User talk:Hey man im josh/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

What to do about recreated deleted pages?

Hi, I was just given permission to review pages, and I often see recreated pages such as Technology Connections. This page was recreated 16 days after deletion, but I am doubtful it applies for WP:G4 as a duplicate. What is the standard procedure for these pages, since I don't have permission to see the original pre-deleted version? Cheers, -1ctinus📝🗨 19:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@1ctinus: G4 tag is typically the appropriate route. Some folks will read over the AFD to see if it's easy to tell whether the comments there were addressed in the new version and then tag the page. That's part of the pain though as a non-admin, you don't know whether what you're tagging matches or not since you can't see the past version. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Email

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Redirects from another language

I am just wondering what you use, when reviewing redirects from an alternative language to english. Blethering Scot 21:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Blethering Scot, good question! WP:RLANG is my go to on this one. It can really be summed up as, is the alternative language relevant? If yes, then probably okay, if not, then RfD. Using Tokyo as an example, a redirect from the name in Japanese would make sense, I'd mark it as approved, but a redirect in German I would send to RfD. We don't provide translations via redirect for every language in existence and the language has to be relevant in some way to the target. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Real Malabar F.C

Hello. See Wp:Sockpuppet investigations/Bobanfasil. Both the creator and the user that moved the page from Draft space for the millionth time, see log, are sockpuppets of Bobanfasil, the IPs as well. They just haven't blocked them yet because of backlog I guess. See the logs and see also Real Malabar F.C. and Real Malabar FC and you'll understand. The G5 is blatant and repeated many times over and over again. Jonteemil (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: Until someone makes a block and decides the accounts are linked, G5 does not apply. The page also had substantial edits from editors other than the alleged sock, which, per WP:G5, also makes it ineligible for G5 deletion. If all the accounts that made substantial edits were linked to socks then the page may be eligible, but as of now, it's not. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no need to wait for a block, it's obvious for anyone that opens their eyes. On Commons the accounts are blocked in a minute but here it takes several weeks, unbelievable. @Wikishovel: can you help me out here? All substantial edits to the article are socks or IPs used by the same master and the page should be deleted, like it's been several times before. Unbelievable that it even has to be argued for. You are likely editing in good faith and I do respect that it's just so frustrating that you don't see what I think is so obvious. Jonteemil (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

HmiJ is right, and when I recently nominated another of the same puppeteer's articles A7, G4, G5 and G11, HmiJ correctly declined the G4 and G5, while leaving up the A7 and G11. (The AFD outcome was speedy G5, therefore ineligible for G4, you see... sigh.) And yes, you're also right that it's frustrating. It's also a gift to the spammers, many of whom get paid by ignorant clients while an SPI churns it way through the backlog. But that G5 policy was decided quite a while ago, by consensus. Ironically, if the Real Malabar FC article weren't being recreated over and over by sockpuppets, I think the AFD outcome would likely have been "keep", so this pest really is shooting themself in the foot. Wikishovel (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Wikishovel. @Jonteemil: First off, I do appreciate your efforts, and I can relate to the frustrations you're feeling. Unfortunately, there is actually a need to wait for an admin block or link the accounts in some way before I G5 a page they've created. I see that you've submitted the names to SPI, which is good, but the G5 tag does not force me to do process the SPI and do the leg work of making a comparison and a proclamation that someone is or is not a sock. Generally when a G5 tag is added we check whether the creator has been blocked and whether there are significant contributions to the article outside of that person and we also don't let G5 tags linger indefinitely until the SPI has been processed.

I'm sorry that this is frustrating for you, but that's just how it is, we wait for the accounts to be linked before we go and delete them all, we don't just go deleting before a block or link has been made. It's the whole mantra of innocent until proven guilty, and I'm not investigating whether the accounts are linked, I'm investigating whether the G5 tag, in its current state (at the time of processing), is valid, which it was not in this case. Additionally, because of the changes made by LeapTorchGear, the page also would not be eligible for G5 deletion. In the future, please just be patient and wait for the accounts to be linked/blocked. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

September backlog drive

Hi there,

I have a question regarding the drive. If I were to review an article and push it to the mainspace, but it turns out to be a sock-created article (or other blocked editor) and is speedy deleted, would those points then be deducted? Conyo14 (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Conyo14, that's a fair and good question. In short, based on how the bot counts reviews, it will still be counted unless manually deducted. I do not intend to deduct points from anybody who this happens to because I'm giving all NPR members the benefit of the doubt that they would not have done so if they had known it was created by a sock/blocked editor. As such, I see no reason to penalize them in any way if they put the time in. Pinging co-coord @DreamRimmer to make them aware that I've made this declaration. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 August newsletter

The fourth round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 29 August. Each of the 8 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 472 points, and the following contestants scored more than 700 points:

• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,150 points, mostly from 3 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 7 good articles, and 13 did you know nominations;
• Arconning (submissions) with 791 points, mostly from 2 featured lists, 8 good articles, 4 did you know nominations, and plenty of reviews;
• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 718 points, mostly from a high-multiplier featured article on Genghis Khan and 2 good articles; and
• BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 714 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Susanna Hoffs, 2 featured lists, and 3 good articles.

Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated. Contestants put in extraordinary amounts of effort during this round, and their scores can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 36 featured articles, 55 featured lists, 15 good articles, 93 in the news credits, and at least 333 did you know credits. They have conducted 357 featured content reviews, as well as 553 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 30 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed during Round 5, which starts on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. If two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Remember to claim your points within 14 days of earning them, and importantly, before the deadline on 31 October.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I've backed up my edits with credible sources

I've backed up edits with factual support and sources and will make sure I do so there isn't anything that's factually incorrect. I guess I should know better than make arguments with a dictator moderator who think he knows everything. I'm guessing you are artificial intelligence and not a real person. 68.234.69.24 (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually no, you haven't. We've discussed this way too many times at this point, it's ridiculous actually how many chances you've been given. You've been making unsourced or poorly sourced edits, and routinely edit warring for your desired outcome, for over 2 years on that IP range alone.

You did not try to make arguments, you just told me that the sources that state they're unofficial are actually official. I'm not sure how I can make you understand that pages which 'explitcitly state they are unofficial are not appropriate sources over official sources. That unofficial source was also used as an argument against a pile of sources stating otherwise, and based on you trying to interpret what positions players are likely to play.

Strange to accuse me of being AI given the number of conversations we've had on the matter of your unsourced changes. Perhaps if you'd have been more willing to actually discuss things it'd become more clear I'm a human?

Lastly, on your dictator mod comment... it wasn't me who blocked you, but I did make the report. This is the seventh unique administrator that has blocked you, so you can levy accusations and insults all you want, but I laid out the history in my report. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

A year already, wow. Thanks for the award and the reminder! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

About WP:AFC Backlog drives

Hey man im josh, I see 3 Months WP:AFC backlog drives are currently exist on there and numbers of awaiting is 1,930+ are awaiting of review and I thoughts it's backlog drive as like Wikipedia:NPR backlog are started from today and we need to clear of WP:AFC of 3 months backlog drive and last backlog drives has done November 2023.Happy editing --- ᗩvírαm7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 04:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Aviram7: I actually don't handle any coordination or backlog drives for AfC. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).

Administrator changes

Pppery

Interface administrator changes

Pppery

Oversighter changes

Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

• Courcelles
• GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) were repealed.
• Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") was suspended for a period of six months.
• The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.

Miscellaneous

• Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in September 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,900 articles and 26,200 redirects awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Note

http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/2409:40F3:1094:A201:5F1:A577:18D:9819

This and one similar ip are making mess with few pages, one especially as log shows ("madeena"). admin blocked his socks too, if you can delete the article best. ip refused my clearing attempt so redirect was quick solution. Appreciate 93.140.190.14 (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it's been dealt with, but my talk page is typically not the best place for timely responses to these types of requests. You might consider the SPI report or WP:ANI next time, as I don't typically deal with socks. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Undiscussed Page Move

Hi, RikuOka0222 moved article Koreans in Japan to Zainichi Korean but I've reverted their this moved, they did n't created the discussion for changing the name of the article to new article and I've warned for undiscussed moved on their talkpage.please check it.Happy editing! --- ᗩvírαm7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 13:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Aviram7: I'm not sure what you'd like me to do. You've reached out to them and I'm not really sure what type of admin intervention you're requesting. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

apology for about that,I would like to ask if this article could be protected from being moved, since they are suggesting on their user talk page that we should change this article's name.Happy editing --- ᗩvírαm7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 13:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

What happened to the article?

TL;DR You made an edit to an article I added and now the article is in a redirect loop(?)

The long story - The article "Billy Joel: Live at Yankee Stadium" (with a colon) redirected to "Billy Joel Discography." Another article, "Billy Joel - Live at Yankee Stadium" (with a dash) also redirected to "Billy Joel Discography."

I added content to the (dash) version and had the (colon) version redirect to it. Then someone changed the title to "Live at Yankee Stadium (Billy Joel video)" and everything was perfect.

Now, however, the two titles redirect to each other and the article I added is gone. Is there any way to revert "Live at Yankee Stadium (Billy Joel video)" to show the article I added? I'd try it myself, but I just seem to be making things worse. Baron Crimson (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I see now, the redirect became circular. The page is restored at Live at Yankee Stadium (Billy Joel video). Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Baron Crimson (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of 2016 Summer Olympics medal table

Congratulations, Hey man im josh! The list you nominated, 2016 Summer Olympics medal table, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Hey man im josh. Thank you for your work on Boccia at the 2024 Summer Paralympics – Women's individual BC1. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

The ref is for the male version of the sport. please fix.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Hey man im josh. Thank you for your work on Boccia at the 2024 Summer Paralympics – Men's individual BC4. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

one of the refs is for the BC1 version

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Hey man im josh. Thank you for your work on Boccia at the 2024 Summer Paralympics – Men's individual BC2. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

one of the refs is for bc1

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Hey man im josh. Thank you for your work on Boccia at the 2024 Summer Paralympics – Men's individual BC3. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

one of the refs is for bc1

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey @MPGuy2824, just to recap what we briefly spoke about on Discord, these were actually created by someone else after I had created some redirects. Thanks for reviewing the pages and participating in the drive! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 September 2024

• News and notes: WikiCup enters final round, MCDC wraps up activities, 17-year-old hoax article unmasked

• In the media: AI is not playing games anymore. Is Wikipedia ready?

