Jump to content

User talk:Hey man im josh/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24

About your revert

Hello. I saw that you reverted some edits on Only on Earth because of COI concerns. However, the version you reverted to is clearly promotional and unencyclopaedic. I cannot revert right now because I am on a smartphone, but are you able to go back and find an appropriate revision to revert to? The text before the revert, while not entirely NPOV, was more neutral than the current text. QwertyForest (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@QwertyForest: I think it has some puffery language, but I'm not sure I'd go as far as saying it's clearly unencyclopedic. I actually think the version I reverted away from was more promotional and that the version I reverted to includes less puffery. I do think the revert is an improvement on the state of the article, but I also recognize the article can definitely be improved upon. Pinging Rickyurs, the article's creator, regarding this. Also noting it could use a few more sources for various parts of the article. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

January 2025 NPP backlog drive – Points award

The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia   
This award is given in recognition to Hey man im josh for accumulating at least 500 points during the January 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 16,000+ articles and 14,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 19,791.2 points) completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! – DreamRimmer (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

January 2025 NPP backlog drive – Streak award

Unnecessarily complicated Gears Award

This award is given in recognition to Hey man im josh for accumulating at least 150 points during each week of the January 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 16,000+ articles and 14,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 19,791.2 points) during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog!– DreamRimmer (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2025

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * Sent manually via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Sterling Sharpe

My understanding is that a player isn't inducted into the HoF until the induction ceremony. Re this edit, isn't it technically premature? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh gosh, you just reminded me that we (NFL editors) had a similar discussion last year in which I think we basically decided to reflect the announced results? I can't say for sure though. By all means, you're welcome to revert it @Gonzo fan2007. I think he's TECHNICALLY in the hall of fame already, based on the web page, and based on this, but that the enshrinement doesn't take place until August 2nd based on that second link. The second link also says The Hall of Fame’s membership, including the newly elected class, now stands at 382., which leads me to believe they consider them hall of famers. The time between them being announced and the ceremony is annoying because of the ambiguity of it all. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Thanks for the clarification. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

WikiBullying?

Hello Josh, Please do not attempt to wiki bully me with threats. Thanks. LgShai (talk) 08:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I see that you're a new admin. Two more experienced admins didn't threaten me. Please do not abuse your new admin powers to threaten or passively wiki bully wiki users. Thanks. LgShai (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
@LgShai: I'd certainly not call myself new to being an admin after being one for 16 months. I'm not seeing any admins aside from Liz and myself on your talk page. Additionally, Liz did say you'd be blocked, that's what "loss of editing privileges" means.
Let me be extremely clear. As mentioned elsewhere, if you continue to harass others with entirely inappropriate personal attacks, I will not hesitate to block you. This is meant to protect Wikipedia and its editors.
I'm sorry you feel that you're allowed to harass and insult others without consequences, but I do not feel that way. There will be consequences if your behaviour does not improve, as you've been told by multiple admins. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Just noting some diffs for my future reference:
The reason I didn't go ahead and give you a short-term block was because, on your talk page, you promised to use Wikipedia "correctly" in the future after Vanderwaalforces reminded you that there's a person on the other side of the screen that you're insulting. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Tells editors they're morons and brainless fools and then complains about feeling bullied? The chutzpah is strong in this one... Serial (speculates here) 14:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
You must be mad lol. Falsely accusing me of editing pages, then searching other places to attack me. LgShai (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
@LgShai: Do not get into fights on my talk page or try to antagonize others. The only one mad here seems to be you, and entirely unnecessarily so. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

"The Most Expensive City In The World For Expats" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The Most Expensive City In The World For Expats 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 February 8 § The Most Expensive City In The World For Expats until a consensus is reached. | Looks like it's an outdated redirect, but can be fixed real quick to direct to a more updated page! Lukeh486 (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Tangent-peacockery, maybe???

Hey josh, quick question since I don't know who else to ask and I just saw you reviewed Drf (thx):

The bad editing practice of starting to talk about some tangent that's only somewhat related to, and itself not even the subject of the article, what is that called? It's at the tip of my tongue, but I can't remember what the term for that here was. It goes something like this:

Fnord is an oncologist. His second cousin twice removed Fnorberg once composed a symphony that premiered at the Royal Albert, where it was very well received [and here are some citations].

