User talk:Hey man im josh/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16

Short version

I actually willing to strike whatever you want, if you specify it. Just list the strings. I may defend what I was thinking when I wrote something, but it's not in my or anyone else's interest to retain something if it's wrong or unnecessarily mean, or otherwise inappropriate. It's why I already removed the hypocrisy (which I misspelled!) poke.

I do not see you as an "adversary",, simply as someone I was involved in a tedious disagreement with. But I hope you can understand (!= agree with) my perception on this stuff. To elaborate on it a bit outside the AE trash compactor, your story about your "worst discussion" here and wanting a break, that resonated deeply for me – with regard to your, uh, not so even-handed sourcing stuff at the RfC. It took me all freaking day to pore over it all and produce a counter to it. Very stressy, and not a good use of time for me or anyone. Nothing in that discussion was.

This entire "question the legitimacy" thing appeared to me to be intentionally echoed when you wrote "question the MoS" at AN. It came off as a dog-whistle, a call to arms, to people with an MoS/AT/NC/RM-related axe to grind. I get that you're telling me it wasn't one, and I'll strike if that's one of things to strike, but it didn't just come out my butt. I was genuinely alarmed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I'm going to wall of text / word dump because I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of where I'm coming from.
I actually think there's a strong chance that if the RfC is overturned the result of an RM would be the same.
I believe my issue is with Wiki policy and difficulties in defining what makes a proper noun. Our default is to down case when sources are mixed, which can lead to cases where proper names are actually down cased. This makes those instances compliant with Wikipedia policy, but not necessarily aligned with the reality of the situation. This is especially true, and especially likely to occur, in situations where a part of the name of the event includes a word that is regularly down cased. Obviously I'm referring to the word "draft" in this case. In my source analysis, which I recognize you did not agree with my conclusion on, I looked at relevant sports sites and looked at the most recent 10-20 articles that had "NFL Draft" in them. I recognize this may not be consistent over time, but I tried to be clear about that. In that analysis I found no major national sports sources, except for ESPN, to have a consistent style guide for it (ESPN down cases). I focused on these because if anybody is going to know what's appropriate, it should be those major national sports sites. I found a number of sites that my initial assessment found leaned strongly, or partially, towards upper casing. However, because there's no style guide for these sites and a number of writers with their own styles, it leads to inconsistencies and a random sampling at any given time is bound to give mixed results that skew differently depending on the days you actually perform this type of assessment. Then when you factor in sources that aren't specific to sports it ends up leading to even more instances of downcasing because said sources may not be aware that it's a proper name of an event, which I maintain that "2024 NFL Draft" is. So, while I do believe the sports sources I mentioned lean towards uppercasing, I recognize that the totality of sources and Wiki policy lead to an outcome of down case.
I believe this leads to instances where Wikipedia gets it wrong. This was a conclusion that took me time to accept. I don't like the conclusion and I don't like how the discussion went, but I don't have a proposal or solution to fix what I believe to be an issue. It's a policy that exists because we need SOMETHING to be consistent and I don't have a better way to define what is and isn't a proper name.
The outcome of my conclusion, regardless of if you agree with it, is the same as yours. Down casing and I'm making an effort to implement it. Bagumba helped me to realize and accept it, as did a couple other admins who I asked for constructive criticism from.
As we've both mentioned, I questioned the legitimacy of the RfC venue for discussing capitalization. I've been vocal in a number of places about my regret in doing so. I worsened that discussion by parroting that belief I want others to learn from my mistake, I sure have. I also don't want to interfere with or worsen the decision making process, as I think I did there.
My biggest frustration is that I felt like the conversation was never moving forward. There were a lot of comments that I felt kept getting away from the issue at hand and kept repeating the same thing over and over again. I don't even care that much, though I do genuinely believe it's a proper name. I had received a number of messages from users too discouraged to participate and I felt as though I had to go to bat on their behalf. So much time spent on a stupid capitalization...
None of this has been a good use of time. I don't think it's an improvement to the Wiki to down case and to have to make changes on 40,000+ articles. I understand your goal is consistency, but I think some of these down casing discussions have led to worsened consistency across Wikipedia because there's so much to clean up and not enough people doing it, especially since Dicklyon lost access to semi automated tools. They made mistakes at times, but the good faith effort to clean up was certainly there. Nevertheless, this isn't your problem and it's not a reason not to start discussions and not to get titles to be in line with Wiki policy.
As I said at AE, it's not even that you're wrong, it's that the amount of replies and size of them in these discussions can be overwhelming and discouraging. There's an ongoing joke, not one that I make (but bluntly, I do find more relatable lately), that it's less contentious and preferable to get involved at Israel–Palestine discussions over MOS. There's a bad perspective and an issue that's going to blow up again at some point if steps aren't taken to make those discussions more tolerable. That's not to say people have to accept "losing" a discussion. It comes across as people who obviously care but clearly don't trust closers to interpret and weigh the points made in discussions. It's not necessary to reply to everyone in a discussion. Sometimes it's best to say your peace, make your statement, and move on.
I'm sure there's more and I could have been more succinct, but sometimes it's better to just let your brain pour out in hopes someone understands where you're coming from. I didn't proof read this and I may have started rambling at some point, so sorry if my point wasn't made and it comes across as late night rambling. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
There's an ongoing joke that it's less contentious and preferable to get involved at Israel–Palestine discussions over MOS My personal variant of this is that it's less contentious and preferable to get involved in GENSEX discussions over MOS. And I'm saying that as someone who has had targeted harassment from one of our article subjects.
The problem as I see it is unnecessary personalisation of discussions. There's very few times when you need to say to an editor the equivalent of "Hey, you're being a dick because of X, Y, and Z." or "this group of editors are all activists who disregard are core policies", much less venues where it's appropriate to say that. That sort of discussion has its place at a user's talk page, AN, ANI, AE, and ArbCom, but not on the various MOS talk pages (or other venues where the wording of the MOS is discussed). You can object to the point a person makes, without necessarily making a comment about the person.
If there's one take away from all of this, I implore you to reflect upon how you're engaging in these discussions, and why you keep making comments about editors, be they individuals or identifiable groups. And I am of course happy to discuss that further on my own talk page if you want. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, everyone should think more about this "personalization of style disputes" thing, . However, there's a community problem in that anyone angry about some MoS/NC/AT-related peccadillo, from capitals to italics to dashes to whatever, has carte blanche to nastily personalize against any editor who is trying to massage material into compliance with the guidelines. Again and again someone with a style bone to pick will personally attack individual editors (me pretty often, but most especially Dicklyon), or everyone as a class who doesn't agree with the pecadillo in question, or even everyone as a class who agrees to follow MoS and AT policy and the naming conventions as a general matter. Absolutely nothing is ever done about it, not by individual admins, not by the community at noticeboards. Anyone on the compliance side of the issue, however, will be dogpiled and accused of CIVIL/NPA/AGF/ASPERSIONS failures (too often by persons failing those themselves in the course of making the accusation), even if they are even mildly critical of an editor or a group of editors defying compliance. This is not tenable.

