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.
For your many great contributions to Wikipedia. I was just looking at the top of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits and did a double take when I saw you at 294th with 184,453 edits - I mean, how? (Yet I'm at a mere 26,894, placing me 4,130th :)) In just the past two months you've exceeded my entire career edit count, so here's a barnstar! BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I mean, how? Largely with semi-automated tools and actions that result in 3-4 edits per action (CSD tagging - 3, page moves - 4 or more sometimes per move). Thank you so much for the kind words @BeanieFan11. I know I don't have to tell you, but I always like to mention that edit count is meaningless. I believe you've contributed more to the site than I have, and I'm very grateful for it. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Hey @Qwerfjkl, hope you've been well. I was on the fence but I saw a scenario where those were possible search terms and felt as though it was a relevant location for a redirect to point to. They made sense to me, but I also subscribe to the philosophy that redirects are cheap and I wanted to clear out some of the requests that had been piling up. I trust your judgement on this, so I'll A7 them if you'd like, but I'd like to hear where you think the line should be for redirects from a person to a related article in which they are mentioned. I know the line is difficult to define, but if I'm making mistakes and need to adjust my perspective a bit I'd appreciate any sort of feedback. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
That was helpful to read and it's more or less where my mind is at. I don't believe there are better possible targets and I do believe they are possible search terms, so I will leave them for the time being. Thanks for reaching out about this. It's always helpful to consider these types of things. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Hey @Db 01824: I was on the fence about it so I'll move it back. I may revisit it at a later point in time but I'll do so by method of a move discussion next time. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah that might be best. So far I'm finding it both capitalized and uncapitalized in sources for most squads named simply by team name. ESPN seem to uncap it, so an independent source that supports common noun. That said, I have researched this only very briefly. --DB1729talk13:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, there's definitely a mix of sourses out there for various capitalizations. It'll go on my "to investigate / do later" list. Thanks for reaching out with your concern @DB1729. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Un reviewed or reviewed?
Dear User, thank you for your important contributions, but may I ask you why?
and same hour, 12:33 Hey man im josh marked 2022–23 Australian Athletics Championships as reviewed.
Even if this article is still incomplete (no women results yet) I think that these championships could be considered as reviewed. Am I wrong? Arorae (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
@Arorae: That wasn't just the same hour, it was the same minute. I did not want to personally have marked it as reviewed because the events have been completed but the women's table was largely incomplete. While I do believe the article would survive at AfD, if sent there, it's a personal preference of mine not to mark an incomplete past event's article as reviewed. Not a big deal, but I'm sorry to have inconvenienced and/or confused you with this action. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
As I wrote twice the time “12:33”, it looks more like the very same “second” not hour. (I wrote “hour” by mistake, my English is not very good). Of course, I do also believe that this article will not be sent at AfD or Draft space, but unfortunately it already happened. As previously said it is incomplete but very accurate on the men’s results - as I have checked every athlete and his result one by one. Arorae (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
@Arorae: I think your English is better than you're giving yourself credit for. I also believe the article is accurate for the men's table. It's just that I don't like to mark articles as reviewed when they are from past events and they are incomplete. I wouldn't mark the article as unreviewed if someone else marked it as reviewed, but when I did so with that article I immediately realized I went against my own practices. If you finish the women's table I'd be more than happy to mark it as reviewed. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks again for your explanations and compliments. But it took me too much time to complete the men’s section only and if anyone else wants to finish the women’s section, I will be quite happy too. But I will not. I am not even an Australian and there is so much work to do just for athletics, especially these months with new results at every hour. As you said, those championships were held last April, and very few fans seem to be interested in. My pleasure by the way. Arorae (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
You've got mail
Hello, Hey man im josh. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
"Unreliable Sources" on Texas Gubernatorial Election Articles???
