Jump to content

User talk:Hey man im josh/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Hey man im josh
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hey man im josh (talk | contribs) at 16:02, 31 May 2022 (Archiving). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Welcome!

Hi Hey man im josh! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! RFD (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Coach Q

Hi Josh - I noticed your additions to the listing for Joel Quenneville on List of people from Windsor, Ontario, but what you have added is 'way too long. This list shouldn't be mini-biographies for the names listed; readers can follow the link to find out more about the person. I didn't want to just revert your edit because I can see you're being constructive, but please cut back on what you added. Thanks from a former Windsorite, PKT(alk) 16:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi PKT, that's definitely a valid criticism. I was wondering how long was too long myself when I was making that edit. I think you're right though, so I'll update that entry. Hey man im josh (talk)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of National Football League annual sacks leaders, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kevin Greene.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Apologies

Hello again! I just wanted to send you a quick message to apologize for going back and forth with you the way that I did on a few other pages. Obviously that was wrong of me to do and I just wanted to acknowledge that with you. You can delete this if you'd like, but just wanted to make that known. In the future, if I notice any edits that I may disagree with, I'll 100% discuss first. Cheers Spf121188 (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

And if you don't mind me adding, you're doing solid work. Not that my opinion matters, but just wanted to let you know. Spf121188 (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks bud, appreciate it. I do this stuff to pass time at work when not busy, so I try to avoid drama and arguing. Check out the NFL WikiProject, it's good for helping to define what goes and what doesn't. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I’ll take a look at that! I’m sure that’ll be super helpful for me; I don't use resources here quite enough, so thanks for pointing me in the right direction there! I appreciate your understanding, and look forward to working with you more! ps- I also do this while working... ironically to pass time haha Spf121188 (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:National Football League Defensive Player of the Year Award winner

Dear Hey man im josh,

You tagged this category as though it was part of a CFD discussion but you didn't initiate a discussion on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 22. If you want to discuss this category for deletion, merging or renaming, please set up a nomination on the December 23 page and correct the tag on the category. Or if you have changed your mind, please remove the CFD tag on the category.

You need to follow through on your tagging. This is made simpler if you use Twinkle to tag categories as the program which will take care of much of these steps for you. If you decide to tag a category yourself, then you need to post your nomination on the day's CFD page. You will find instructions on the CFD page. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Liz, I appreciate this post. This was my first time and I will definitely use Twinkle in the future if I need to request a deletion again. Sorry for the slow response, been away a week. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:National Football League Defensive Player of the Year Award winner

A tag has been placed on Category:National Football League Defensive Player of the Year Award winner indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this post. I do not wish to contest the nomination and will be leaving it. I also appreciate you placing the speedy deletion tag on there, as this was my first time requesting the deletion of a category. Sorry for the slow response, been away a week.Hey man im josh (talk) 12:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:PACKERS

It's not very active these days, but if you are interested, there is a WikiProject for the Green Bay Packers! Been seeing you edit a lot of Packers articles lately, so thought I would extend the invite. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

It feels nice to be noticed and I appreciate you extending an invite. Unfortunately I'm from a part of Canada that forced me to a fan of the Detroit Lions (the only phrase my wife knows in regards to football is "F#$@ the Packers"). I think it'd feel too wrong to officially be a part of the wikiproject for the bad man's team. Thanks so much though! Good to know my edits are coming off impartial enough that my fandom wasn't recognized :P Hey man im josh (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Haha no worries. I have just seen you edit a number of Packers' articles, but maybe that's because you are editing a lot of NFL articles! Good luck « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Question

Hello! I have a random question I couldn't find an answer to on the page you sent me before. On several NFL players infoboxes, I've notice "USA Today High School All-American." Judging by what I read on the guidelines, it seems like that should be removed, but it doesn't explicitly say so. Can I get your opinion about that? I wasn't sure what to think there. Thanks! Spf121188 (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

To me it feels like something that shouldn't be on an NFL player's wiki but I didn't notice anything that explicitly states that. The only callout for high school in this guideline for player pages just says that high school state championships shouldn't be included. I think it'd be worth starting a discussion post on WP:NFLD to at least get some clarity. Then the player pages format page could be updated to reflect what the decision is under the to include or not to include section. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree, so I started a discussion here [1]. Thanks! Spf121188 (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Your good article nomination