On the other matter: From a particular angle it is true and should be true that it is less contentious and more prefable to get involved in Israel–Palestine and gender-and-sexuality discussions, since a) they are real-world subjects about which there is controversy to cover in a balanced manner in our article content (and plenty of PoV-pushing from multiple sides to deal with), while b) MoS/AT/NC/RM stuff is internal bureaucracy that people should not waste so much time debating. Picking fights against compliance with our P&G is by its nature going to cause consternation, as it is not constructive (toward building the encyclopedia or toward the community operating well).

The 3rd matter: There's a marked difference between raising concerns about a stated view (i.e. discussion or sometimes article content) as being activistic/advocacy/PoV, versus claiming that "this group of editors are all activists" which is something that virtually never actually happens. Editors generally are not going around saying "You are an advocacy pusher", but objecting to specific statements (or claims in an article, etc.) as being activistic. They are not the same. If one does not draw this distinction clearly then one quickly starts to see everyone who disagrees as an ideological enemy and a bad actor, and this polarization tendency has much to do with why GENSEX discussions are so awful so much of the time (same across many other topics that are loci of controvesy). Any editor trying hard to maintain neutrality in that topic area is apt to get treated as if one of "them" (homophobes, transphobes, TERFs, whatever) if they do not closely mirror the declared stances and wording preferences of a particular sector that has come to dominate editorially across these subjects (a systemic bias issue). This kind of smear-tactic labeling is intensely hurtful to editors who put their own positions and preferences aside and try to approach the subject, on WP, as neutrally as they can, and not participating onsite in a particular doctrinal effort that is external to WP but highly influential among editors in these topics.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
has carte blanche to nastily personalize against any editor who is trying to massage material into compliance with the guidelines Sure, and I agree that is a problem. But neither you nor I have to actually engage in that. It may sound corny but, be the change you want to see.
I don't know if you've realised this, but when it comes to the MOS, you're one of the names other editors associate with it. To quote E.R, you set the tone. If an editor sees you interacting with the discussions in a certain manner, a lot of them are going to follow your approach. If they see you acting belligerently, then they're likely to follow suit. If they see you casting aspersions about another editor, or a group of editors, then they're likely to respond in kind. But the thing is, you don't need to comment on the editor when making a point about the guideline.
Earlier today someone awarded me the anti-flame barnstar, because I'm currently involved in discussions in an article talk page about the recent death of a non-binary teen in Oklahoma, and where partially because of the article content and partially because of the off-wiki culture war against trans and non-binary people, there are a lot of bad faith accusations going around. I have avoided making comments about other editors, and because of this I seem to be acting as somewhat of a moderating presence, reducing the temperature of the room at the time when the actions of others are raising it.
There are very few times when you need to outright say to an editor statements like you clearly should not be editing material on WP about historical subjects because you fundamentally misunderstand how to do encyclopedic writing in that topic area as you did here. The only time you ever need to say something like that is at AN/I, AE, or ArbCom, when you're filing a disruptive behaviour report against someone, and even then you're better off addressing that sort of comment to the room rather than to any one specific editor.
Again and again someone with a style bone to pick will personally attack individual editors Sure, but you don't need to respond to it in kind. If someone is coming at you aggressively on a talk page, don't rise to them. If it's a one off thing, let it slide. On the other hand if it's a frequent or semi-frequent occurrence, make a note of the diff some place so that you can file a behavioural report against them at the appropriate venue.
Absolutely nothing is ever done about it, not by individual admins, not by the community at noticeboards. The problem right now is, a lot of MOS discussions devolve into very personal flame wars. No-one really wants to deal with that because, dealing with that is exhausting, short of taking the easy way out and just TBANing everyone who is attacking someone else.
From a particular angle it is true and should be true that it is less contentious and more prefable to get involved in Israel–Palestine and gender-and-sexuality discussions Woah. That is...a horrific view to take about a content area (the MOS) where you're one of the main voices. Now I'm not going to comment about Israel-Palestine because that's not a content area I'm overly familiar with, other than I know from keeping an eye on AE that it is a particularly hostile environment with many bad faith accusations being made about many editors. But GENSEX, that is my bread-and-butter.
In my opinion, the reason why GENSEX is a highly contentious topic area is because, right now LGBT people (with a particular emphasis on trans and non-binary people) are a political football. A lot of that spills over onto enwiki because in many cases we're documenting people, organisations, and events that are part of an active culture war. Now a lot of that we can counter, as we're simply following what reliable sources state on any given topic, but because of that we do often get accusations of "you're clearly biased against X". What makes GENSEX less contentious to get involved in than the MOS however is, most of the regular editors don't engage in direct personal attacks against each other. And because we don't fight accusations of bad faith with accusations of bad faith, it is much more straightforward for the regular editors to raise behavioural reports at an appropriate noticeboard, and for those reports to be actioned.
Like right now, I'm considering filing a report at AE about another editor who has been causing a host of issues about a GENSEX article on my watchlist. I have a reasonably high expectation that the report will be actioned in some way (most likely a TBAN), in no small part because I have not engaged in the behaviour that this editor is engaging in. But when it comes to the MOS, because you are engaging in the same problematic behaviour as others, you personally don't have that option despite WP:CT/MOS having the exact same set of sanctions available as WP:CT/GG.
If you want to see admins or the community start to take action to clean up bad behaviour in the MOS talk pages, then the first thing you need to is change your approach, so that you stop being perceived as part of the problem.
There's a marked difference between raising concerns about a stated view (...) as being activistic/advocacy/PoV, versus claiming that "this group of editors are all activists" No, there really isn't. If someone is doing this, then in the first example they're making targeted comments about an identifiable individual editor, and in the second they're making targeted comments an identifiable group of editors. Either way, they're commenting on editors, and that does not belong anywhere outside of a behavioural noticeboard.
which is something that virtually never actually happens And yet, this is something I can provide many diffs of you doing. There's two examples of that type of comment, by you, right now in my report at AE.
If one does not draw this distinction clearly then one quickly starts to see everyone who disagrees as an ideological enemy and a bad actor This is completely unnecessary on an article talk page. It is also a nearly textbook example of battleground thinking.
Any editor trying hard to maintain neutrality in that topic area is apt to get treated as if one of "them" That's strange, because I strive to maintain neutrality in this topic area, I always advocate to follow our policies and guidelines, and I have never been described as a homophobe, transphobe, TERF, or any other label.
if they do not closely mirror the declared stances and wording preferences of a particular sector that has come to dominate editorially across these subjects, and not participating onsite in a particular doctrinal effort that is external to WP but highly influential among editors in these topics And these are the types of unnecessary comment, about an identifiable group of editors, that I've been talking about and that you just don't need to make. What you're describing here is a mixture of POV pushing and (for lack of a better term) ideological capture of a content area. Outside of an AE or ArbCom filing, with some very, very strong diffs to support the assertion, this sort of comment serves no purpose other than to bring heat to a discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Pre-comment: I know I'm making strong-stance arguments at the thread on your talk page, but know that I appreciate the engagement both there and here. [B]e the change you want to see ... you don't need to respond to it in kind ... change your approach, so that you stop being perceived as part of the problem: Sure, and I try, and so do Dicklyon and EEng and other targets of "those damned MoS zealots" ranting. Trying to let it all be water off the duck's back and to set a civility example (which maybe I'm the poorest at out of that lot) is good philosophy, but doesn't do anything to deal with the real human-toll problem of "NPA applies, except if you're attacking someone trying to comply with MoS guidelines". I can find no example in all of WP history of any NPA/AGF/CIVIL sanctions in MOS/AT except applied to those following the P&G; defiers are immune.