I don't understand why you marked my pages regarding Texas gubernatorial elections from 1910-1922 as having "unreliable sources." They are double sourced from OurCampaigns and the Texas Almanac. I don't really know what more you're asking for here. Would like an explanation Trajan1 (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
@Trajan1: I only marked 1916 Texas gubernatorial election as having unreliable sources, not the other articles in that range. I did so because Our Campaigns is considered generally unreliable due to its publishing of user-generated content. A non-exhaustive list of Wikipedia's assessment of sources can be found at WP:RSPSS. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Understood. Thank you for explanation. I just added references to Texas Almanac on the articles, and they match. Thank you for keeping me honest. Trajan1 (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Can you explain the nuance of how there are two different dashes? I see that one is slightly longer than the other but for the life of me I can't create the long one... My keyboard yields "-"... Copy pasting what my keyboard yields gets me "-"... and copy pasting from the "long" version gets me "-" which is as far as I can tell the exact same as the other two. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Hey @Horse Eye's Back: Are you familiar with alt codes? You can hold down the alt key on your keyboard, type the numbers 0150, then let go of the alt key to get the en dash. If you're asking why I used that dash, I did so because it's meant to be used for relationships and connections between two things. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
The en dash is the short one and the em dash is the long one. You replaced an en dash with an em dash not the other way around. I originally thought we were talking about two different ways to denote an en dash, it never crossed my mind that you might be trying to insert an em dash. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Is there supposed to be a difference between them over all versions? Wikipedia appears to be rendering the two dashes identically in the browser version and in the mobile viewer all three are rendered identically. And in the edit function all three are rendered identically both places, go look in the edit view... The three versions are the exact same length down to the pixel. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Edit view also seems to render the minus sign the same way or to put it another way I think it might be rendering everything as a minus sign in edit view. Anyways that for me clears it up, there is some sort of coding for the different signs but it can't be seen in the visual representation of the data in edit mode. Something to bring up at a specialized forum, not to waste more of your talk page on. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
This award is given to Hey man im josh for collecting more than 2000 points doing redirect reviews, in the May 2023 NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions . Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
The Content Review Medal of Merit
This award is given to Hey man im josh for collecting the most points doing redirect reviews, in the May 2023 NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Unnecessarily complicated Gears Award
This award is given to Hey man im josh for collecting more than 600 points per week doing reviews, in the May 2023 NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.
Technical news
Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.
Arbitration
The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.
Hi, I see you have nominated me for Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect autopatrol list. Can I have some context about what this is? Dont get me wrong, I am more than willing to take more work here, In fact I am looking for stuff. Could you explain to me, perhaps point me to somewhere that can explain what this specific role is? >>> Extorc.talk17:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Hey @Extorc. The goal of the nomination I made is actually to reduce the work of the New Page Patrol team, not to ask anybody to put work in. Per WP:RWHITELIST, "This autopatrol list is designed to grant a pseudoright to users who have a track record of creating redirects but do not qualify for autopatrolled. Users with autopatrolled do not need this pseudoright and should not be included on this list. Users on this list may have their created redirects patrolled by a bot."
In short, you have a decent history when it comes to creating redirects so I nominated you to be on a list of people. Redirects created by people on that list are automatically marked as reviewed every 15 minutes (normally) by a bot. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
@Bringingthewood if only I could claim responsibility. Alas, I gave up my pyromantic hobbies once I became an adult. Now that I'm an adult I do adult things, which includes me going to get a new furnace filter in an hour since apparently I'm going to have to keep my windows shut. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
LOL!! Seems like my thinking wasn't that far off! I always knew the Bronx was burning ... but this is ridiculous.
I wish you luck with your furnace filter and stay safe. Regards, Bringingthewood (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
I see you just reviewed one of my redirects at Country Bear Vacation Hoedown. I've never seen this before and I'm curious what happened to get me on your radar. Was it flagged for some reason? I do a lot of redirects, but this is new territory. Was it something to do w/ the IP that's been fighting the edit? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Hey @Just Another Cringy Username. The redirect appeared in the new page queue, which I regularly patrol. Looking at the page history, this happened because the page was converted from a redirect to an article and then back again. When a page is change from a redirect to an article, or vice versa, it's automatically placed in the queue that members of the New Page Patrol team review. I marked it as reviewed because the redirect target made sense. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for all your reviewing, and I’ve also installed Capricorn ♑️ so that you guys don’t have to do the categorising yourself. Fork99 (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
It was an intentional secret code! Okay not really, I was editing while talking to someone and missed a bit. Thanks for the clarifier :) -- Euryalus (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Complete agree with this nomination. Created when I was a newer user and it's absolutely an arbitrary category. G7 tagged and archiving. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing the additional content and citations for Colin Leonard's article. I really appreciate it! When will the "article for deletion" be removed from the top of his article?
Hey @Landplane123: All articles sent to AfD are marked as reviewed by the New Page Patrol team as a matter of procedure. The articles for deletion information at the top of the article must remain there until the deletion discussion has concluded. Articles listed at AfD are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.
Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.
Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.
You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.
Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).
Reminders
Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Thanks for reviewing all of those redirect, Josh! So many redirects are created, I didn't previously know that reviewers checked them out. That's good news! LizRead!Talk!00:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
You know I ask before reading .... but is the 100 sack club gone? Never saw so many watchlist players show up in one day.