Hey there! Great job on List of Detroit Lions in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. I just wanted to let you know that I actually removed the good article nomination tag, as the good article criteria does not allow lists to be nominated as good articles. You're more than welcome to nominate it as a featured list, though! :) — GhostRiver 19:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the kind words! Sorry, nominations like these are new to me, so I really appreciate you making this post on my talk page to help me learn. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Hello 2601:647:6511:E65:84E7:BF94:198E:E3CC (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Dealing with edit warring

Hi Hey man im josh, please inform/warn users (including IPs) on their talk page when you revert their contributions. The templates listed at WP:UWARN may be helpful; Twinkle offers a nice "TW -> Warn" menu on user talk pages. And if that turns out to be unsuccessful, please report the behavior, for example at WP:ANEW. Thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your intervention and for this post, it's very helpful. I've added those links into my slowly growing list of Wiki references that I fall back on. I'm going to read more through the tags to consider their applicable uses shortly. Thanks! Hey man im josh (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for enforcing the verifiability policy :) No worries! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Marcus Houston

Hello! Just letting you know I saw your proposal for Marcus Houston for deletion, so I went ahead and started an AfD on his article here as I agree with you. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks! Spf121188 (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! First time creating one and I thought the Twinkle process completed the whole thing. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Of course! I work with the AfD process now and then, you can let me know if you have any questions. I don't think you did anything wrong at all, I just formally nominated the article. The proposal you left on the page helps other editors start the nomination or find new sources, but I couldn't find any, so off to AfD it goes. Cheers!! Spf121188 (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
If you don't mind me asking, can you let me know how to archive talk page discussions? I haven't learned how to do that yet. Thanks! Spf121188 (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm still messing around with it and am definitely not an expert. I'm working off this page; Help:Archiving a talk page. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Ah! Still helpful, thanks! Spf121188 (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Robert Brooks

Hello again! I'm sorry to clutter your talk page; can you take a look at this diff? I took this particular award down because it's from PFWA, not the AP. I turn to you for infobox questions, so sorry again for all the messages. Thanks! Spf121188 (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

No worries, it's no clutter at all. I wondered that myself when rearranging the awards but I left it as is to look at at a later time. I'm looking over the player page format and under the what to include section it references which publications to include for MVP. It doesn't call out which publications to include for other awards but, given that it specifies for one and not others, I'm inclined to believe that it would be okay to remove. I don't think PFWA is given much credence anyways, and the official award (presented at NFL Honors) is always the AP award. I'm in support of removing it, especially because we don't need multiple publications presenting the same award. The only PFWA awards I see given any credence are the PFWA All-Rookie team and the Golden Toe award, but I think mostly because nobody knows what to do with that one. The rest of their awards, like the Good Guy Award are usually removed. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)]]
Yep, that was my thought process as well. PFWA is reputable, but typically whoever wins that award will likely get it from the AP, and if it does differ, I don't see the need for including PFWA, SN, or any other publication that isn't awarded at the NFL Honors. The All-Rookie team from PFWA I think is included like you mentioned, because the AP or any other publication doesn't actually have an All-Rookie team, so that makes sense. Just wanted to make sure we're on the same page. Thanks again! Spf121188 (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Yup I'm with you on that. I defer to the NFL Honors as the "official" version and the rest are just putting out their own version. When there are multiple publications out there, you go with the one that the NFL recognizes. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
One more thing- the AP didn't award a CPOY from 1967-1997, but PFW and PFWA did. How do you think that should be handled? That encompasses roughly thirty players. Think it should stay in the infobox for them? That's a tougher dilemma, but my instinct always says stay consistent for everyone. Spf121188 (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I think we need a separate coach page personally. Applying these standards to both coaches and players is difficult. I proposed it a while ago and there was support, but I got busy and wasn't able to spend the time on it. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I should have spelled this out better, when I wrote CPOY, I meant comeback player of the year. The AP didn't award a comeback player for those 30 years, but PFW and PFWA did. My bad, I should have specified that. Spf121188 (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
That's a good question that I don't think I can give you a good answer to. My personal opinion would be that they shouldn't be included, but my personal opinion isn't always what the guidelines end up being. With this one being a grey area it's hard to say. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Ben roethlisberger

Big ben is not the longest tenured player for a single franchise. Tom Brady played for new england for 20 years, which definitely beats 18 years by ben. 66.207.29.228 (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Did you post this in the wrong place? I haven't made any statements or edits stating that Ben is. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I suspect you meant to post this on the talk page or make an edit to the wikipage. I went ahead and removed that part from the lead in Big Ben's wikipage. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:10,000 receiving yards club