• Recent research: Simulated Wikipedia seen as less credible than ChatGPT and Alexa in experiment

• News from the WMF: Meet the 12 candidates running in the WMF Board of Trustees election

• Wikimania: A month after Wikimania 2024

• Serendipity: What it's like to be Wikimedian of the Year

• Traffic report: After the gold rush

• Humour: Local man halfway through rude reply no longer able to recall why he hates other editor

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Future Events Redirects

Hey,

Apologies as you are becoming my go to for queries. What would you consider with regards to redirects for future events to the main competition. Is there tags that are relevant to this, and what would we consider excessive. This is my Example. Thanks in advance. Blethering Scot 20:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Nothing to apologize for @Blethering Scot! It's all part of the collaborative effort and working together. My rule of thumb is generally "is it mentioned at the target", and is there anything at all useful there that someone who searches that event might find? My XfD log has some stuff in it that relates to this actually. Sometimes it's two years ahead (2026 Peach Bowl), sometimes the next three to four events may be valid redirects. It's case by case but if the redirect isn't useful because nothing is at the target that references it, then it should typically be deleted per WP:FUTURE. You'll notice I have some good recent examples in my xfd log actually, including WrestleMania, Olympics, basketball seasons, and a bit more.

Based on your example and the target, I think RfD is the way to go. I would say the redirect is misleading based on what's there.

Also, in case you ever want a second opinion from someone not me (you can always reach out to me, I'm definitely not pushing you away, but it's also great to learn from multiple sources), I encourage you to reach out to Utopes (next most redirect patrols next to myself until you came along), Tavix, or Thryduulf. The last two are two of the most active people at RfD, and they're both admins I've learned a lot from in discussions and from reaching out. Oh, one last person I'd feel bad about not mentioning is Steel1943, who has also taught me things and has been active at RfD for a long time. I've disagreed with every one of them and it's always been civil and a great opportunity to learn. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and for tags, r from subtopic, with possibilities, and print worthy. The season are sub topics of the overall target in a sense and it's probably more correct than the r from related topic tag. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Grand Dukes

Hi, can you tell me why did decided to speed rename bunch of categories about various Grand Dukes from "Grand Dukes" to "Grand dukes"? ([1]) Marcelus (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

It's clearly against WP:NCROY. Marcelus (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Marcelus: You're coming on a little strong here, so I'll mention that we should always assume other editors are also trying to improve Wikipedia (WP:AGF). I obviously wouldn't make this type of change / proposal if I didn't believe it was correct.

So, to elaborate, I don't see how WP:NCROY is relevant in this case. Please do correct me if I'm wrong and point me to the appropriate section, but I don't see a part of that page addressing plurals of titles that are typically singular. As an example, Great Duke of Canada could be capitalized but Great dukes of Canada would be the appropriate capitalization, per MOS:JOBTITLES. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Marcelus (talk) 07:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Marcelus: For what it's worth, I've spent a good bit of time over the last year working on downcasing category names of titles that are pluralized for consistency. I've made a few mistakes here and there, not knowing enough of a history to realize I was incorrect. I try to do my due diligence, so, if I do make a mistake in these renamings, let me know. I'll do the cleanup work of cleaning up after myself because, like you, I want to improve Wikipedia, not make it worse in any way :) Hey man im josh (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Of course, I understand, I'll make you aware if I find any mistakes. Marcelus (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Confused by your reversion of a delete request

I am confused by your reversion of my request to delete the Draft redirect to List of amphibians of Vermont. I figured that now that the page has been accepted as an article, and is now in the main namespace (and there are no remaining links to the redirect--I checked), that it would be make sense to get rid of the redirect. What am I missing here? Unfortunately, your edit summary of Not U1 eligible means nothing to me.

It's not that important to me (other than wanting to clean up whatever cruft I've left behind), but I would like to understand.

Trackerwannabe (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Trackerwannabe: You tagged the page with a tag to indicate you wanted it deleted under the WP:U1 criteria. Being that the redirect is not in user space, it's not eligible for U1 deletion. There's no harm in having the redirect and it doesn't meet our definition of cruft. As far as cleaning up after yourself, that redirect was actually left behind by another user, but I understand the phrasing since it was something you worked on that caused that redirect. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks.