Do you know what I'm talking about? I swear I read something about this sort of thing somewhere here, maybe an essay – and maybe there's even a Template: or something, but I can't recall the actual details. Thanks for your attention. ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Here for unrelated reasons - I think you want WP:HATSTAND (unfortunately I have recently become very well acquainted with this essay) Rusalkii (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
THANK YOU! Yes! That is what I was looking for. ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 09:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Article idea

Hi, since you are a very prolific NFL editor and as an administrator, would it be possible without violating wp:NPOV to discuss the bogus conspiracy theory that the NFL rigs games to favor Kansas City? I’ve heard it for a few years and it’s gotten some press coverage. I am concerned about potential violations of WP:NOTNEWS. Thanks! -1ctinus📝🗨 16:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@1ctinus: I actually discouraged someone about creating an article on the subject. Fact of the matter is, reffing in of itself is subjective, and there's so many places errors can be made. There's also the aspect that certain players know how to play the game and get more flags, Josh Allen and Patrick Mahomes being two examples of it. I don't like it, but that's exactly how it is. Additionally, one thing a lot of people don't consider, is that good coaching staffs can pick up on ways that players often foul and give the refs a heads up mid or pre-game, as something to look out for. This is entirely appropriate and normal, and it's something that happens pretty much every game. I have very strong feelings about the fact that people seriously overestimate and overstate how NFL games are rigged. As mentioned, some people just know how to draw flags and get favorable calls, and if the Chiefs were to be explored in that regard, I'd urge folks to look at the 2010s Packers, they got so many phantom calls from my (Lions) perspective that it certainly felt that way. As I've grown and learned to understand the game more, I've found that a lot of people throwing fits about the flags often don't understand that some folks are actually calling flags to the letter of the rule, and that the refs are human and just miss things.
That's also a big reason why we need more technology in the game so that things like first downs and ball placement aren't just being guessed at by eye sight. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

List of Detroit Lions in the Pro Football Hall of Fame

Just a note on the above, when I changed the table format and add the Career accomplishments section, I was really thinking that the "Awards" column would be true awards, those handed out to players/coaches at the end of the season (i.e. List of Green Bay Packers award winners type of stuff). The reasoning was that these type of things are what are considered for enshrinement, whereas for most of these, the anniversary team recognition came much later after enshrinement. Not saying you have to remove them or anything, just wanted to note what my intention was. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:09, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I think your point regarding the anniversary teams is solid for some candidates, but I also think it's a significant accolade that does help for enshrinement in a number of cases now. The article is in decent shape for now, but I'll definitely give it some thought prior to moving forward with a nomination of it some day. Thanks for the feedback @Gonzo fan2007, always appreciated! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of What Happens Next (webcomic)

Hi, I'm Sparkle & Fade, and I recently saw that you accepted a speedy deletion request for What Happens Next (webcomic) under criteria A7, but I believe that this was mistaken and I would kindly like to request undeletion. In the "Reception" section, (I believe) it makes a credible claim of significance, stating "[The comic] has accrued over 1 million views", which is sourced to the comic's webpage where it does indeed verify the view count on the statistics section (not sure if it counts as primary or selfpub), and also brings up multiple notable publications/people who received it positively. (I would have taken the tag off to contest it, but I was unavailable at the time.) I would have taken this to WP:DELREV, but WP:DELREVD says: Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. I'd like to know your opinion on it, though. Thanks. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 23:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@Sparkle & Fade: Sorry for the delay, I don't typically edit on weekends. As for the reception section, I don't typically view hit counters, which are notoriously inaccurate, as a valid/significant claim towards notability. The other references include a YouTube video and an interview that doesn't even mention the comic.
Frankly I don't think this will survive at AfD if sent there. Never the less, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt, restoring, and moving to draft space at Draft:What Happens Next (webcomic). Hey man im josh (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll be working on the draft there so it can hopefully be brought back to mainspace. Again, thanks for your help. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 22:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Hi Josh, Maxquayle1997 (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
^thanks for reconsidering the deletion! I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt. Sparkle & Fade has already added some great secondary sources to the draft, I'm looking forward to getting back to editing in the morning.
Just to clear up any confusion, the interview I was referring to does mention the comic; specifically, the title of the first chapter, Dog Names. Hope this makes things clearer!
All the best,
Max Maxquayle1997 (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Ah, chapter name makes more sense. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Virginia Halas McCaskey

On 8 February 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Virginia Halas McCaskey, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. charlotte 👸♥ 07:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Wow, Josh working on something that isn't a list? charlotte 👸♥ 07:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
See @Queen of Hearts??? I can do other stuff! I expect I may get another ITN recognition soon as well for Dick Jauron! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of 2026 Indian Premier League for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2026 Indian Premier League is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 Indian Premier League until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Vestrian24Bio 10:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Vestrian24Bio: Strange, the only time I edited that article was to nominate it for deletion at WP:RFD. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
The page creator is indefinitely blocked. But, I don't see why Twinkle sent the notice to you. Vestrian24Bio 11:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
@Vestrian24Bio: I think I actually figured out why. This is an assumption, but I think Twinkle may be recognizing me as the first person to convert the redirect to what it perceives as an article. I think this may be the case, as when redirects tagged with the RfD template are marked as reviewed, they're incorrectly counted as article reviews until the template is removed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Deaths in 2025

