User talk:Hey man im josh/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

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

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

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)

Dear Hey man im josh,

You tagged this category as though it was part of a

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)

A tag has been placed on

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)

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,

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)

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

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)

Hey there! Great job on

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)

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

Hi

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hi Hey man im josh. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at

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)

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)

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)

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)

	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)

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)

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)

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

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)

		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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@

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)

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.

• #1 pick - Travon Walker
• #2 pick - Aidan Hutchinson
• #3 pick - Derek Stingley
• #4 pick - Sauce Gardner
• #5 pick - Kayvon Thibodeaux
• #6 pick - Ikem Ekwonu
• #7 pick - Evan Neal
• #8 pick - Drake London
• #9 pick - Charles Cross
• #10 pick - Garrett Wilson
• #11 pick - Chris Olave
• #12 pick - Jameson Williams

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

Hey! How are you?

Please I would like to know why you reverted my edit to

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 "

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)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

honest question just wondering.

2A01:4C8:C0A:5274:FB1A:8F90:68BB:3CF0 (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm more of a player follower than a team follower, but perhaps that's because I grew up a Detroit Lions fan. I considered myself to have been traded with Matt Stafford to the Rams last season and enjoyed seeing him have some success outside of Detroit. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

relax with the moderation of allihies, we are a dedicated team of allihies history experts and your unexperienced views of the area are stopping us from fixing the page. I am a sigma male. I date 20 women at once, doubt you ever smelled a fanny before. I also eat ass. Women love me, they probably dont even look at you. Go to the gym. Touch grass. I am a god to your puny little wikipedia loving mortal mind. I have a j0b that i earn atleast 10 dollars an hour in. you sit in ur basement touching urself to articles. while i am out every night kissing WOMEN. good day to you sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Display333 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

... Wow, just wow. Can't imagine, even in a joking manner while anonymous, submitting this comment anywhere online. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I was wondering where all the interesting people were on Wikipedia. They are right though, you have to slow down. Hording all the vandals and trolls here (lol). This is my laugh for the day. Happy editing! --ARoseWolf 18:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

All of my edits are constructive. Please stop. I'll call God if you don't stop.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.213.7.133 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I guess I just love to revert vandalism, especially when it's putting my name into articles. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

See you a lot patrolling recent changes. Just wanted to say I'm glad that you can help with the cleaning!

Hey @

CollectiveSolidarity, thank you, I appreciate it! Hey man im josh (talk

) 16:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Enjoy this goat for being a speedy vandal catcher!

Taxin609 (Talk To Me) 16:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Taxin609: OH MY GOD I LOVE IT SO MUCH! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

LOL Taxin609 (Talk To Me) 16:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hey man im josh. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at

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. — TNT (talk • she/her) 13:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks so much! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Josh. I wanted to let you know that I created an article on Riley Morris, which you requested earlier this year. BTW, great work on all that anti-vandalism stuff. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey @BeanieFan11, that's awesome, I'm looking forward to reading it after I catch up from my absence. Thanks so much, I appreciate the kind words :) Hey man im josh (talk) 11:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey Josh, why you no respond :’’’( Ryan.halladay (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello boss how are you? I want to know where is the page of that's

Hello @MD Hydrogen 123,

You received the notification that a page had been reviewed because you were the original creator of the page. I see from the edit history that it was changed to a redirect by a user named Fram. I simply evaluated whether it was a valid redirect, not whether the page should be a redirect or not. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Now what plan the page was not visible? MD Hydrogen 123 (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're asking me. Can you try rephrasing your question for me? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello Hey man im josh,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 812 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 861 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I am no expert on that tag. Looks like there are a lot of templates on those articles in question. I have been trying to trim content on those pages outside of references but it does hardly anything to the size of the articles. Anyway, would moving the template above the other templates be a solution? Once again, I have no idea the processes on that template and how it is supposed to work. I want to commend you for your efforts on this site and your numerous contributions. Red Director (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Red Director,

I'm just following up now and it looks like you guys got it figured out on Tom Brady's talk page. I guess it really was just the size of the articles causing the issue. Aw shucks, thanks so much for your kind words, it means a lot coming from someone who makes such great contributions in both quality and quantity! Hey man im josh (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I left a discussion on the talk pages of both Eric Berry and Robert Griffin III regarding how they should be addressed in the lead. I was wondering if this is something you could take a look at if you have the chance because I would like to know your input here. The only reason i’m addressing this directly to your talk page is because it has been about a week since I added those discussions and have heard nothing from another user. I also know that you are very active in the editing of football related pages. Thanks. Bears247 (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Bears247, thanks for reaching out.