I suspect it's going to be quite some time before I get a reasonable grasp of the ins and out of Wikipedia. Fortunately, though, I seem able to make useful contributions with whatever shallow I understanding I have.

Trackerwannabe (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The more rules you learn, the more you understand how many unknown rules are still out there! Your spirit of inquiry—"I am confused ... but I would like to understand"—will get you far here. For what it's worth, speedy deletion is on an extreme end of the "common sense gets you pretty far"–to–"bitter morass of bureaucracy" spectrum, so your reasonable grasp of the norms in most spots is probably stronger than you think. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Annual sack leaders

Hi Josh. Not sure if you want my recent edits to stay here https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_NFL_annual_sacks_leaders#NFL_annual_sacks_leaders. Someone was tinkering, I think they wanted to show that S. Barrett was retired and J. Houston is not currently active. I saw that Chandler Jones is shown as not active, but he is free agent. So I made Houston look the same way. Now, Vic Beasley is no longer active in the NFL, but he currently plays in the UFL. Bottom line, can we leave 'active' off for a free agent on this page, you know like the infobox would have it? It's not listed as active on a player page for a free agent. Just wondering. Thanks in advance. John Bringingthewood (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

== Had to share this. No rush to respond. Regarding my little T. J. Watt tantrum with the All-American infobox in August, I saw this today and was going to edit it. Beanie Bishop was a second-team All-American with the AP. Other selectors have him first. Same exact thing with Watt. But Bishop's page specifies first-team in the infobox. If we're using AP as the guide (when multiple selectors chose them), am I correct to edit Bishop to second-team? Truthfully, it's a sad situation when there are 15 selectors and basically 14 are irrelevant. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bringingthewood: Not active and retired are two different things and we need to think about it that way in my opinion, but I consider "active" to be active on a roster of any kind. I do think it's not really reasonable to mark them as inactive if they're a free agent during the offseason though. My feeling is they should be left as active during free agency, but once the season starts it does technically make sense to mark them as not active. That would be the most accurate I believe.

Re, first/second team, I'd default to whatever the college HoF recognizes, but I'm not sure which selectors those are. I believe there have been equally recognized selectors other than AP at various points, which is why it becomes a pain. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with that. I just wanted to make sure when I saw Jones one way and Houston another. On their Wikipedia page it's a no-no to have free agent listed in the infobox. You showed me that one, lol. So I had to ask. A bit confusing to a new reader, being that they tried to edit it yesterday. I think you're okay with the look right now, being that the season starts tonight. Beasley is in the UFL anyway. You have my word, if Houston or Jones are signed to a roster this weekend or any other weekend this season, I'll change it.

As far as AA selectors, I'll leave Beanie and Watt alone. I guess maybe AP, FWAA, and AFCA are higher on the pecking order than ESPN and CBS etc. Ridiculous. Thanks for all your input. John. Bringingthewood (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

YGM

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The Kip ^(contribs) 01:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Congrats!

Hi Josh. All of my rambling up there and I missed the promotion. Congrats on the 2016 Summer Olympics medal table! Feels like yesterday watching Phelps win six! Maybe he can paint the silver one. Regards, John. Bringingthewood (talk) 06:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Bring It Now

Hello! A few days ago I tried publishing an article about a moving company called Bring It Now. It is my first time using Wikipedia and would love an explanation on why it was deleted and how I can edit it and get it posted! I had thought I followed all the guidelines and rules but if you can inform me what I did wrong id appreciate it for attempt #2! Thanks a ton, Bobby. BobbyJayy (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It looks like your first edit was actually to this talk page, and I'm not finding anything under that name even when I change the capitalization. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I apologize, this is my first time using this site. Ill try again to publish it. BobbyJayy (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Urgent advice

I recently edited on an article and was somehow logged out and made one logged out edit by mistake. Is there something I need to do? I'll appreciate any advice on this matter. PadFoot (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) If you're logged back in now, there's nothing else to do now... Reason for being logged out might be phab:T372702. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thanks @Vestrian24Bio. Also that reason seems likely. PadFoot (talk) 10:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @7&6=thirteen! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Props

HMIJ, I do not know how you and other editors can keep up with watchlists during NFL Sundays lol. I mentioned this to another longtime editor. There are some good eggs out there trying to be helpful but the vandalism can be rampant. I try to stay away from current players' articles during Sunday afternoons and Sunday nights to make life a little easier. Red Director (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

It's fricken brutal some days, eh @Red Director? I too often wait until Monday because of the nuisance that is live updates, which some editors seem to insist on... Really wish WP:LIVESCORES applied everywhere! I happen to catch some things on my watchlist as I'm looking into fantasy stuff usually since I don't really edit on the weekends. Side note... I've won all 3 of my fantasy matches this week, so that's pretty cool at least! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Basic article writing

Hello! Id like to write an article and would just like to know the very basics of how to get it published and not denied. I so far understand that I can't be connected with the topic personally (I am not), and I need to be factually correct (Ill make sure to be). What id like to know is how can I optimize my chances of getting the article published? Should it be a certain length? How many sources should I provide and what kind of sources? Do I need sources etc...