Besides I need someone to send a message back to me, so I know it still works. :)
Bringingthewood (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Hey @Bringingthewood. Yes, the category has been deleted. It was a category I created when I was a new user and it was nominated for deletion. I agreed with the nominator's rationale (WP:ARBITRARYCAT) and I tagged it with a G7 CSD tag. The category was deleted and I removed the category from the relevant pages. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
That sucks! Nah, I don't agree, I never would have done that to you, lol. Besides, I've been rooting for T. J. Watt since 2017 to reach that mark.
Let's put it back when he gets there! ; )
Thank you for responding, now I know it works. I guess a few editors don't like me. Oh well.
I'm rooting for TJ to get there too. Don't sweat it if others dislike you as long as you're working in good faith and within policy. There's always going to be disagreements but just keep working at it. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Cool. If he stays healthy he'll do it. And yes, I agree, it is all in good faith. Reminds me of when I was with Answers.com, but I have to be much more patient, lol.
I'll let you go. Thanks again! Bringingthewood (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi! Hope this finds you well. I had removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} template from Huijuan when it was draftified per a question I asked on WT:PROD. I was told that the tag should be removed because it is a draft. I see that per WP:DRAFTIFY you have moved it back to article space as the draftification was out of process. Should the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag be restored to the page? I ask as if it were to not be the page essentially removed itself from being eligible for PROD/soft deletion via draftifying out of process, but would not normally be eligible as a page that has been DePROD'd is said to have a controversial deletion. TartarTorte01:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Hey @TartarTorte. That's a situation I haven't come across until now, so that's a tough question and might be better suited for an admin. I supposed my interpretation would be that the deletion was contested in the form of of the original page creator moving the page to draft space to avoid deletion. Based on WP:DEPROD, there are very few situations where it's appropriate to re-add a PROD tag, even if the PROD tag was removed in bad faith. Based on that I'd say re-adding the PROD tag would not have been appropriate. Looks like it's at AfD now though. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Makes sense. It does seem like WP:PROD errs pretty heavily on the side of any removal of tags being a way of saying the deletion is not noncontroversial. Seems to be moot for this as it's at AfD as you noted, but thanks for the reply nonetheless. Cheers! TartarTorte13:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello IP user. I've noticed you've made some significant contributions, thank you for that by the way, and I wanted to encourage you to register an account. It would allow users to better communicate with you and for the good work you've done to be recognized as yours. It would also allow you to create articles directly in the article space, bypassing AfC in the process.
I'm sorry though, I don't take requests to review specific articles. Someone from the team will review them at their earliest convenience. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I could be wrong as I've only just learned about overcategorization on Wikipedia but I think that might a bit excessive. Bob3458 (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, this has been explained to you multiple times, and an ANI thread has now been started (not by me). Meters (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Well I have autism and because of that I sometimes need things explained to me in a different way that I can understand better. So far I haven’t got that.
I didn’t realise until recently that I was overcategorization and I had no ill intentions so I just want to understand it better. Bob3458 (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Greetings. FYI, the edits which you have been reverting look awfully familiar. Our old friend hadn't been seen in forever due to the indef-semi which had been on the article, but now that it's been lifted, the article merits closer attention. Recommend WP:RBI if they persist rather than continuing to engage. Thanks. --Finngalltalk19:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Regarding Hartford High School, admins are much more quicker to take action if you use Twinkle to select CSD>G6 Move and add the name of the page that you want to move to main space. Providing a link is helpful but I think most admins would prefer to delete and do the move themselves. Thank you for all of your work on the project. LizRead!Talk!01:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip Liz. Looking at my logs I see that I tagged it as db-afc-move, which was appropriate. In my experience you are right though, G6 db-move does end up getting responded to more quickly. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
By the way, what do you think of all of these draft articles on a "MIMINO Song Contest" that you tagged for deletion earlier today? They've since been restored. But the only evidence I can find online for this international contest is an Instagram account. I warned the editor, who is devoted to creating these articles, that they won't get into main space if they can't prove that this elaborate, multi-year event actually exists. Maybe you are better at online sleuthing than I am but I imagined a production this big would be on the first page of Google search for MIMINO Song Contest. Thanks. LizRead!Talk!19:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Hey @Liz. I don't believe the competition is significant or notable. These appear to be Instagram based contests hosted by an account found here which has about 1,500 followers. From some quick research, it appears that Ashot Fahradian, the primary author of these articles, is actually the one who runs these contest (fandom wiki mentions this). The Instagram page also shares screenshots of and links to Draft:42nd MIMINO Song Contest. One of these contests has made it to main space in the past and the deletion discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37th MIMINO Song Contest. After looking into this, it feels pretty clear that the contest is not notable and it's someone attempting to push their own product. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Gebrayelichthys
