try to paste them onto text editors or Google docs sometimes, but then they often acquire curley quotes or weird line breaks etc. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
@Industrial Metal Brain: I'm sorry, I'm not actually sure what I meant when I said that... Either way, if you have that draft category template there and move the page to main space, the categories will automatically be enabled. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Hey @Industrial Metal Brain, sorry, I'm catching up on talk page messages I missed. I believe I meant to suggest removing the draft category template. The categories will be enabled in main space, once the article is there, but the template will still be applied. It's more an issue of semantics, and technically not actually a problem at all, but more of a general suggestion. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
@Hey man im josh. Sorry I missed this notification. My current system is to blank my user pages unless I'm actively working on them. If I do that then the categories and protection templates are not active in the wrong place, but I also don't accidentally remove or inactivate them when I paste a draft back to main? I save the draft, so it's in the history, then blank it almost immediately, then I undo the blank when I get back to it. Does this work the way I think it does? I think it solves all the problems? Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 03:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!
Hello Hey man im josh, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing,
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
.jpg)