Thank you in advance! -Bobby Jay BobbyJayy (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:My first article is the place to start I'd say @BobbyJayy. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Updates & Schedule

Administrator Elections | Updates & Schedule
Administrator elections are in the WMF Trust & Safety SecurePoll calendar and are all set to proceed. We plan to use the following schedule: Oct 8 – Oct 14: Candidate sign-up Oct 22 – Oct 24: Discussion phase Oct 25 – Oct 31: SecurePoll voting phase If you have any questions, concerns, or thoughts before we get started, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections. If you are interested in helping out, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections § Ways to help. There are many redlinked subpages that can be created.
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.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Admin role

hello Josh, I am considering applying for the admin role on English wiki.

please what do you think about my account and my chances to get selected. Thank you. Ugwulebo (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

To be blunt @Ugwulebo, you do not currently have a chance. While there's no official threshold, most editors expect somewhere between 8 to 10 thousand edits, at minimum, as well as work in a number of administrator related areas, such as reporting vandals at WP:AIV or username violations at WP:UAA. Keep at it and maybe some day. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your blunt reply. I will keep improving my contributions. Ugwulebo (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Content model

Hi Josh, could you please help me out by changing the content model for User:BaranBOT/RestrictionScan from text to JSON? Thanks in advance! – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like you are offline at the moment. This is pretty urgent for me, so I am going to move the request to WP:AN. Thanks for understanding! – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay @DreamRimmer! This has been completed. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks :) – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Clarity

You declined two speedy deletions I tagged from original creations by blocked users:

• Cave of the Beasts - this was "moved" and immediately moved back by the now blocked editor 2 mins later. It could arguably be considered disruptive. Pages I have tagged for deletion in the past in similar circumstances have been deleted.
• Oloirien, Arusha Rural District - the rationale of duration is not in itself unreasonable, although the page wasn't further developed under this title.

I considered the circumstances on the history of each beforehand, and while I appreciate duration for the 2nd makes it slightly different a consideration, there is not in my view any reason to not proceed with removal on the first one, at least. Maybe you could offer your opinion under the criterion you believe to be more suitable. We typically use G5 for creations by blocked users, and the creation of disruptive redirects, including from the origin of page moves, i'd argue could fall under such criteria (with exceptions).

If my thought process around this scenario is incorrect, please point me towards the appropriate policy and correct protocol to consider in further cases. Thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Cave of the Beasts – One could argue the move was disruptive, yes, but I think that'd be an unreasonable assertion. I don't think this would qualify as page move vandalism, it was simply an attempted renaming. "Cave of the Beasts" sounds more grammatically correct to some, even if that's not the actual name of the cave, and it could actually still serve as a useful search term. Never the less, I'm actually surprised to see it, but G5 doesn't explicitly state that we don't typically delete redirects from page moves. This is more of a best practice not to because there's an expectation that, unless there's a very good reason not to (such as a completely ridiculous redirect name), we always leave a redirect behind when a page is moved. The whole purpose is to keep people directed to what they're looking for, especially if they looked for it at a past name. With that said, I was not aware at the time of tagging that the page had only been there for two minutes, but I typically follow what the most active checkusers at WP:SPI do, which is usually leave the redirects from moves not deleted. I admit, this one is rather borderline given that it was only at the location for 2 minutes, but the redirect has now existed for over 4 months without issue and the article starts out with "The Cave of the Beasts..."

Regarding Oloirien, Arusha Rural District, that did not qualify for WP:G5 because this was a redirect left behind from a move you completed. Sometimes redirects from page moves qualify for G7, but, per WP:G7, For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages before the move. However that's not the case, so that redirect wouldn't qualify based on that and based on the fact the article was at this location a few days shy of four months. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Woops, forgot to ping you @Bungle. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful response, first of all. Speaking generally, there are numerous redirects from page moves I encounter awaiting review, where the author is subsequently blocked for sockpuppetry and later determined as having been a blocked editor when the move/action took place. If it is credible, I often do accept it than G5 (it if it's not an unreasonable redirect title), although in some cases, I have then seen it subsequently G5'ed later on, so the consistency isn't always there.

My thinking with "Cave of the Beasts" is that if it were a straight redirect created, you would not be able to argue against it being eligible for G5, only through your own discretion if it seemed reasonable to retain. I feel this is along the lines of what you're suggesting anyway, although I disagree with your view of it not being eligible for G5.

The second one I considered in the same way beforehand (that "technically", I became the author due to reverting the move). I have, however, previously seen these deleted in similar circumstances, perhaps through G6, but I can't recall precisely. I didn't suggest or consider G7 for the reasons you outlined. Perhaps there is a case to point this to Oloirien, if it's even a different place, as it appears to be erroneous with the current target.