you're one of the names other editors associate with [MoS]: You really think so? I'm active at MoS talk, have institutional memory, good understanding of how it interfaces with other P&G, what effects various changes might have. But I'm not one to inflate my sense of importance. If you're sure this effect is real, then maybe I should print out "You set the tone" and post it above my monitor. Not a responsibility I was looking for, but if I have it then I guess I do. Glad you were able to moderate in that other discussion (and got noticed for it). [O]nly time you ever need to say something like that is at [noticeboards]: Point taken. [M]ake a note of the diff some place so that you can file a behavioural report Ugh. I hate going there. It feels like "pre-emptive battlegrounding", like actually assuming bad faith: "I'm gonna need this later to git 'em." Various people (like the recent RfC canvasser) have escaped noticeboard examination for years because I don't do this (and other "MoS regulars" don't seem to either). But I'm just allergic to dramaboards. "Policing" this area isn't a role I want, and might undermine what trust I have as an MoS shepherd instead of owner.

a horrific view to take about a content area I think you didn't get my meaning: editors should mostly be focused on encyclopedia content instead of internal rulemaking. (Cf. my comments elsewhere about leaping to the worst possible interpretation.) I certainly don't mean people should become more involved in such topics disruptively! Hell no. The disruption should not move from MoS to such topics; rather, editorial time and attention should move from unproductive disruption about style guidelines to productively improving content sourcing and neutrality, resolving content disputes at contentious and other topics. [T]he types of unnecessary comment, about an identifiable group of editors, that I've been talking about and that you just don't need to make: As a general matter, sure, but in specific contexts such concerns sometimes are pertinent (this seemed one; closely tied to some of your later AE diffs). The gist of my point at your own talk page is that your insistence that such observations by me are "assuming bad faith" is off-base; they come nowhere near the definition of that. "Unhelpful in my view" or even "offensive to me" does not in any way equate to "assumed bad faith". You can't just make up your own on-the-fly definitions of these things. It's also not your authority position to tell other editors they are aren't allowed to raise NPOV and BIAS concerns. And having one doesn't automatically translate into "this has to be a noticeboard or ArbCom case with a diff pile". You also keep asserting "identifiable". Okay, since you can read my mind and you magically know exactly who I mean, go ahead and identify them; provide a list. I suspect that you have an idea that "identifiable" means "someone might identify with this". It's not what it means.

