Jump to content

User talk:Hey man im josh/Archive 25

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 Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 20:53, 28 May 2025 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) from User talk:Hey man im josh) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Mark Carney Super Protection

Hello. Please lower the protection level on Mark Carney. I can't believe I'm seeing this. Even Justin Trudeau's page did not have this level. More people need access to it because they will notice omissions/facts, or, remember a specific incident, want to add as history is being made...This seems kind of 'elitist' and will not help Mark Carney's image. It seems suspicious and I hope someone on his PR team did not request it. Are you on it? This is very strange. Another 'protector' is trying to get his wife's page removed. JayElk33 (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@JayElk33: I fail to see how the current protection (no such thing as 'super protection') is elitist. Carney's image is not affected by the protection level of his Wikipedia page. Any person or site that argues as such should probably be avoided.
As for alleged factual errors, you're more than welcome to make requests on the talk page. The level was set based on many users who were registered making unsourced changes and edit warring. Additionally, it doesn't really matter what protection another page had/has. What matters is protecting a page from harm. There's nothing stopping productive changes from being made.
Additionally, let me tell you that you need to assume good faith. It's entirely inappropriate to accuse me of being in on some weird PR campaign. A number of users actually requested the protection.
Lastly, his wife's page and any discussions surrounding it are entirely irrelevant to a discussion about the protection level of the article.
You have not given a good reason to lose the protection, whereas I saw edits that gave me good reason to make it this level, and I believe there's a good reason to keep it this level for a short while longer. I will not be lowering the protection level of the page. In the future, when you make requests of folks, consider not levying baseless accusations at them. That type of rhetoric actually reinforces the idea the article should be protected when such conspiracy theories are about. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
I didn't mean to offend you and I did not think you would take it so personally. I thought wikipedia was 'open' and more 'free' and its main objective was to allow anyone to add facts they find. More heads are better than a few. I was completely shocked to see this protection as I have never seen it. I still believe this move seems unusually restrictive, unfair and elitist. JayElk33 (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Not 'elitist'. I think the word I'm looking for is 'exclusionary', or, not inclusive. JayElk33 (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
@JayElk33: We absolutely do support anybody and everybody improving Wikipedia, it's a core concept that helps make Wikipedia what it is. Unfortunately, people of certain high profiles, or who are in the news for various reasons, end up having to have their articles protected to prevent abuse or unsourced information from being repeatedly added. It's not that we want to stop people from editing the articles, but we want to protect them from said disruption. That's why we have WP:Edit requests. Those are typically what are made by being on a talk page of a protected article and, when a source and explanation is provided, they're typically responded to quite fast by regular patrollers of such requests (the requests enter a queue that those interested in answering them can monitor).
So, in short, we need to strike the right balance between stopping disruption and allowing open collaboration and contributions. Sometimes that means we protect an article. I don't like it, wish we never had to, but that's life. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:User pages on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

NFL category moves

Thanks for fixing some of them post-move. Not sure if it was the bot or me that did it incorrectly as there were 100s of them, but there's still another batch that was overlooked that I'll get too later. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Dissident93: I haven't checked whether the nom was listed incorrectly or it was just submitted for processing incorrectly. If you notice any that are messed up or moved to wrong target I can mass move them all tomorrow when on PC if you don't have the tool to do so. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Good to know, but just to be clear I meant there were ones that weren't nominated in the first place that I was going to do a 2nd nomination on. Are you able to move those or must it still go through CFD? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
@Dissident93: I think, based on that discussion, it should be fine to move most of them. I actually just nominated 207 categories (the sub cats of Category:NFL seasons by team and Category:NFL standings templates by season) for speedy renaming based on that discussion. I think most categories would fit the C2C rationale at WP:CFDS, aside from the main one and any articles that were left at the full name, which should have a category that matches that name. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

FL Source Reviews

Could you explain to me what I would need to do in order to conduct a source review of a FL nomination? Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Wikipedia:Featured topics/Svalbard studio albums was recently created but this should be move to a good topics page instead can you action the move please like you did for Yeezus and tell me how it is done? K. Peake 20:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@Kyle Peake: I simply just moved the page, it wasn't anything spectacular :P it just seems like the bot itself creates these templates, when processing a close, at the featured topic title instead.
Might be a good time to mention the template used on all good topics also links to redirects with the talk and edit buttons as well. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh yeah!

Hi Josh. I do like those older 'year' promotions! Congratulations! Hope to visit you again soon. Regards, John. Bringingthewood (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks John! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 20 § NFL awards

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 20 § NFL awards on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth @Dissident93, these probably could have been renamed at WP:CFDS based on the C2D (match the article) rationale. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Categories for speedy renaming