Template:10,000 receiving yards club has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

NFL importance ratings

Thank you for working on NFL player importance ratings. I note, however, the rapidity of your ratings calls into question whether you are actually evaluating the importance or simply marking all as "low" importance. For example, and just today, you rated 18 separate articles at 14:40, 17 articles at 14:42, 14 at 14:35, 16 at 14:34, 17 at 14:27, 18 at 14:24, 18 at 14:21, 16 at 14:19, 16 at 14:18, 19 at 14:14, and 18 at 14:02. That's an average of about one article every three seconds. This extreme speed suggests you may not be actually reviewing each article to assess the importance but rather simply assigning the same "low" importance rating to each article in a mass production approach. Can you clarify whether you are actually evaluating these articles? Cbl62 (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

HI @Cbl62:, I thought someone might call this into question and I'm happy to answer it! I actually went through, for a week or two, sorting through all of articles in the B, C, D, list, and articles yet to be rated categories that had yet to have importance tags set. I would find those through the table shown in Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Assessment page from the relevant columns. This would lead me to the pages that have yet to be rated, which I would add to bookmark folders titled top, high, mid, and low based on the criteria listed here.
I do a lot of spreadsheeting... so I copied all of the bookmarks I had made into an Excel spreadsheet that had a formula to convert the article's' URL into the editing page for the article's talk pages URL. I copied all of those links from the spreadsheet, made them into a .HTML file, then imported them as bookmarks into Google Chrome.
From there I opened up about 30 at a time or so at a time, used ALT+B (an AWESOME new short cut I learned today!!!) to jump to the editing box on each tab, then cycled through CTRL + V pasting the same explanation, which was relevant to all of the articles I rated. Lastly, with the explanation already set, I cycled through and quickly highlighted ""importance=}}" or "}}" (depending on what each page already had on it) and pasted (with a pre-set button my mouse) the relevant "|importance=xxx}}" and pressed ALT+S to publish (the other amazing short cut I learned today) to publish my edit, increasing my edit speed. It just so happened that a majority of articles that hadn't been assessed for quality also happened to fall in low importance category. It made sense once I thought about it since players of higher importance get more attention, and would thus be more likely to be assessed over articles that received very little attention.
In short, I had pre-reviewed all of these articles in order to edit them in a quicker manner later on. I felt as though I was moving much slower when going through 20 or so articles at a time and set a different importance each time 1. I felt it more efficient to add them to bookmark folders for the importance category based on the assessment criteria and then perform the same edit repeatedly later on when I felt up to doing so.
I also had an additional reason, which is pretty dumb if I'm being honest. I noticed on Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/National Football League articles by quality log that I had a particularly busy day that caused the article to expand by (148,226). I wanted to see how high I could get that number if I really tried. That's why I was doing relatively less editing, I was sorting articles into bookmark categories for the purpose of seeing just how big of a difference I could cause the log to have in a single day. Stupid reasons!!! But the articles were all reviewed and I made a very genuine effort despite how bot-like the timing of the edits may appear. In case you're wondering... I succeeded! Today the article for the logs expanded by(323,694‎). I'm not going to do that again, but it was a unique opportunity that gave me a bit of motivation to do something positive. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good. The rapid rate made me wonder, and I had to ask. Cbl62 (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Davante Adams

Hi again!

I noticed you reverted (rightfully) an edit on Davante Adams page here. I just wanted to let you know that I left a notice on the IP's talk page here, in reference to their jump-the-gun edit. Just wanted to let ya know! See you around :) SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 16:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I've got so many pages on my watchlist right now for all the ongoing signings that I've missed notifying a few users in all the chaos, that being one of them. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
100% understandable! If I happen to notice, I'll do the same and inform you! It's a lot to keep track of, I totally get it lol SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 16:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Herbert

Just the "Rookie" part. It is continuously being added by an IP that has been banned numerous times and I'm fairly certain there was a discussion to not include it.-- Yankees10 18:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

That's fair, good to know. I'll keep an eye out and try to go through the archives sometime to see if I can find the discussion. Thank you for the response! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Cooper Kupps' page