No, there really isn't [a difference between observing a stated view's PoV and calling people names]: This is clearly the central pivot of our disagreement. Policy and community interpretation are on my side. "Comment on content not contributor" is laced (in various wording) all throughout our policies and guidelines, and the two are definitionally distinct (though you seem to have no compunction against ignoring that rule, to mischaracterize me again and again and again as "assuming bad faith"). WP would not be a possible project if it were forbidden to raise NPOV, OR, etc. concerns with regard to editors' content, actions, patterns without it being a noticeboard action; our policies would verge on meaningless and 90% of editorial activity would be at ANI, etc., and article talk pages deserted. [T]wo examples of that: Except they're not, for reasons covered in detail at your talk page, where you not being aware of or not maintaining a distiction between the actual definitions of things in behavioral P&G is a major topic. This is completely unnecessary on an article talk page: This is a user talk page, and we're having a frank discussion (urged at the AE) in which your approach isn't immune to concerns being raised. When I point out that one aspect of it seem to me to lean toward battlegrounding (without me actually citing that policy), responding with a claim that me doing so is also a nearly textbook example of battleground thinking isn't exactly sensible or the sort of evenhandedness you've advised I employ. Advice to avoid battleground thinking is not itself battleground thinking. But maybe you didn't mean what I think you mean by that; I'm not one to assert that my interpretation is necessarily correct, and doing it when complaining that others are doing it would be boneheaded. I'm a bit disappointed that so much of this has turned into further disagreement, though thank you for the good advice and observations quoted near the top. You are right that "rising above it all" is the solution, even if difficult to consistently pull off.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I can find no example in all of WP history of any NPA/AGF/CIVIL sanctions in MOS/AT except applied to those following the P&G; defiers are immune. Actually there are some examples of this. According to the WP:AELOG, in 2020 one user was TBANED from all MEDMOS discussions for personal attacks and civility. In 2019 you and another editor were subject to a two way IBAN due to incivility between each other. In 2016 one editor was TBANED from the MOS for among other reasons their interactions with you. Now AE actions in what is now WP:CT/MOS is certainly rarer than other CTOP areas, but there are still examples of it being used against disruptive editors who fall short of the civility requirements.
I strongly suspect that you would be much more likely to see admin moderation actions taken when filing cases at AE if you're able to change your approach, and stop being perceived as part of the problem.
deal with the real human-toll problem of It's not an easy path to walk. Sometimes you do just need to walk away and vent or decompress elsewhere.
You really think so? Yes, 100%. There are editors on enwiki who, for better or for worse, are seen as influential and knowledgable within their content areas. You are that person for the MOS. Whatamidoing is probably that person for medicine. And I suspect I'm becoming that person for GENSEX.
Ugh. I hate going there. It feels like "pre-emptive battlegrounding", like actually assuming bad faith For 99.9% of the time, this isn't something that you need to do long term. While we've been talking the editor who I was considering taking to AE was issued an indefinite page block from the article and talk page where they were being actively disruptive. The diffs that I was going to use in that AE filing were all from the last three or so days. In most cases you're typically only needing diffs from a couple of weeks to a couple of months tops. The 0.1% of the time where you do need to do this medium to long term, it's because you've sadly recognised that an unblockable is being disruptive in some way, which in my experience typically means WP:CPUSHing. But that is very rare.
editors should mostly be focused on encyclopedia content instead of internal rulemaking I'd agree with that, though some times the rules do need updating, either to reflect a change in consensus, or because they've become outdated due to a change in the world. Those sorts of changes aren't bad, even if my autistic brain hates change in general.
The gist of my point at your own talk page is that your insistence that such observations by me are "assuming bad faith" is off-base; they come nowhere near the definition of that. Sure, but as I've said just a few moments ago on my own talk page, this sort of misinterpretation of your observations as being one of bad faith seem to keep happening to you, from all manner of unconnected editors. Perhaps there is a reason for that?
It's also not your authority position to tell other editors they are aren't allowed to raise NPOV and BIAS concerns. There is a difference between saying "this change to the guideline could unintentionally lead to NPOV issues" and "this group of editors will use this change to cause NPOV issues". The comments that we've been discussing seem to fall into that later example, rather than the former, even if your intention is that you're speaking about the former.
Okay, since you can read my mind and you magically know exactly who I mean, go ahead and identify them; provide a list I could easily construct a list of a few dozen editors I know of who insist on always including the former names of trans and non-binary people in articles, purely within the realm of how GENDERID is currently phrased, but what would be the point other than more animosity?
"Comment on content not contributor" is laced (in various wording) all throughout our policies and guidelines 100% I agree on this. Commenting on content, not the contributor is fundamental to pretty much all of our behavioural policies and guidelines.
WP would not be a possible project if it were forbidden to raise NPOV, OR, etc. concerns with regard to editors' content, actions, patterns without it being a noticeboard action Also 100% agree. If someone has added a piece of content to an article that violates NPOV, it is necessary to describe that piece of content in those terms. But that's not what you're doing, or at least that's not how your words are being interpreted by other editors.
[T]wo examples of that: Except they're not, for reasons covered in detail at your talk page So at the AE filing right now, there is a diff of you saying directly to an editor you clearly should not be editing material on WP about historical subjects because you fundamentally misunderstand how to do encyclopedic writing in that topic area on WT:MOSBIO. There is also another diff of you saying You do not appear to have a firm grasp on the subject and seem to be just opininating for the sake of opinionating to that same editor on WT:MOSBIO. Both of these are comments on the contributor, and not content. You are directly telling another editor that they should not be editing articles about historical subjects. You have told them that they do not have a grasp on the subject matter. Those are not comments on content, those are comments on the contributor and their fitness (or lack thereof) to contribute to a specific content area.
Now if you were saying that type of comment at AN, ANI, or AE, and you had supported that comment with a series of strong diffs demonstrating how the editor truly did not have a "firm grasp on the subject" and had implied WP:CIR problems that were causing disruption in the article space or elsewhere, you would have been fine. Behavioural noticeboards are the correct venue to make that sort of comment. But you didn't make that comment on a behavioural noticeboard, you made it at WT:MOSBIO. WT:MOSBIO is not the correct venue to comment on the contributor.
You'll have to forgive me as I can't speak exactly to the circumstances that lead you to make those comments, my knowledge of the specific content that lead to the discussion at WT:MOSBIO is lacking, but in general terms if someone is adding content that is erroneous, the correct way to handle that in a "comment on content not contributor" manner is to compare the content the editor added against the sources that disprove it. In doing so, you do not need to make any comment about the person who added the incorrect content, all you need to do is demonstrate how the sources don't support the content that was added, and that the content itself is incorrect. That the person adding the content was in error is almost always going to be implied when you make this comparison, but it does not need to be explicitly stated in the terms that you did.
This is a user talk page, and we're having a frank discussion Correct, but the behaviour that we were discussing when I said This is completely unnecessary on an article talk page is not happening here. It's happening on the various MOS talk pages, or in the case of your GENSEX example, article talk pages. Neither of those are the correct venue to draw that type of distinction. A behavioural noticeboard is.
Now I'm not going to respond to your next point about textbook battleground thinking, because it follows on from this point and it seems as though there might be a case of miscommunication here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
That's interesting stuff, but I'm hesitant to respond further here, because Hey man im josh hasn't weighed in, and this is really lengthy (probably by necessity due to the amount and complexity of matters to cover, but still). I'm happy to see agreement with several of my points, and can please you in advance by saying I agree with a bunch of your new ones.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Josh, thanks for the text-wall, actually. More information on where someone's coming from is generally better than less (at least up to a point). To respond in some detail but hopefully not too much to some particular points: "NFL [d|D]raft" absolutely does qualify as a proper name under some definitions and absolutely does not under others; this is a debate sphere raging in multiple disciplines for over two centuries, and it ultimately has nothing to do with what WP should capitalize (or how to decide). Editors often do not understand this and instead latch onto a particular "proper name" definitional notion, then battleground about it in their favorite topic. This is a long-term cause of disruption and editorial conflict.