I don't professs to know everything about policy or that everyone would always be agreeable with my actions, though it helps to understand those who take a different view, to consider whether they better represent consensus thinking. Thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Bungle, if you do G5 a page move redirect again and you notice it's a specific admin that's processed and deleted several of them, I'd appreciate being let know who did so so that I can pick their brain a bit. It's possible I'm off base, I also do not claim to know everything about policy and make it a point to state that I don't. I hate to actually say this, it's something I was specifically trying to avoid saying on a talk page, but I'm hoping it'll get lost in the rest of the messages here... There are socks who specifically move redirects to other redirect titles in order to avoid their "creations" (redirects) getting deleted. There's a handful of specific sockmasters I have in mind for this, but it's part of their regular MO, and it's what has caused some of the redirects to stand when they wouldn't have if they were created in the regular fashion. This is actually a big part of where my thinking on the subject comes from, as I do do a lot of deletions (I think I'm fourth or something for the year?) and review a lot of redirects (I currently lead that category for the year), so it's something that I've dealt with a good bit. In doing so, I have tried to clean up the NPP queue by finding G5 eligible items, and I've found that those at SPI, and the tools they use, do not delete redirects left behind from moves in these cases. Possibly I inferred it somewhere or it's just a best practice I picked up somewhere? Again though, I could possibly be dealing with these better for all I know, and I would like to know if that were the case. I feel strongly that the redirect to Olorieni should be kept, especially because it's not under the sock's name now, but the other one I'm feeling quite wishy-washy about because of the 2 minute thing. That one could definitely be a judgement call that I could have gone the other way on had I initially realized it had been that short of a time. Initially, I just validate that the redirect was from a page move and that it made at least some sense (not R3 eligible then), not how long it had been at the title.

I could be wrong, but I do think Olorieni and Oloirien might be ever so slightly different? I'm not super sure, but they're both part of a "district" named Arusha, their names and coordinates are pretty close, but one is in an infobox for Arusha City Council, Arusha while the other is in an infobox for Arusha District Council, Arusha. The areas covered by those two pages look pretty darn close, but different from one another, and with a different number of wards in each, square km, and population. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your honesty here (in different ways, particularly an admission that you aren't always right either, which I respect more than a doubling-down approach). The matter in hand is trivial enough that it isn't actually going to be contentious either way, whether you supported my tagging or not, but I thank you for at least trying to rationalise your thought process on it. I know that you are relatively new to having usage of additional tools, though I also know you have more hands-on experience at NPP than I do. It used to frustrate me with the sheer amount of policy one had to familiarise themselves with, however I now moreso find frustration where policy is vague or lacking in matters which typically end up as discretionary decisions.

No idea on the credibility of those places to be honest. The fact that one was renamed to essentially the other one has thrown me a bit, and I considered that something seemingly erroneous, and generated by a blocked sock, may warrant removal to avoid further confusion. Although I am on the fence if they are different localities, if even just slightly. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Garden State Film Festival

Hi Josh! I did not know that I can't post about our Call For Entries. We are an arts non profit looking for help. Could you please unblock me so that we can continue to ensure factual information is on your site? Also, I know Laura McCullough and just learned that she is an expert with your website. I will make sure to find someone to help us instead of it being me.

173.70.32.42 (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the unblock template from this message. Please login to your account and use the template on your user talk page, not here. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Barnstar

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	I give you this for continuing to improve articles while doing administrator work. Congratulations on recently going over 300,000 edits. You voluntarily took on a greater role with administrator duties and that is to be commended from my vantage point at least. Best wishes Red Director (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh wow! forgot to congratulate you on 300K edits. Very impressive! Fathoms Below (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much @Red Director!! I've been a big fan of yours for a long long time and I so very much appreciate your kind words. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

	Special:Diff/1241715198
	:wikimoyai: 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

YAY A BARNSTAR! Not clicking the diff! Just assuming it's good things @1234qwer1234qwer4! Just gonna add it to my collection instead of looking! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

User renaming

Hi, Hey man im josh, please change my name in Redirect autopatrol list because my username has been changed from Aviram7 to Bhairava7. Happy editing --- Bhairava7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 12:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bhairava7: Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Need help

Hi Josh! I need help determining whether 2024 MTV Video Music Awards is considered as an article or a list... Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 01:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vestrian24Bio: From a quick look, I'd imagine list would be more appropriate. We've got plenty of award lists like that already, with the first one that springs to mind being Academy Awards. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look at 2026 ICC Men's T20 World Cup qualification as well, Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 05:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it could be argued as such, as yes. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, Thanks. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!

For the article protection. You're a star. Knitsey (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

No problem at all. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

List of Vegas Golden Knights seasons and FLC

On the note of the GMs FL nomination - the seasons list is at seven entries, with season eight about to begin. Would I stand a chance if I improved/nominated it for FL in the near-future, or should I just wait until the end of the upcoming season? The Kip ^(contribs) 23:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Deferring to discussion at User_talk:PresN#List_of_Vegas_Golden_Knights_seasons_and_FLC. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Orphan article Scott Vlaun

Greetings, Today I de-orphaned this article by adding a link at List of photographers, United States section.