I took a look at the two pages and I made a change to each of them. I think in these cases we don't need to specify that they're "former" players and that might be a good compromise for those who are on each side of the discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	keep seing your anti-vandalism reverts in RC :) Theo(talk) 17:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

It's always a treat when someone takes notice and sends a Barnstar my way. Thank you so much! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I do not want to be engaged in a "edit war" with you but I'm not seeing any explanation for why the "Nipple fixation" element of the article isn't just outright removed. People seem perfectly okay with it being represented via text for anyone to read but somehow, putting it in her info box is too far? If the information is so harmful to her legacy, it shouldn't be on the article to begin with. None of my efforts breach anything that is not accurate to the article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C4E:133F:F2CB:E57B:CEF6:95AD:6AD2 (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello @2600:6C4E:133F:F2CB:E57B:CEF6:95AD:6AD2,

Thank you for discussing this on a talk page instead of reverting or re-adding. While there was instances of nipple fascination, that's definitely not what Koko is known for. Koko was, primarily, known for her sign language, intelligence, and for her interest in other animals. If you were to search "what is Koko the gorilla known for" you would not find the information about nipple fixation in most of the links that discuss her. Including the nipple fixation in the article is different from including it in the portion of the infobox for what she's best known for. Regarding the information potentially being harmful to her legacy,

Wikipedia is not censored, it's simply about the "known for" section of the infobox. Hey man im josh (talk

) 18:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I'd need to send too many thanks to cover this star. You're always appreciated. Bringingthewood (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey, thanks so much @Bringingthewood! I appreciate the barnstar and that you've stuck around :) Hey man im josh (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

You're very welcome. You deserve it!

And I thank YOU for that. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you; beat me to it.

Both of us have made requests for this article to be protected. Should we combine our arguments or should one of us remove our requests? Perhaps we should leave it as is? Graearms (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

@Graearms we can just leave it, there's no need to combine. The admins will get to the requests eventually and it doesn't speed things up or help in any way that I'm aware of to have ours combined. In the future tho, it's best to check if there's already a request submitted so that we don't end up submitting two. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, also thanks for your other contributions to Wikipedia, you appear to be a very helpful editor. Graearms (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, I appreciate it :) Hey man im josh (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Bruh you’re the one who’s responded to the 3 requests and I’m just trying to notify you or anyone else that there’s a missing award that should be added to the awards and honors section do you think I’m lying or something it’s a Real award one search and boom you’ll see him holding it and accepting it on video you kept talking about everything but the award which was my main focus. 47.157.236.115 (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

As I said, and am still confused about, why are you calling me specifically out for this? I'm under no obligation to add anything to an article, but I responded to a point of your talk page posts. As mentioned, just because you haven't gotten an answer that you would like doesn't mean you keep making posts about the same issue by creating new sections. Patience and further discussion under the existing section is the way to go, not creating new sections.

I carry no weight here, I'm not stopping anybody else from adding anything to that article, there are a lot of others who have seen your posts on the talk page. I responded to your point in which you wanted people's opinions added to the article. Ronaldo calling Brady the GOAT doesn't belong in the article, that's what I've addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

No I’m not calling you out I’m asking why you’re ignoring the award to than talk about something that wasn’t as relevant as the main subject even I said I didn’t care about the quote but rather there being a missing piece to the list of achievements/ awards and honors section of Tom at no point did I call you out but rather point out facts about the Award and when he got it and when it was created I’d understand if I was lying but that’s sadly not the truth of the matter and hopefully someone does add it Seeing as how it’s a real thing. 47.157.236.115 (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

This is what I mean, there was no need to create yet another section on my talk page to continue the discussion. I'm an unpaid editor, just like you (I think). As I said, I'm not fighting anything being added, but I'm under no obligation to add it to his page if I don't feel like doing the research to add it to the article. Someone else is free to do so and that's why your discussion should continue at Talk:Tom Brady instead of here. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hey man im josh, thanks for your AIV report. I have restored 51.241.0.169's removal for now, for reasons described in my edit summary and at the talk pages of Ringerfan23 and Smallangryplanet. I trust your experience and judgement to re-review the situation based on these explanations. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I appreciate you taking the time to review the matter and I understand from edit summary. Won't be no trouble from me on the topic :) Hey man im josh (talk) 00:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Even though you are already fast enough to beat HUGGLERS to vandalism. Good job! interstatefive  (talk) - just another roadgeek 15:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll need it for that mid day lull soon enough ;) Hey man im josh (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, Josh.