It is certainly the case that people are approaching WP writing with starkly conflicting ideas of what a "real" "proper name" "is". WP:PNPN covers the gist of why this is problematic. It need not be, and some revision to MOS:PN would fix this. WP for a very long time now has been (usually but not always successfully) bypassing the entire problem of incompatible definitions of "proper name" (not just between philosophy, which has no implications for orthography though few editors understand that, and linguistics, which sometimes does, but also within them). Our way of getting around this problem is the simple rule at the top of MOS:CAPS: capitalize if almost all the sources do it consistently, otherwise do not. The problem is that the MOS:PN section is confusingly worded as if to imply that "a proper name" is some kind of exception to this, and that people get to make up their own definition of what consistitues a proper name. This is completely wrong, but various editors walk away with this impression nonetheless (even I held it at one point), and it is the source of nearly all the capitalization dispute (which is in turn nearly all the style dispute, in turn the largest block of RM dispute). So, the wording in that section simply needs repair to no longer conflict with the central MOS:CAPS rule."[D]own case when sources are mixed, which can lead to cases where proper names are actually down cased. This makes those instances ... not necessarily aligned with the reality of the situation." This isn't anything the WP community can really work with (as is regularly demonstrated, after all, by nasty capitalization fights), and it kind of has a self-contradiction in it. If source usage proves to be widely mixed with regard to a particular appellation, then it simply cannot be the case that it is (for orthographic purposes - never mind any philosophy theory ideas about what consistitutes a proper name) demonstrated to be treated as a capitalized proper name consistently in the sources, ergo WP not treating it as one is not against any "reality of the situation". Put another way, declaring that because some subset of sources capitalize that the "reality" is that it must be (orthographically) a capitalized proper name is OR and PoV at once. A major problem with this approach is that it ignores the fact that there are a wide range of reasons for various publishers to capitalize something, one of the most common being importance signfication (MOS:SIGCAPS), which accounts both for much of the capitalization and for it not being consistent across sources. If it were in fact widely recognized as a proper name, like "Pacific Ocean" or "Michael Jackson", and thus something to [usually] capitalize as a class, then nearly all the sources would be doing it. You won't find any RS writing "pacific ocean", after all. ["Usually": There is no one-to-one correspondence between "proper name" under any definition and "capitalized"; k.d. lang is a proper name under every definition, but conventionally not capitalized; same goes with many trademarks; various eponymic medical and science terms likewise.]

Another analysis issue here: "if anybody is going to know what's appropriate, it should be those major national sports sites. ... However, because there's no style guide for these sites and a number of writers with their own styles, it leads to inconsistencies". Sports news publishers are reliable for statistics in sports, not for either proper name determination (under any definition, and which WP really doesn't actually care about) nor more importantly for how to write encyclopedic English for a global audience. Secondly, such publishers (especially today when centralized editorial control is rapidly falling by the wayside) are not hive minds; they do not themselves as entities have any expertise of their own (except in publishing and the market for it). Rather, it's their writers (and editors to the extent they still have any) as individuals who have that expertise (which again is not stylistic or linguistic, but about the history and statistics and happenings of a sport). If the actual writers demonstrably do not agree on whether to capitalize the term, then WP is not in a position to "declare" it a proper name that must be capitalized. That would be an NPOV (promotionalism) and OR (making stuff up against what the sourcing actually indicates) failure.

But there is good news! "[T]his leads to instances where Wikipedia gets it wrong. This was a conclusion that took me time to accept. I don't like the conclusion": You don't have to reach or accept that conclusion after all. WP is not getting it wrong that the RS usage is mixed, so it is not in error in downcasing. Since there is no universal definiton of "proper name" and never has been, the fact that any term of this sort can be one under some definitions and be barred as one under others, none of which entails capitalization decisions in the first place, there is no issue, no mistake being made. :-) The source of your unhappy conclusion has been that "proper name" means one objectively definable thing in particular and that it requires capital letters, but neither is actually the case. "[D]on't have a better way to define what is and isn't a proper name": Don't feel bad! No one does, and barring some miracle meeting of minds between multiple disciplines in linguistics and philosophy, no one ever will.

A legit concern but not a "fatal" one: "I don't think it's an improvement to the Wiki ... to make changes on 40,000+ articles. ... these down casing discussions have led to worsened consistency across Wikipedia because there's so much to clean up and not enough people doing it". This is not a unique case (the species vernacular-name lowercasing was like this also). It does take a long time to implement, and WP:THEREISNODEADLINE. It'll get done eventually. I will say that if football editors had simply followed MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS to begin with, then this problem would never have arisen, but in the end, a finger is hard to point because of the confusing nature of MOS:PN's wording. In a sense that might be my own fault. There used to be a completely separate page at WP:Manual of Style/Proper names, and it was total WP:POLICYFORK. Rather than nominate it for deprecation as {{Rejected}} or {{Historical}}, I proposed merging parts of it that seemed salvageable into MOS:CAPS (and some biographical bits into MOS:BIO), and that's what we ended up doing. But WP:Policy writing is hard, the conflict with MOS:CAPS's lead was not detected, and the material's not been substantively improved since then (years ago). If anything, capitalization squabbles have increased in the interim, and this seems to be why.