There are two basic agreed rules in this project which affect your recent edit in the above. 1) only simple cites are used, to reduce coding clutter by the end of the month; and 2) only three total credits are allowed per line - you can choose which three but there need to be only three. If in any doubt, you can bring it up on the talk page. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 14:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Why did you delete the article of the Najd revolution

It's really a revolution and it's in a lot of books and it's not on Wikipedia, and I put it and put a few sources with it, why delete it?' Please bring her back. Well, I'm so tired for her Abdalluh23 (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Abdalluh23: I did not delete the article, it exists at Draft:Najd Revolution. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Dick Jauron

On 12 February 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Dick Jauron, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 13 § Category:May 2023 sports events in Monaco

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 February 13 § Category:May 2023 sports events in Monaco on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

RD2

Hey Josh, starting with revision 1185492232 on List of NFL nicknames is a BLP violation that I removed. It's eligible for revision deletion under criterion RD2 of violates our biographies of living people policy. I would support the use of revdel in this case, as I could not find any reliable sources that this is a notable nickname. Cheers, -1ctinus📝🗨 15:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey @1ctinus, revdels are a weak point for me, so I asked in a chat with some admins who are more experienced than I am (three of which have oversight perms). They were on the fence about it, but there seemed to be consensus against revdeling the edit based on the information in the lead of Deshaun Watson. My understanding, based on the discussion with them, is it would be more of an issue if it were not widely discussed at the article. It's obviously vandalism and not appropriate, but not it's making an allegation or anything that's not reported already.
I don't like the edit either for what it's worth, and I'm going based off the suggestion of more experienced folks than myself. Sorry. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
If you want another opportunity, the vandalism on Chinese culture definitely needs to be scrubbed from the revision history. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Done. Sorry for the delay. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Regions

Please stop moving articles to make "region" in their titles lowercase, such as Public transport in the Wellington Region to Public transport in the Wellington region. I do understand that you're just making it consistent with the article Wellington region but that page move was done by two people without any proper discussion, and a move request is now at Gisborne District to make the "District" lowercase which is facing some opposition so it might be better to wait for the outcome of that discussion before you move any more articles. ―Panamitsu (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@Panamitsu: Those moves I made were based on the results of a concluded RM (which closed 15 days ago) and for consistency with the names of the main articles. It wouldn't make sense to have the main region article at "Wellington region" and then "Public transport in Wellington Region". If you disagree with the result of the RM you can start another and argue that it wasn't appropriate. Besides, moves are pretty easily reversible. If the regions are moved back to the capitalized title I'll be more than happy to help with the clean up.
In short, I'm not the person you should have an issue with in this case. A RM discussion was held and it's been over 2 weeks. I did some follow up cleanup work that, based on the current situation, was appropriate. The cleanup of moving for consistency is also done now and didn't include very many pages. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
I understand that, I just assumed that you were planning on moving more as out of memory (I hadn't checked) it seemed to me that there were more articles with a capital Region.
New news: A few (but not all) of these region articles have been moved back, such as Canterbury Region but not Wellington Region. ―Panamitsu (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
@Panamitsu: I have no intention of boldly down casing any region/district article titles, as I'm aware that those are often times proper names. I just do a fair bit of cleanup after moves, typically waiting a couple weeks to do so. With that said, I'm not sure it's appropriate to reopen a discussion 15 days after the fact @Cremastra. Personally I'd have preferred a new discussion being started instead. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Noting that I went and untagged the 326 categories I had tagged for speedy renaming. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes I did see that, thanks. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Request

Can you clear the talk page of my former IP? 191.9.61.200 (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@191.9.61.200: Do you remember your former IP address? If you can provide it, Hey man im josh or I can look into it. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
@Z. Patterson: User talk:191.9.57.3. 191.9.61.200 (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
@191.9.61.200: It is not best practice to blank someone else's talk page except under special circumstances. The original talk page does not appear to meet either of the criteria listed in the deletion policy, and we should not remove declined unblock requests. Although the account is currently not blocked, it is best practice to leave them intact for historical reasons. Z. Patterson (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
@Z. Patterson: Can you at least remove the Vivek hidden comment and only leave the block things? 191.9.61.200 (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
@191.9.61.200: I do not know if it would be a good idea to do so. Z. Patterson (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
@Z. Patterson: Just do it, please. It's just a hidden comment. It's not like they can't revert it back if it is really wrong. 191.9.61.200 (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
@191.9.61.200:  Done Z. Patterson (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
@Z. Patterson: Thank you! 191.9.61.200 (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thank you Nabulowa (talk) 10:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks so much @Nabulowa! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hey_man_im_josh/Archive_24&oldid=1286424129"