User talk:Hey man im josh

Archives

Archive 1

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)[reply]

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 succeeding! 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)[reply]

Sounds good. The rapid rate made me wonder, and I had to ask. Cbl62 (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

I'm concerned with you having powers, given that you edited just today without complying with wp:burden. But perhaps it is simply a learning curve. Best of luck. 2603:7000:2143:8500:514:437F:7C59:FB23 (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

.. why you have re-added uncited/deleted material, without RS refs, in conflict with wp:burden. Please self-revert. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. --2603:7000:2143:8500:514:437F:7C59:FB23 (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]