In closing, yes that discussion was a trainwreck. This has a great deal to do with one particular canvassing editor making the same anti-policy claim over and over and over again (and various of the canvassed making WP:PERX statments that parroted that claim), which inspired repeated refutations. (And this is still continuing at the related AN thread about the RfC.) For my part, I'm going to try to avoid being baited into repetitive responses; your point about just saying your piece and moving on is a good one. I usually am actually able to resist, but something about that particular RfC set me off: its threat to the WP community having the self-regulatory abilty to examine an issue via RfC at all. Ultimately I did not care much about the "draft vs. Draft" question itself, but about the wiki-sociological self-governance issue, the "topical insurrection" against WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOTBURO. It was extremely alarming to see multiple policies being cast aside (under a FUD cloud of "following procedure" but actually grounded in nothing but an "information page" essay at WP:RFCNOT, of all things, and ignoring actual policy procedure at "By soliciting outside opinions" in CONSENSUS), all just so some subject could have a capital letter D where sourcing and guidelines do not indicate it belongs. On "It comes across as ... don't trust closers to interpret and weigh the points made in discussions": There was an element of that, because too often closers just do what amounts to a vote count without any regard to the policy-and-sourcing strength of the arguments. This much more often a problem at RM than at RfCs, because far more of the former are closed by non-admins. Not that adminship guarantees proper understanding of policy or better ability to assess whether arguments are sourced-based, but there's definitely a statistical correlation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of response thus far. I wasn't available on the weekend and I haven't had the mental bandwidth to go over this. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
No worries; assumed you were busy with something.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

free agent vs former

hey i just wanted to get a little more clarity on how we determine former vs free agent. if a player is still receiving interest or has received interest from a team/worked out with the team in the last 2 years, would that be enough to consider them still a free agent? just wanted to make sure before I go make any more edits relating to this Dumpy11 (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dumpy11: Generally if a player is working out for teams they're still considered a free agent. Many, manyyyyyyy players don't file their retirement paperwork until a number of years after they stop playing. This means a player may not be active for 5+ years before officially retiring, and we should have, by then, considered them to be a former player. This has been something that those at the WP:NFL WikiProject have been applying for a little while now. I believe there are more discussions on the matter, but a relevant one can be found here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League/Archive_20#Listing_NFL_players_as_"former". "Receiving interest" is relative though and, though I don't have a codified guideline on that aspect of things, I believe we expect a player to be working out for a team or have been on a practice squad for a short bit or something that shows that they're actually still trying to play. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
thanks. I was just wondering because many of the players that I changed to free agent you reverted, despite having workouts with teams within the last 2 years. Dumpy11 (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
@Dumpy11: I just went over the articles that I reverted and the only one that might fit within this scope is Darqueze Dennard, as they were last released on August 15, 2022. The infobox however does not reflect this, which I do plan on changing shortly. By the way, for the sake of clarity, when we say "years" for NFL players we typically mean seasons. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth this users edits are incredibly similar to Bears247 (talk · contribs)...-- Yankees10 23:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Yankees10: I actually thought the opposite. I had a good amount of direct experience with Bears and they were very adamant about setting people to former players whereas this user is setting players to free agent. That's not to say that Bears didn't make that kind of change, but they were just more focused in the opposite direction from what I recall. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
They did mostly both. My issues was with changing former players back to free agent. The mentioning of "workouts with teams within the last 2 years" is exactly what Bears would mention, without providing a link to discussion to a consensus on this, despite me asking numerous times. The whole thing seems similar and sketchy to me. Doesn't help that the Dumpy's account was created a week after Bears ban. I'll go on record and say I'd be surprised if this wasn't the same person.-- Yankees10 00:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
@Yankees10: That's actually a good point, the workout mention. Something to keep an eye on I suppose, but I'm hopeful none the less :) Hey man im josh (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
@Yankees10: Actually, the new account was created the same day as the block.[1][2] Their first edit was a week later. Definitely WP:QUACKing, but maybe still needs a CU, short of something else distinguishing. —Bagumba (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Oh wow, yeah, I'm now fully convinced it's them.-- Yankees10 02:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I meannn, I can't really argue strongly against a duck... Hey man im josh (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm probably AGFing too much, and have no objections if someone did a DUCK block. —Bagumba (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
@Bagumba, @[[User:Yankees10|Yankees10]: I'll submit an SPI in the morning if neither of you have by then. After rereading talk page messages it came back to me and this behaviour is definitely ducklike enough to put in front of a CU. I want to assume good faith and if it's not them then we have a new WP:NFL participant. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of "2023 Kerry Senior Football Championship" page

I notice that on 17 January 2024 you deleted the page "2023 Kerry Senior Football Championship" due to an issue with the user who created it. I have worked on a new draft for the page and would like to re-create it. I just want to check with you that it would be ok for me to publish the new draft. Fox&Pheasant (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Fox&Pheasant. If you ever find that a page has been G5 deleted you are more than welcome to recreate the page yourself. G5 deletions are actions taken strictly based on the article creator, not based on the content of the article or whether the article's subject is fit for Wikipedia. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Review of new pages

Hello sir! Thank you for reviewing my page! Could you review my other new pages too? Ricco Baroni (talk) 13:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Ricco Baroni. Thank you for the work that you're doing in making new pages. Unfortunately, I do not take requests to review specific pages because I feel it's not fair to others that have been waiting for their pages to be reviewed, and because I don't want to be bombarded with similar requests. Someone from the New Page Patrol team will be by at their earliest convenience to review the page. =) Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Hey man im josh. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The Kip 19:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the email @The Kip, I've responded =) Hey man im josh (talk) 19:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Had a reason