Hello again!! I know you routinely keep an eye on some player pages, I just wanted to see if I could get your help with something. I noticed this edit on Cooper Kupp's page, and I opened an SPI case this morning for that user here, and you can see by looking at it that it's happened more than once. There were a few different users that keep editing the page, some of them the same edit, and I'm positive some of them are the same user under different names to circumvent a block. Work has been super busy for me lately, so I can't always keep an eye out, but if you happen to see these edits before I do, can you add them to the SPI report or open a new one if the one I reported is closed? I wasn't sure if you have done that before or not, but I figured I'd turn to you since you keep track of NFL and player pages pretty well. I appreciate it! SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 17:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with sockpuppet investigations but I tried to contribute to it. I dumped a lot of info there that I hope you can use in some way. Good luck! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I GREATLY appreciate your help with that!! Vandalism is running rampant on both players pages, but this is super helpful! Thanks again! SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 19:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

NFL Records question

Hi Josh

First off, just wanted to say hello and say that I enjoy seeing all that you do for the site. I used Wikipedia for many references when I was an Answers.com supervisor years ago.

I wanted to ask if listing the NFL Records, like many players have listed separately under highlights and awards, is the correct thing to do? I'm going back and forth with Dissident93 on this. They were merged for Jared Allen and I can't understand why. The link that was sent to me, with "Mister Accolade" looks like the same thing I was doing.

If I'm wrong, I'll go to every page out there and start deleting. Just wanted to ask first.

Sometimes I don't come across the right way, so I stay away from 'user talk' pages when I can.

Thanks in advance.

John108.29.18.127 (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello John, thank you so much for the kind words! I encourage you to register for an account if you plan on contributing frequently.
I typically reference this guideline for player pages when making changes and cite that as the reason I'm making those changes. So long as you're following that guideline for infoboxes, you should be fine. Just make sure to add an edit summary when you can so as to cite that page.
If you disagree with how the structure is currently laid out and you'd like to propose a change to it, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
You're very welcome, Josh. Honestly, I wanted to make up an account, but I wasted so much time and I now realize that
I won't keep my IP contributions. If they could be switched to a new account, I'd do it. This way, someone doesn't start reverting things because they think it's a defunct IP user.
I also saw "Mister Accolade" didn't have the college tab. And I did go by what I saw others doing.
I'll change the several players I added the college tab to, this way others won't go by what I did.
Thanks again for everything you sent me. 108.29.18.127 (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Nobody should ever revert anything just because the person who edited did so from an unregistered account. That's not a proper reason to revert an edit and they'd likely be called out on it.
Don't worry about keeping the IP contributions. I know it may suck to lose them, but you'll still be able to monitor pages by adding them to your watchlist. If anybody, for a reason that's not valid, reverts your edit then you would be able to see that a change was made without having to constantly check the pages you've edited. Check out WP:REGISTER. Better to register now than later if you're ever going to do it. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
That's good to hear (about reverting etc).
I guess I could list my IP address on my user page if I joined. I don't care who sees it. I'd rather someone knows
who the IP user was who contributed here earlier, right or wrong.
Wow, I had a feeling you would see whatever that person was doing to T. J. Watt.
I combined the NFL and college highlights last night for T. J., that was it, not that other mess.
I'll let you go. See you around and thanks again. 108.29.18.127 (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Hey man im josh. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

  • Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
  • If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. signed, Rosguill talk 16:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me the chance with this trial run. I'll do a lot of reading over the next day or two to make sure that I understand things and then I'll have at it to the best of my ability. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Stop reverting

Your rationale was absurd. "Everything is a matter of opinion" was essentially what you typed in regards to Gronkowski. Even your preference (Tony Gonzalez) referred to Gronk as the greatest TE ever way back in 2017. You clearly have an anti-Gronk bias, which is your right, but leave that at the door and *not* on wiki. You're probably one of the clowns that objects to Brady's wiki where he is rightfully referred to as "the greatest quarterback of all time". Gronk holds almost every TE record, his peers and even critics view him as the best TE ever. Don't get snippy with me.76.181.201.214 (talk) 08:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@76.181.201.214 on the contrary, I do take the side of Gronk being the greatest. However, Wikipedia must take a neutral point of view. No one here is being snippy but you. Your edits on Gronk taking a non-neutral point of view don't hold up to that standard. Hey man im josh (talk) 10:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Quick note