Help to de-orphan articles.

1. WikiProject Orphanage - working to reduce the article backlog.

2. Wikipedia:Orphan - the complete How-to Guide for Orphaned articles.

» De-orphaning articles is an important aspect of building the web.

Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello @JoeNMLC. Thank you for de-orphaning the article. Yes, I am aware of that WikiProject, but I am not interested in taking on more projects at the moment, but thank you for thinking of me. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Question

The bot says I have 69 mainspace edits. I have 400 edits. Why is this failing?? Source: https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wiki.x.io/Cooldudeseven7Cooldudeseven7 (Discuss over a cup of tea?) 17:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cooldudeseven7: See this link to see the difference spaces in which you have edits. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Whats the difference between all of the spaces? Do reverts count?? Cooldudeseven7 (Discuss over a cup of tea?) 17:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cooldudeseven7: Each WP:Namespace. Each namespace has their own purpose, but "mainspace" is typically where articles are hosted. Reverts do count as edits. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the information! Cooldudeseven7 (Discuss over a cup of tea?) 17:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Bjorn Vidoe

Hey... man :)

Absolutely no issue with you declining the G4 request at Draft:Bjorn Vidoe. I only requested it because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bjørn Vidø closed as delete, and this draft is part of a set of several at slightly different spellings. Northamerica1000 already deleted Draft:Bjorn Vidos, the redirs at Bjorn Vidoe, Bjørn Vidø and Draft:Bjorn Vido, and possibly others. So I thought Draft:Bjorn Vidoe could go, too. (And yes, I now realise it would have made much more sense to just ping Northamerica1000... but alas, my best ideas often come too late!)

Up to you, I've no strong feelings about it either way.

Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: The two draft titles you point to were redirects, which is reflected in the G8 rationale they were deleted under. The difference is that the G4 request applies to a draft of an article, not to a redirect or mainspace article. I don't personally see a reason why we would need to rush and delete the draft, as opposed to letting someone try to address the reasons the page got deleted in the first place. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad, I didn't spot that they were also redirs. There are two editors (possibly only one) who have created multiple versions of these and moved them around, I guess I lost track of them.

Alright, duly corrected, I'll have a stern word with myself for not paying proper attention. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: Mistakes happen, no biggy. You were confused about something that logically didn't make sense to you until the final bit (that they're redirects) became clear. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Brian Solis

Sorry I was not able to contest the speedy deletion nomination in time. I think you missed my comment on the Talk Page. The page wasn’t a repost; I spent days creating it from scratch with many sources. The deletion debate lacked thorough research. There’s significant coverage of the subject, as confirmed in a previous debate [1] years ago. I added all the sources from that debate and more. Reviews of his books and descriptions by respected experts like Andrew Keen and Chris Brogan, all cited in my page, support his notability. My page should be restored and you can nominate it for a deletion debate to determine the current consensus. The first debate had more comments and arguments and resulted in a keep. Even the nominator changed their vote to keep, while the second ended in delete with only two comments. So, is he notable or not? My page and the earlier debate both affirm his notability. JJelax (talk) 11:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@JJelax: Your creation was similar enough to that which was deleted at the most recent AfD discussion, which actually had 3 participants (the nominator counts). The more recent AfD, from about 8 months ago, takes precedent over the older one, which was over 9 and a half years ago. Keep in mind that the previous discussion was linked from the recent one, which would have led to the past discussion being read. The consensus is recent enough, and the page similar enough, that I do not intend to restore and nominate the article at AfD. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Hey man im josh. I forgot that the nominator would also count as a participant. But why did the AFD not review any of the sources in the first one? There are also many other sources not mentioned in the first AFD. There are also academic papers about his work. Solis meets all the notability criteria for creative professionals and writers. He is known for originating a significant new concept (Pillars of Influence theory) which has been analyzed in academic papers published in Journalism & Mass Communication Educator [1] and Journal of Social and Political Sciences [2]. He has created significant and well-known works that have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews such as this review in Journalism & Mass Communication Educator [3], this review in International Journal of Advertising [4] and this one in Financial Times [5]. He is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers (many examples in news articles and academic papers) JJelax (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Pedong (community development block)

Review the page http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Pedong_(community_development_block) WB851300 (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@WB851300: No. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

List of NFL annual forced fumbles leaders

Hello, can you please indicate what sources are available that meet WP:NLIST for this topic? I spent about 10-20 minutes searching but couldn't find any, hence the tag. I'd like to add NLIST-compliant sources to the article, like I did at List of NFL career passer rating leaders. Left guide (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Left guide. I'm a bit busy, but the article is actually on my featured list to do list. It'll eventually show it, but for now I don't really have the time. I do however still strongly believe the tag is unnecessary and, to be honest, actually forgot I created the article. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