Hi Josh. I only did that with S. Barrett, because it's the same with Chandler Jones. Also with Robert Quinn and C. Jones on the career sacks page. They are free agents and not active at the present time. That was the only reason I did that. Besides I live for those sack pages, I would edit them right away if signed. You could bet on that. John Bringingthewood (talk) 20:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Bringingthewood. I'm confident your changes were with the best of intentions in mind. I don't recall where I had this discussion in the past, but I tried to make the same edits that you did when I was starting out and was reverted. I think the question we need to ask ourselves is what constitutes a player being "active" and what the "active" designation on these lists implies. My opinion is that if we remove this designation from a player during free agency it has an implication of a player being retired. I'd support removing the "active" designation from players if they're not on a roster at the start of the new season, or if they've been cut by a team and unsigned for a couple weeks, but in Barrett's case it seems clear that his intention is to sign with another team by the start of next season. I'm not opposed to the idea of changing how we treat these lists, but I want to be consistent and send the right message to readers, you know? Hey man im josh (talk) 21:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree 100%. So on the players page a free agent has active removed from the status parameter and on the big list we can keep him active. If I got that right, should I make Quinn and Jones active also on the big lists? We've been waiting almost two years to add former to the lead anyway on their personal page. They really should be all active on the annual/career list. No? Bringingthewood (talk) 21:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, I did hesitate before the Barrett edit. Jones and Quinn made up my mind. That's why I'm asking about keeping it uniformed. Bringingthewood (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
@Bringingthewood: My gut says leave Jones and Quinn as free agents, given that it hasn't been two seasons since they played or worked out, and keep people listed as "active" in annual and career lists until they miss actual games. But that's more of a general thing as opposed to specific and easy to follow I guess. We can discuss it at WT:NFL instead if you'd like though. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I wasn't touching their pages, leaving them as free agents along with Dunlap. Ahhh, so Quinn, Jones and Dunlap stay (as if retired) due to missing games. Pretty much means that Barrett has to play this year, lol. Like I said I was hesitant with Barrett being it was the offseason. One day we'll tackle Vic Beasley. He's a UFL player .. just NFL retired .. I guess. No, it's okay. That's it for now, just wanted you to know my reasoning for what I did. Thanks for the feedback! Regards, - Bringingthewood (talk) 21:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Is Beasley in the UFL? Damn, wasn't aware. I guess I consider "active" to be active in the NFL. Barrett may still be, and I expect him to be, but there's no expectation of indication of it for the others. Am I making sense? Does that seem like a good way to approach it to you? Hey man im josh (talk) 22:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Yep, Vic Beasley. Same here regarding being active in the NFL .. but we do have lawyers among us, lol. That's why I don't want to go to the other page you mentioned. You're making sense. You have a good way, Jones, Quinn, Dunlap, and Beasley are not active on the big lists and Barrett should be kept active. I'd say if he misses game 1 .. he gets the axe or ax, whichever you prefer, lol. - Bringingthewood (talk) 22:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
@Bringingthewood: I totally agree with that. We could use signed by preseason game 1, but it's not uncommon for free agent vets to wait till the season is about to start to avoid the off season. So to me if not playing by week 1 then it makes sense to remove the active designation. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Couldn't have said it better myself. You see, we didn't need to go to court for this. Now someone will come by and revert the both of us! @@ Bringingthewood (talk) 22:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Well that'll suck. I'll try to find when it was brought up to me. I think it was rushing and Adrian Peterson related when I tried to remove his active status.... Hey man im josh (talk) 22:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Don't kill yourself looking. I thought it was regarding Vic Beasley. There was some discrepancy there with someone months ago. Funny, I did mean game 1 of the regular season. I was hoping you didn't think I meant preseason, Barrett could sign in September, that's for sure. I think he still has a bit more in the tank. - Bringingthewood (talk) 23:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
@Bringingthewood: I didn't think you meant preseason, I just briefly considered preseason and thought out loud. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
LOL! That's exactly how I was reading it! No, no, Josh ... Yes, yes, yes ... it was comical on my side. Well, here's to Mr. Barrett signing soon, lol. - Bringingthewood (talk) 23:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisting Sidebar proposed discussions

Hey Josh, you forgot—or opted not–to relist the Charlie Chaplin one. Could you relist that one with the rest, please? That one had one general response to it, with inquiry, which was applicable to the entire set of the sidebar nominees, not solely Chaplin's, and is therefore relevant to the general discussion, not so much the individual. Thanks. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 17:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out @Cinemaniac86, definitely missed it while relisting. Sorry about that. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
No problem, Josh. Very much appreciate it! Hope you don't mind that I grouped it adjacently with the others so there are no discrepancies, in the event anyone else does weigh in. Although nobody seems to have much input. Do I have to do anything further in order to defend or fight to prevent its deletion? Such as, type Keep under each individual one officially, or...? --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 17:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
@Cinemaniac86: If you want all of them kept then it makes sense to state that and vote keep at each nomination since the set was not bundled. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

typo in Chinese New Year Customs in Singapore

Hi, I noticed you reverted my request for speedy deletion of "Chinese New Year Customs in Singapore" with a capital-C "Customs." No one is likely to type that whole phrase in anyway, so I don't understand why we wouldn't just delete it in deference to the correct article/title "Chinese New Year customs in Singapore"? Reagle (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Reagle: A capitalization change of "customs" to "Customs" does not quality a redirect for WP:CSD R3 deletion. This is simply a usage of title case and should not be considered an implausible typo. Alternative capitalizations are extremely common and appropriate. Never the less, I encourage you to nominate the redirect at WP:RFD if you believe it should be deleted, but do not tag similar redirects for speedy deletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the pointer to WP:RFD. Thinking it over, I'll defer to you (not deleting) since you have more experience with such things. Reagle (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Some followup on the Dicklyon thing

The last RM ... ended as no consensus: "No consensus" != "consensus against"; see WP:3OUTCOMES. What changed in the interim are a whole lot of discussion and further sourcing of the question, which demonstrate that the terms in question do not meet the MOS:CAPS (much less MOS:SPORTCAPS and MOS:SIGCAPS) and WP:NCCAPS standards. I.e., the circumstances of the old RM and the more recent move are not comparable. It definitely would have been better for DL to have used full RM process is this case; a negative reaction to manual moves was rather predictable. But neither his move action nor his criticism of GoodDay's reversions were blockworthy (around half the AN respondents agree, and the majority of support for the block is from pro-capitalization partisans in the related RfC), especially since no principled, fact-based objection has been made to these specific moves (in any venue by GoodDay or anyone else), only a demand to invoke editor-time-consumptive process for its own sake, despite the outcome being obvious. Some individuals simply seem to be angry with Dicklyon because he's getting "his way" (actually WP's way, which is to avoid capitalization not found "in a substantial majority of indpendent, reliable sources"), so they're bending bureaucracy to stymie him and heel-drag, and to punish him if they can. This is not what we're here for, and it's not what process exists for, being used as a truncheon in what amounts to a personality dispute combined with a CONLEVEL problem.

I also fail to see how this is a general issue with sports related editors: I didn't say that; I said "Tempers have run hot in this general organized-sports subject area when it comes to capitalization, and everyone should just relax and take some time off from squabbling about it", which is a comment about the general subject area, and advice for both sides, not just one, to take a step back and chill out. There is observably more of this "capitals or else" behavior coming from certain sports topics lately, but it is neither restricted to that subject sphere (now or long-term), nor generated by a substantial number of editors within it.