Hello again! Just letting you know I left a warning message here because of the edit this IP made on Stephon Gilmore. I saw you reverted their edit but wanted to let you know. Thanks and cheers! SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 14:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah you beat me to it! Had their talk page open in another tab ready to do the same. Thanks! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Ohhhhhh sorry about that! lol I'm having a slow work day so I'm trying to kill time and noticed, that's my bad!! SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 14:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
No worries, can't be upset with a good faith edit. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Thesaurus33

Hi, I've noticed that User:Thesaurus33 has been engaging in disruptive behavior on Peyton Manning and Drew Brees by changing the tenses from former to retired twice, but both edits have been reverted. I've left a message on their talk page about their disruptive editing, but I'm worried that they will continue this disruptive behavior. At this point, I'm really not sure what to do. 2001:569:7F96:EE00:C130:FB31:A294:F1FF (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd say you've done the right thing. For now be patient, the user hasn't done anything further since your message on their talk page. Let a user get the message and give them a chance to improve their editing moving forward. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For your efforts in counter-vandalism work. Keep it going! SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 18:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @SPF121188, I really appreciate you giving me my first barnstar! Hey man im josh (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Well deserved my friend! SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 12:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Free agency edit

Hi Josh,

Sorry about the free agent thing. Thought that if they stay a free agent until the start of the 2022 season, it would be stupid to keep them active, with it looking like they still play for the old team. This started due to the Vic Beasley page. Someone changed what you did, I originally agreed with you, if he didn't play for a year, make him former.

I'm finding a bit of confusion with some pages saying this and some saying that. Know what I mean? If you revert me, I revert someone else ... and then they turn into the wonderful Dissident93.

We spoke earlier, I was the IP user that finally joined up. I think I'll stay more quiet than not, getting beat up at every corner it seems, lol.

It's better to wait for the season to start and just edit numbers, like I did last year.

See you around,

John Bringingthewood (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @John,
You have nothing to apologize for, all of your edits are in good faith. It's okay to not always be on the exact same page as other users, that's what talk pages are for, to discuss what makes the most sense and come to a consensus.
We're in a bit a weird grey area for the NFL in terms of who's active and who's not. From what I've observed in my time here, it's best to wait until the season starts to change a player's status on those list pages unless they explicitly announce retirement. What you did was still, overall, a positive contribution to the page as you noted which players were no longer rostered and added the end year in those situations. Your only mistake there was adding "(Free agent)", we can infer that from a player being marked as active and having played in 2021 in this case.
It's okay to be confused, you're seeking clarification, which is the best thing you can do. Dissident93 is a very knowledgeable and helpful user who has made significant contributions and has a wealth of knowledge and experience from which they draw from, while also being interested in NFL related pages like you are I. Try to remember to assume good faith when you feel discouraged by a revert, you're working together towards a common goal, not against each other.
I'm glad to see you've registered an account! WP:BEBOLD, don't be quiet! Many people respect and try to help educate users who are making good faith edits, and yours all appear to be in good faith, which is the important part. Disregard anybody who's needlessly behaving like a jackass and keep at it. Your contributions are a net positive and are appreciated by myself and others, even if you don't hear the praise. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Josh. I understand everything you tried to get across to me, completely. It brings me back to the WikiAnswers days, and I was 100% correct in contacting you when I was an IP user. You're right on point and a pleasure to deal with. I never forget the good ones. I'll pay attention a bit more, have more patience and go and check out the invite. Thanks for that also. Funny, I used to to tell other people all this. Here's to a good year. Regards. Bringingthewood (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi Hey man im josh. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or RedWarn.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! FASTILY 21:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I very much appreciate the opportunity. I'll definitely be on your talk page at some point! Hey man im josh (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Yuriy Sedykh

Hello there, can you ban the unregistered user who keeps reverting this page? I've asked an administrator to make it editable by registered users only but no reply yet. Cheers! Billsmith60 (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Billsmith60,
I'm sorry but I'm not the right person to be asking in this case. I don't have administrative power to ban users nor do I have the power to protect the page.
I don't see where in your edit history that you requested the page to be editable only by registered users, but I would recommend you request page protection here in the future. Alternatively, if you believe someone is violating the 3RR, you can report the matter at the administrators' notice board for edit warring.
You're doing the right thing by seeking help in this situation instead of edit warring. It's just that I'm not capable of helping in this situation beyond pointing you in the right direction. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks for your very helpful reply. A vigilant admin. has sorted this out! The draft is not far off (J-E-T-S ;)). Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Recent Changes Barnstar
I often see you on recent changes patrol when I'm there, and given that I'm usually on at random times, that means you must be putting in lots of work over there! -- NotCharizard 🗨 18:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