Again, funny thing, I always liked when All-Pro was there twice. But I noticed many older players had it once only. Even some college conferences. When I started specifying First and Second teams, I put it twice. Honestly, I went back and started correcting what I did and never stopped.

If I left well enough alone, it actually would have saved me a few headaches. Like the all-time record lists, I always figured click on a player and info shows up, great, but then I realized some users might not want to click on a player 10 times in one article.

Stopping now really helps me out, lol.

I knew you would see it and I appreciate you letting me know.

Regards, John Bringingthewood (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey John, I definitely like seeing it linked multiple times in the infobox as well. It's a tough and largely thankless task working towards making all the NFL infoboxes match up, but I just wanted to say that I appreciate all the work you've been putting in.

Always happy to help, and I'm glad you're so receptive to the feedback you get @Bringingthewood. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

HA! So my work continues. We agree they look better and I'm putting them back. Glad you stopped me.

Who knows, maybe the older pages will catch up one day. At least we don't have a time limit.

Being receptive is easy, I usually set myself up for a message or two once I start typing.

What do you think about the teams played or coached for in the infobox being mentioned multiple times?

To be honest, I have seen many not being duplicated, so I went with that also.

Someone out there seemed very persistent with that part. Bringingthewood (talk) 04:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Personally I do like the teams being linked multiple times in the infobox for team/coaching history. I've had the same issue as you with that one too lol. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, as long as it's within the rules like you said earlier, they'll be linked multiple times when I get there.

Sorry for leaving you a mini-novel here. I thought there was a Wikipedia taboo about things showing up multiple times.

The one that gets me is when it says (as a player, as a coach) and in the highlight box right below it, (as player, as coach). Where did the "a" go? I'd like to keep the same wording when I see them, but I didn't want to get 100 extra error-fix edits to my name.

Thanks for all your help with these issues, Josh. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).

Administrator changes Tamzin Barek • Darkwind • Geometry guy • ProcseeBot • RoyBoy • Sean Whitton • Valereee • Visorstuff • WAvegetarian Sn0wflake → VersedFenrir

CheckUser changes Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

• Several areas of improvement collated from community member votes have been identified in the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines. The areas of improvement have been sent back for review and you are invited to provide input on these areas.

Technical news

• Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
• The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

Arbitration

• Remedy 2 of the Rachel Marsden case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to delete or reduce to a stub, together with their talk pages, articles related to Rachel Marsden when they violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.
• An arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been closed.

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I'm not sure I've seen anybody on here work as hard as you do. If you aren't a tireless contributor, then nobody is! It's a pleasure working alongside you! SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 14:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much buddy, I really appreciate it! Looking forward to continuing to work alongside you. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

It's well deserved! I'll see you around the battlefield! SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (contribs)} 17:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I see now that you do acknowledge that there is some truth of the matter of which I spoke but that there was a misunderstanding and or bickering from us about a fruitless endeavor maybe in a different pathway where I didn’t add the second part there’s no interaction but this situation has resolved itself Respectfully as such to show good will/good faith have a good day. 47.157.236.115 (talk) 11:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I am very sorry if you found problems in my recent edits to the Tyson Looney Tunes Meals page. But you see, I didn't have any malicious intent when making those changes. I was actually just trying to improve the page, because the page's current state was beginning to look outdated. For reference, it has been the page's look for at least five or six years and the gramar on it wasn't very good. I also removed the dead links because, well, a lot of them didn't work. Clicking on them would result in a 404-type page on their respective website. I would appreciate it if we updated the links to be of articles that work. Especially because of how obscure the meals are, as it's very hard to find memorabilia of the other meals on the internet past the original eight, since they've been discontinued for nearly 30 years and little documentation were made on the meals besides their first and last years in production. I won't remove the links we have on the page for now just to keep myself out of any further trouble, but I will restore my rewrite of the article itself because I believe it's much better, with some minor additions. Oh yeah, and the Taz meal did indeed exist. If you look up the meals on Google and do enough looking, you'll find some pictures of the meal's box (alongside many of the other later meals like Henery Hawk Hot Dog) on an Ebay listing. Anyways, I hope you're able to understand that what I am doing is for the best. 144.121.64.194 (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Please don't make edits like this. It doesn't do anything meaningful and clogs up my watchlist. Good to see someone tagging redirects, though. ― Qwerfjkltalk 21:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)