Hi, I'm newly back to wikipedia after a long hiatus and slowly getting back into the guideline changes, you recently marked a number of categories for speedy renaming that have the word racewalker in them to change it to race walker. I never knew CfD all that well and even less so now, could you point me in the direction of any discussion/outcome on that as I believe it should have ended. I was just about to propose some new stub categories for Japanese athletes would like confirmation of which title to use. Waacstats (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Welcome back @Waacstats! I proposed the mass renaming based on the outcome of the move discussion at race walking, which resulted in the page being moved from "racewalking" to "race walking". Based on the outcome of that, and it being an attempt to align with the article, I proposed the categories for renaming based on the C2D (match the article) at WP:CFDS. There was not a CFD regarding the categories, I proposed them under the impression that matching the article itself should be uncontroversial. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
I agree with your rational, and find it odd that these were at racewalking to start with. When do we find out the outcome, is there somewhere I can keep an eye on that particular discussion. CfD In itself is not something I am generally interested in, unless it crosses my path somewhere. Are we just waiting for someone to have the time and willingness to make the moves? Waacstats (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
@Waacstats: There actually isn't a discussion to watch, but, for whatever reason, the bot hasn't processed these. It's usually propose the change and if it's unopposed for 48 hours an admin moves the noms to WP:CFDS/Working or Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Large (which is where they currently are). It's unclear to me why they haven't been processed, but I'm going to ping one of the more experienced admins that works in that area in hopes they can sort it out. CC @Fayenatic london. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
@Waacstats: it looks like they have all gone through at last. I suspect the /Large page became too large to process. I hived off a load of completed moves for checking elsewhere, after which JJMC89 bot III finally woke up from having a rather lazy day. – Fayenatic London 22:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
@Fayenatic london: @Hey man im josh: thanks for that.Waacstats (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Fantastic, thanks @Fayenatic london! I worked on chipping away at that page, but man, it was so large and such a pain lol. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 March 2025

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Categorizing as miscapitalized

Have you had a change of heart about what is OK to mark as miscapitalized? Before you were saying that a capitalization that's common in sources should not be so marked. Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

The difference in what I tagged yesterday was that I tagged lowercase versions of proper names. What you have historically asked for was to tag proper names that are downcased for Wikipedia's styling, not because they're not proper names. Those are two distinct differences. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Where is it determined that those things that are commonly lowercase in sources are proper names? I thought your point was that if they're "correct" in some styles, per sources, then they're not errors on Wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
I believe all the ones I tagged had failed RMs with attempts to downcase. Wikipedia often erroneously downcases proper names which contain common words, but to keep something capitalized is a difficult task on this site. Titles downcased are often proper names, such as the name of an event, making the capitalization not an error. It just doesn't necessarily conform with Wikipedias's silly NCCAPS guideline because of said common word. Titles kept at upper case means that lowercase is clearly an error. It's rather straight forward in my mind. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
I had actually checked some before coming here, and didn't find any that had been considered at an RM discussion. Can you point to a relevant failed RM attempt? Dicklyon (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
The NFL Draft ones that I had tagged as miscapitalized and you reverted actually did have RM discussions that determined that lowercase was the correct case for them on Wikipedia. We should fix all those, or roll back all your tags that had no such discussions, especially those that are demonstrably very often lowercase in sources while you're acting on them as proper names. Or both. Dicklyon (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: They're clearly not errors in capitalization considering the style guidelines the NFL uses, which consistently capitalize the names of the event. Unless you can get consensus to change the purpose of the rcat, I will not support the changes to these redirects. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

"Televsion" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Televsion has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 24 § Televsion until a consensus is reached. Xoontor (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I've never edited that redirect, nor have I marked it as reviewed. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Josh, you !voted in a previous redirect for discussion. Xoontor is contacting everyone involved, as mentioned in the new discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Can you add it to the main site?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93Persian_War_(1821%E2%80%931823) Could you add the Mandali war to your homepage template? BEFOR01 (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking @BEFOR01. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
There is a template containing the battles in the 1821-1823 Ottoman-Iranian war. There are the battles listed under this war template. I would like to add this battle there. Our resources are available. I wish you a good day. BEFOR01 (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Suicide methods on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Regarding Leo Prantner

You moved the page I created Leo Prantner to a draft for having no sources, but take a look at the history. It has been there, but has been deleted, and undeleted multiple times. I have no idea what, but it honestly looks like sapotage to me given the lack of explanations. Fregerslev (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome to move it back if you believe they're notable. I remain skeptical, even with the addition of the sources. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
As if he is relevant to write an article about? At the time of writing is he on course to win the Bundesliga and he is probably the biggest Italian talent of all time Fregerslev (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
@Fregerslev: It's about what the sources say and whether you can find enough reliable ones. The article, in its current state, could use more sources. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Who is your favourite linebacker of all time

seriously who is it 2A00:23C5:59D5:5000:D4BF:990A:6D79:23E7 (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello again

Hey man. So can I apply for and get approved again for the WP:TPE right? I'm only requesting it now so that I can edit school colors over at Module:College color/data. There's a bunch of outdated URLs over at that module, and I'd like to possess the template editor right so I can help out. What do I need to do? I mean, I've accepted that there is a broad WP:CONSENSUS that there's several editors opposed to adding |border=2 parameters in the |basestyle of NFL team templates. I'm moving past that. I only would like the WP:TPE right so I can update school URL references for color codes over at Module:College color/data. CharlesEditor23 (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh and CharlesEditor23:, I don't really dabble in user rights that much. I have no prejudice with Charles regaining their rights, but with the corollary that any additional poor editing conduct will lead to a block instead of just user rights removal. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
I actually missed this entirely. To be honest, I'm hesitant because they're over eager about it and there's been so many issues in the past... Hey man im josh (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
To clarify my comment above, @Hey man im josh and CharlesEditor23:, I would not oppose another admin giving you the right, but I am unlikely to grant it myself. And if another did grant it, I want you to understand that future abuse of that tool would lead to more severe consequences, such as a block or a topic ban on the template namespace. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:12, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
OK, how many days must have elapsed before I may be able to re-apply for the template editor right again? It's been at least 3 months (108 days, to be exact). Should I wait a little longer? What would improve my chances of being re-granted the template editor right? BTW, I've submitted another request to be re-granted the right. Should I not have? CharlesEditor23 (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Notification of administrators without tools

Greetings, Hey man im josh. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
  • Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow.
  • To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hey_man_im_josh/Archive_25&oldid=1292790502"