inappropriate use of rollback

My edit was hardly an example of vandalism (which is what rollback is for) Specifically, referring to the addition of a paranthetical about MxPx's christian roots being ironic in the face of Bad Religion and their crossbuster logo added some depth to the entry. No cite was needed because these points are cited elsewhere in the relevant articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MxPx&diff=1084142157&oldid=1084141992 Thank you for doing something to make Wikipedia a little more bland and uninteresting. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1000:5710:d936:7a61:b509:22e1 (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello. You're right, I meant to click undo in that instance, sorry about that. I'm not perfect and one of the most painful but best ways for me to get better is to be called out on it. I reverted my rollback with an explanation and then proceeded to undo your edit as it's commentary and does not add to the article in any way. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that…

Hello, thanks for this reversion here. I was not looking at the bigger picture and was about to get that article A1'd… feel free to trout me if necessary. Thanks again. — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 00:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

It's all good, you were acting in good faith. Though, since you did invite some trout slapping, it IS about time I tried it on someone! Hey man im josh (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Disney and Florida House Bill 1557

Please stop adding nonsense reverts and idiotic references to policies that don’t apply. No one needs a reliable source to delete prose. You also performed a revert claiming NPOV and Censored, please respond on the talk page if you want to engage. 2600:1700:1111:5940:74AF:3318:1044:F390 (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

As previously, and repeatedly, mentioned, you need to provide a valid reason for removing sourced content which is topic relevant. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I gave a valid reason and I used the article’s talk page. I also left a note on your page. Not liking my reason is not the same as me not providing a valid reason. This is pretty straightforward. The other companies responses belong on the bill’s page, not here. Why not move the material to the main bill page as part of the wider discussion on responses to the bill? 2600:1700:1111:5940:74AF:3318:1044:F390 (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
If you didn't want to discuss the issue with me on my talk page then you should not have initiated discussion about it on my talk page. For future reference, it's also best practice to create a new section on the talk page instead of responding to a different discussion. I don't see what's so difficult to understand about the comparisons against other companies being included as a point of reference. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

It is a great point of reference about the bill, that would also make a lot of sense in the article about the bill. It has nothing to do with Disney, so doesn’t belong there. 2600:1700:1111:5940:74AF:3318:1044:F390 (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think, you are being Distruptive. Chip3004 (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
lol, wikipedia is only what people think guided by reliable sources. 2600:1700:1111:5940:74AF:3318:1044:F390 (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Should we instead be guided by unreliable sources? Hey man im josh (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
being an editor requires competence WP:COMPETENCE, this last comment shows you are clueless. Articles are created by the synthesis of available reliable sources by editors. 2600:1700:1111:5940:74AF:3318:1044:F390 (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Waldemar W. Koczkodaj

Hi Josh, I am trying to remove the page as the page is a self promotion page. If you read the content of the page then you will notice that it is a self promotion page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammerwikiedits (talk • contribs) 15:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Grammerwikiedits, this page appears to have been created by you with 63.8% of the page's characters being attributed to you. Are you trying to say that you are Waldemar W. Koczkodaj? Hey man im josh (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
No, I am not the person, but he categorically asked me to put all this information, I am one of his student who has created his page. Grammerwikiedits (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@Grammerwikiedits, out of curiosity, did you receive anything (better marks for example) for making this page? Why do you want to delete the page now all of a sudden? Hey man im josh (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
It does not follow the wikipedia guideline. Grammerwikiedits (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@Grammerwikiedits, you may propose deletion of the article if you'd like, or you can work to remove any aspect of the article that does not take a neutral point of view. It is not considered proper to delete all of the contents of a page, leaving behind an empty article. You can also seek further advice at the conflict of interest noticeboard, which I encourage you to do. This is a situation I don't feel knowledgeable enough to guide you through. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Kaiir Elam