This is very easily missed, but Gebrayelichthys wasn't technically unsourced: Nursall & Capasso, 2004 in the infobox is a citation to the paper that first described it (an incomplete one, but still enough to locate it) and one or two of the taxon identifiers at the bottom link to reliable sources. Just something to look out for with taxon stubs. – Joe (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Hey @Joe Roe: Perhaps this is something I shouldn't do, but I typically haven't treated links in a a taxon identifier navbox as sources. Technically they do link to relevant information, but when an article hasn't been reviewed for several days and contains no in-line citations or general references I'm usually inclined to draftify until in-line or general references can be added. I now see what you're saying about the infobox so I'll try to pay more attention to that for taxon stubs moving forward. I'm thinking out loud here because I'm torn, but I don't think I'd have marked that as reviewed personally because there wasn't anything linked in the article, meaning anybody who wants to verify the information has to chase it down. On the other hand, because of the information you've provided, it's clear that it would likely survive at AfD, and that information would come up at AfD, meaning NPP should mark it as reviewed. I definitely have some conflicting feelings on this one and I think I'll have to chew on it for a few days, not because what you said doesn't make sense, it does, but because I may have to adjust the way I look what I think are "unrefereced" taxon stubs (which are luckily few and far between). Thank you for the feedback, luckily I don't think I've draftified many taxon stubs but I'll look over my draftify list when I get some free time to verify it. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Personally I'd at most put {{no footnotes}} on it. What we're talking about is really a matter of citation style, not sourcing. I.e. we'd all prefer that the Nursall & Capasso paper had a full reference with a link, in a footnote in the article body, but nevertheless it is there and sufficient to verify the article's content. Those of us that remember when Wikipedia's citation styles were all over the place, or when "chasing down" a source involved an afternoon in the library (which I'm just about old enough to), would see it as an inline citation and the taxon ID links as general references. So the issue becomes one of improving the article to meet de facto best practice (footnotes, cite templates, links) not the written minimum standard (Wikipedia:Citing sources just says cite them, as best you can). In my view NPP can only afford to concern itself with the latter. – Joe (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, in hindsight no footnotes is the appropriate tag, I just missed that point completely in the infobox. I do agree after thinking about it that marking it as reviewed is the right decision based on what you've said. I always ask myself "Will this survive at AfD?" and approve accordingly because, as you said, best practices aren't what we should generally be focused on (though that's great if reviewers want to implement best practices on those articles). Hey man im josh (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi josh, sorry about that. I thought an article was automatically deleted when draftified so thanks for catching my mistake. That was mess! I accepted it then realized it already existed under a different title. S0091 (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Hey @S0091, nothing to be sorry about! Everything you were doing was in good faith and you found and corrected something. The only way to avoid the redirect being left behind after draftifying is to have the page mover role. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I want to inform you that I have checked your article and mark it as reviewed. Have a good day and thanks for creating the article!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
No problem at all, thanks for taking that of that with the templates. I just happened to find pages added to them without the categories being created, so I went ahead and created them. If you have any requests for categories you're welcome to submit them at WP:AFC/R. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Amanita arenicola
Hello Josh!! I saw that you reviewed my page. What does that mean? (I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia)
Hey @Aamanita. I reviewed your page and, in short, I felt as though it was fit for Wikipedia so I marked it as "reviewed". Pages are typically considered "unreviewed" until a member of the New Page Patrol mark a page as reviewed or they may be autoreviewed if an editor has shown a history that indicates they don't need their articles to be manually reviewed. I think this link describes the purpose of New Page Patrol fairly well: Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol#PurposeHey man im josh (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
"Requesting Review for Draft: Juiceslf- Nigerian rapper, singer and songwriter"
Subject: Requesting Review for Draft:Juiceslf - Nigerian Rapper, Singer, and Songwriter
Hello Wikipedia New Page Reviewer,
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to kindly request a review of a draft I have created titled "Juiceslf - Nigerian Rapper, Singer, and Songwriter." I believe this draft meets the notability criteria and provides valuable information about this talented artist in the Nigerian music industry.
The draft highlights Juiceslf's background, career, notable releases, and his impact on the music scene. It also includes references to reliable sources that support the information presented.