User:DotCoderr

Hello, and thanks for opening the SPI. Are the articles they created eligible for speedy G5? Wikishovel (talk) 09:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Wikishovel: I would have liked to get confirmation, but I'll give it some thought and maybe tag the user page tomorrow. It felt about as clear as can be, especially once they edit warred to remove it. It's just SPI is not my forte, but if I was ever sure, I think this would be one of the times. If/when I do tag the user page I'll follow up with the appropriate G5 deletions. I expect I'll see them again during my NPP work. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, and do shout if you want a spare pair of hands on the cleanup. Wikishovel (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

National Monuments

Your mass nomination regarding National Monuments is not processed at WP:CFDS. I guess there are two possible ways forward. Either you find an admin who is willing to process it from this platform, or you move it all to full discussion. If the latter, you may count on my support. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle: I'm pretty disappointed that the user has failed to elaborate after I think it was 5 pings and 3 talk page notices, and I think the changes will go through CFD fairly smoothly... but it's a pain to do so to be honest. I really should, but I was kind of hoping that at least the non-national monuments ones would be moved. Really don't feel like a CFD should be necessary to match capitalization that has stood for 7 years, but alas. Maybe I'll be up for it on Monday, I do want to wrap it up, it just makes CFDS so much bigger than it needs to be for a month now. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• User:HouseBlaster listed them in full CfD today. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  Very grateful to @HouseBlaster for taking care of this!! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding my NPP rights

Hi Josh, I hope all is well with you. I humbly request that you grant me permanent NPP rights. Since I've only started contributing to the backlog (having earned 333 points so far) and considering that the 2 month trial is almost up, I figured it would be appropriate to ask now in case I forgot. I'll be extremely busy for the entirety of next month and the month after that, so I won't do much in the way of NPP patrolling until December. Thanks for your understanding, Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 19:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Wolverine XI, I actually have some work I'm looking to wrap up before I'm expecting to be less active for a bit. I encourage you to make the request at WP:PERM/NPR so someone else can complete the review properly, since I'm not sure I have the time to do so. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll request there instead. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 19:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of 1996 Summer Olympics medal table

Congratulations, Hey man im josh! The list you nominated, 1996 Summer Olympics medal table, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Thank you and the committee!! Hard to believe it's been a year... Hey man im josh (talk) 10:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

1992 Summer Olympics FLC and other FLCs I've been keep up with

Hello,

I see that you are expanding 1992 Summer Olympics medal table for what appears to be a future featured list promotion. I did attempt to add a few nations that won either their first gold and/or overall Summer Olympic medals along with references backing up that information. If you could see anymore nations that I've missed, feel free to add to that list with an appropriate reference backing that fact.

Also I was planning to add photos of some of the athletes that won gold at this specific edition. Unfortunately, Vitaly Scherbo, who was the leader in golds and overall medals, has no fair use image that I could use. Which athletes do you think I could add on to the side of the table?

I plan to submit 76th Primetime Emmy Awards for FLC on October 10, and I have a current FLC with List of accolades received by Oppenheimer (film). If you have time, could you review that list for featured list promotion? Sgubaldo and I would appreciate the feedback. Birdienest81talk 07:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Birdienest81: Thank you! I'm really getting bummed out at the number of significant athletes without an image, and I'm struggling to find appropriate images to include (particularly first time medal or gold winners for countries). I'll definitely be nomming it when I can. If/when I get time I'll do what I can in terms of reviews. Hey man im josh (talk) 10:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

• In the media: Courts order Wikipedia to give up names of editors, legal strain anticipated from "online safety laws"

• Community view: Indian courts order Wikipedia to take down name of crime victim, editors strive towards consensus

• Serendipity: A Wikipedian at the 2024 Paralympics

• Opinion: asilvering's RfA debriefing

• News and notes: Are you ready for admin elections?

• Gallery: Are Luddaites defending the English Wikipedia?

• Recent research: Article-writing AI is less "prone to reasoning errors (or hallucinations)" than human Wikipedia editors

• Traffic report: Jump in the line, rock your body in time

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

Administrator changes

• Asilvering
• Significa liberdade

• Good Olfactory
• Hesperian
• I JethroBT
• TommyBoy
• Woody

CheckUser changes

• Barkeep49
• Izno

• Doug Weller
• Spicy

Guideline and policy news

• Administrator elections are a proposed new process for selecting administrators, offering an alternative to requests for adminship (RfA). The first trial election will take place in October 2024, with candidate sign-up from October 8 to 14, a discussion phase from October 22 to 24, and SecurePoll voting from October 25 to 31. For questions or to help out, please visit the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
• Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether there is a consensus to have an administrator recall process.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Historical elections has been closed.
• An arbitration case regarding Backlash to diversity and inclusion has been opened.
• Editors are invited to nominate themselves to serve on the 2024 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until 23:59 October 8, 2024 (UTC).

Miscellaneous

• If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist on your watchlist, and help out when you can.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)