Hello, I just want to give you a heads up on Kaiir Elam's number. From what I know, a cornerback can pick any open number from 1-49. For Elam, he could pick from the following numbers: 1, 6, 10, 24, 32, 43, 45, 46, 47 & 48. According to evidence I have for you, he picked 1. I have two links to some jerseys that are on sale which have his number. Check them out: Lids jersey Fanatics jersey Meanwhile, I'm waiting for your response so I can revert your edits. He or the team doesn't have to announce the number, sometimes, the sports stores give it away. Anyways, check out the links, and let me know on my talk page what you think. Cheers!BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello @BubbaDaAmogus, I appreciate you reaching out about this. I looked at the top 12 picks and found they are all being sold on Fanatic and Lids with the number 1 on them.
When players are drafted in the first round they usually go on stage and hold up a jersey with their name and the #1 on it. If the jersey had any number other than 1 on it I'd be self-reverting. But, based on all the jerseys for sale for the first round picks, we'll have to wait for a confirmation of some sort besides the jerseys listed in stores. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Ok, I guess that's reasonable. Let's wait for some confirmation. BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Contributions

What’s up Josh mah boi. Just sayin if you were to just type what I did it would be fine right? And if it’s just someone suggesting and edit to ya then it’s a1. Go slap those trouts man. Indecisively, Ryan Halladay Ryan.halladay (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

By the way I can provide links to prove the validity of the college changes as well as the validity of the younger being, like I said before, much cooler. Smooth surfing soldier, Ryan halladay 

 Ryan.halladay (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

What's your deal?

Can we just call it truce? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.69.27 (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@68.234.69.27, there's no truce to be had, we are not in a conflict. Just please provide sources for the changes you make and I wouldn't have a reason to revert. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Josh let it stay

Josh let it stay for a day please its for a day its for a bet if it's not there I need to gat a back tattoo Someone.ca (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Someone.ca, that's unfortunate for you but vandalism will continue to be reverted, sorry. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

StatSeason

Hi Josh,

Thanks for the kudos and the message. I put the 2021 back. Before I joined I saw that you did this type of thing and it made sense to me also. But I do understand when something is what it is. This is why it annoys me when we remove a college section and certain people put it back and do what they want. If Wikipedia wants it done a certain way .... for now that's that. Truly, I think some believe they own the page.

I appreciate the heads-up and I can add those 2021's in my travels. Good news is that I updated the stats first, so they should still be pretty accurate.

Have a good week!

John Bringingthewood (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Faustian deal

Hey! How are you?

Please I would like to know why you reverted my edit to Faustian deal. There are other articles on Wikipedia that use it as a synonym for a "deal with the Devil" or "Faustian bargain". Is there another meaning to it?

Thank you for your attention! 2804:431:F73C:7E68:50D5:F789:7FA5:6D9E (talk) 04:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello @2804:431:F73C:7E68:50D5:F789:7FA5:6D9E,
I guess the question is, where do you draw the line in directing to a more specific or a more general subject? Faustian, no matter the context, is normally capitalized (due to the term being based off the name Faust) and (at least in my interpretation) is a more obscure and specific term than "deal with the Devil". If you read the article for Faust you'll see it is about a deal with the devil and is commonly phrased as being about Faust's bargain. However, I now see that Faustian bargain has directed to "deal with the Devil" since 2007, which I wasn't aware of when I reverted. If either term was meant to direct to Faust, I'd have argued it's "Faustian bargain". With that said, this is just my interpretation, and I don't feel strongly enough about it after seeing that "Faustian bargain" directs to "deal with the Devil" to revert if you choose to change the redirect again. So please feel free to, I won't revert you. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello, @Hey man im josh!
The reason I want to redirect "Faustian deal" to that article is because the character Faust made that practice well known. I think some Wikipedia users might search for it hoping to find the concept related to Faust, as the adjective "Faustian" redirects to the article about Faust himself.
I apologize if I came across as rude or coercive with you, it was not my intention. I use translator as I am not an English speaker.
Thank you for your attention and kindness! 2804:431:F73C:7E68:6DF1:DE7D:3AA4:509C (talk) 06:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Hey @2804:431:F73C:7E68:6DF1:DE7D:3AA4:509C,
I understand, I'm glad to see you went ahead and made the change.
Rude or coercive? Absolutely not! You wanted to discuss a revert and you did so in a civil and polite way. Assume good faith is something I try to do, and your edits and actions had no malice whatsoever. I want to encourage you to sign up for an account, we could always use more editors that make good faith edits and try to resolve a dispute in the way you did. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you friend! I thank you so much for your kind words and support. 2804:431:F73C:7E68:65AA:E943:F0F5:5472 (talk) 03:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hey_man_im_josh/Archive_1&oldid=1090826030"