I have put significant effort into crafting this draft and adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. I believe Juiceslf's story deserves to be shared with the larger online community, contributing to the diversity of musical profiles on the platform.
I kindly request that you review the draft at your earliest convenience and provide any feedback or guidance for improvement. I look forward to your expert assessment and assistance in bringing this article to Wikipedia's readership.
Thank you for your time and consideration. If you require any further information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out.
@Jejeki: Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. I'm sorry but I don't review submissions on request. If I accepted this request, this would be unfair to the other thousands of drafts awaiting our attention. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi, re your message about removing content on List of university and college name changes in the United States, the school on the list that I removed has actually reverted back to the name listed as "former" on the page. I can edit again to remove the list entry and list the cancelled name change as the reason for editing if that would be acceptable. Or I can reverse it so the former name and the new one switch places. Can you advise on which is better? Battlecalm (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
You're very welcome. Wow, that answers that question, I wish you good luck with your future nom's, a pre-educated guess is that you'll do fine. All the best! Bringingthewood (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
As you might have noticed, I create a lot (>300) of redirects, and it's usually you who patrols them. Is it proper for me to nominate myself at WP:RAL? Theoretically it's apparently okay, but I don't see anyone nominating themselves there. 〜 Festucalex • talk14:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Hey @Festucalex: Self nominations are ABSOLUTELY welcomed and encouraged! It's just that most people are not aware of this pseudoright so they haven't made the effort to apply. The reason you see that most nominations were made by me is because I'm the most active redirect patroller. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for being so on-the-ball and noticing inappropriate draftifications and reverting them. I glance at the Move log throughout the day but I'm mainly keeping an eye out for article page moves done by new editors and I often don't look twice at moves done by experienced editors. But I can't assume that even editors who've been active for years are aware of the RFC guideline change about draftification so I'm glad that you are checking out page moves to Draft space that might be inappropriate. I've found that when an editor does a well-intentioned mistake repeatedly, often a personal note on their talk page can help bring their error to their attention so I appreciate that, too.
Thanks again for everything you do for the project...I hope we'll get a mop in your hand one day in the future, should you want to go through that process. My RFA experience was very unpleasant but lately it seems like a lot of candidates have sailed right through so you never know! LizRead!Talk!21:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Hey @Liz! I just happen to be lucky and stumble upon one, then found some others. I do plan on reaching out to users when it's an issue. Maybe some day I'll have a mop in hand, but for now I'm just working on being better and contributing. I very much appreciate your kind words and the effort that you put in. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
@Paranoya23: I discourage you from asking others to participate in an AfD discussion, some may interpret it as WP:CANVASSING. As far as marking the page as reviewed, New Page Patrollers, such as myself, mark pages sent tp WP:AFD or WP:RFD as reviewed as a matter of procedure. When we do so we are not endorsing the content or giving it our seal of approval, we're simply removing it from the queue of pages that the team has to review. The reason being that the page is already undergoing a review at the relevant deletion discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I understand. I won't be voting on the discussion but I wanted to just make you aware, as I do believe your efforts were in good faith. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
New unused templates
Hey there. It appears that you are creating a bunch of new navboxes, which is fine, but they are not being transcluded anywhere, which goes against template guidelines. They are polluting Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates (filtered)/1, a report that shows templates with no transclusions. Could you please refrain from creating more templates until the ones listed there are used, and ensure that any new templates that you create are transcluded somewhere? It makes the job of finding actual deleteable templates a little easier. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: Please remember to be patient and give users a reasonable amount of time to implement templates that they've created. There is a clear use for these templates that I've created and their implementation is being worked on. For my future reference, can you point towards any policy that refers to a time frame for which templates should be implemented? Hey man im josh (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Patience is what you are witnessing here; I have not nominated any of these unused templates for discussion. The guideline in question is WP:TG: Templates that... become orphaned or used on only one page... may be nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. A good practice would be to create a template, transclude it in at least one article, and then create another template. The unused template report is generated every 24 hours, so if you use a template within a few hours of its creation, it is unlikely to appear in the report. I count 58 untranscluded hockey draft templates in the current report, which only has about 2,000 total entries in it. Most of those hockey draft templates have appeared in the report for four or five days. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: Technically, none of these templates have become orphaned. The wording, to me, implies that a template has become unused instead of being created and not yet implemented.
Additionally, I'd like to point you towards point 3 of WP:TFD#REASONS: The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used
There is a clear usage case in this situation and this is a work in progress. I'm not finding anything that states there is a deadline for which a template must be implemented. You're welcome to send these to TfD, but I don't believe that's a productive use of anybody's time. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