Anyway, at this rate I think the predictions that this is going to end up at ArbCom within the year are likely to be correct. However, those who think they're going to waltz in and get Dicklyon banned and go back to over-capitalizing are probably in for an unpleasant suprise, because their own behavior will be scrutinized and quite a lot of it by a number of DL's opposition basically boils down to POINT disruption to avoid guideline compliance without good cause. The RFARB or ARCA route is not something anyone should seek when the much more sensible, what-we-all-do-every-day option is to just follow the P&G and the sourcing as with everything else. It's a simple, central principle. For my part, I've emailed DL a few times and strongly suggested that he not pursue any more sport league/event moves without lengthy RM process, because the mood is too strained to practicably do otherwise right now. Not sure what else to do in the interim (other than, per above and related discussions, moderate my own tone, of course) to avoid ArbCom or other further dramaboard flareups about this stuff. This is about the worst it's been since the mid-2010s, and the fighting needs to stop.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

May I point out. My requests (and reasoning) at WP:RMTR to reverse the unilateral page moves, resulted in the page moves being reversed. So obviously my reasoning for them to be reversed, was accepted as valid. BTW - I've no animosity towards anyone in this topic area & I'm not seeking to have anyone t-banned. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
So, just a quick write up and response, I'm sure I'll miss some things, but I'm going to quote specific aspects of your reply.
I don't want Dicklyon blocked, I want him to use his head. You don't run into these issues of moving pages that are obviously going to be objected to. Do I think Dicklyon realized he had started a page move discussion a year ago to the date? Maybe, maybe not, but it looks bad nonetheless. Do I think he's aware that he had tried to move it at some point? I think he should be, considering he tried to downcase every draft and finals article of the main North American sports leagues within the last 10 years (which he's well within his right to do). I understand it ended in no consensus, but logically speaking, if there was no consensus in the past, it's reasonable to assume there would be objection to the page being moved. This is a key premise of WP:PCM, which states an RM should be started for moves that you expect could be objected to or for pages which have had a move discussion in the past.
...the circumstances of the old RM and the more recent move are not comparable. – Doesn't matter, see WP:PCM. There was a past RM, it's obvious and expected that people would object to this move. Whether we like it or not, and to be clear I haven't been arguing against these moves, there needs to be an RM started for them due to an expectation of pushback against it.
...a negative reaction to manual moves was rather predictable. – This is the crux of the issue for me. Dicklyon isn't stupid, that much is clear to anybody who has interacted with them. Due to the competency that he's shown and the immense amount of experience he has in the MOS area people assume he's blatantly trying to push forward regardless of how others feel. Is that correct? I can't say, but it's absolutely the perception.
But neither his move action nor his criticism of GoodDay's reversions were blockworthy..." – My concern, especially with Cinderella's terrible rationale, is that it comes across as a subset of MOS editors targeting GoodDay. Dicklyon shouldn't get upset if someone requests for their move to be reverted, he should just go ahead and start a discussion. Based on the previous block, and Dicklyon's history, there was no reason to act out the way he did. Do I think maybe it was a bit weak sauce if we focus on "personal attack"? Yes. But I think if the block had been phrased as hounding or incivility then there wouldn't have been as many votes to overturn the block. I'm genuinely concerned, as are others, that the combination of Dicklyon and Cinderella's behaviour and comments amounts to targeted harassment. How can two people who are THAT experienced be trying to argue that GoodDay is the bad guy in all of this just because he didn't specify a reason that they liked? It's just unfathomable to me that Cinderlla tried to argue that "NBA Conference Finals" being downcased means that another league's titles should be downcased. We both know the source analysis needs to be done and that, if this type of thinking applied, we'd only need one RM to downcase "Final" to "final" and we'd be done with it all. To be clear, I'm not saying that people ARE targeting GoodDay, but the optics of it and Cinderella's awful attempt to deflect it to GoodDay's request to reverse the move is just a really bad look and takes away some credibility they may have in future arguments. They've essentially poisoned their own credibility for these types of arguments that involve GoodDay moving forward by trying to argue for something so damn minor to defend Dicklyon.
Some individuals simply seem to be angry with Dicklyon because he's getting "his way"... – People are not angry with Dicklyon for "getting his way", well, maybe a few are, but I myself and a number of other admins are not. I'm annoyed with the fact that he keeps doing things he knows better than. You're a seasoned MOS editor and you don't get into these same situations that he does.
For my part, I've emailed DL a few times and strongly suggested that he not pursue any more sport league/event moves without lengthy RM process, because the mood is too strained to practicably do otherwise right now. – I asked him to do the same with the word "Draft" to "draft", due to expected and forseeable pushback (again, citing WP:PCM). He eventually said that he would not, which is not the outcome I expected. I'd love to see him be more cooperative in that aspect.
I understand the arguments you're trying to make, and I agree that if Dicklyon were blocked that we wouldn't just have everything uppercased, but I think you're approaching the situation with some bias. At what point is enough going to be enough when someone routinely circumvents process and has been blocked for edit/move warring 12 times? It's like he's way too hungry to get to the finish line, has blinders on, and forgets about everything else. Fighting 100% needs to stop, but if you want to point to the other side and claim they're the bad guys then you can't have dirt on your hands when doing so, you know? Tl;dr - Dicklyon is competent, valuable, and I don't want him blocked. However, he's too competent and experienced to keep doing the rookie shit he's been doing. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Reviewer Barnstar
Your work and contributions in improving the quality of NFL articles and lists to featured status is worthy of commendation, not to mention your tireless and unwavering efforts in providing constructive prose, source, and image reviews on FLC. Please know that I, and many others, are gratefully appreciative. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
@Pseud 14: Thank you so much for this barnstar, the kind words, and all that YOU do at FLC as well! They're all very much appreciated =) Hey man im josh (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Hey man im josh. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 13:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

– DreamRimmer (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Deleted pages

@Hey man im josh I was previously blocked from editing for having a sockpuppet account and my edits were deleted on the 17th of January. They all have your name and a banner to contact you should I wish to re-add a page with a similar name hence I'm contacting you as my appeal was granted and I can make edits again. Is there a possibility of the pages being reinstalled? Mcwamcwa (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Maxim: Do you have any thoughts on this? This user was previously blocked (in January of 2024) as a sock of Nomzamo28, who was blocked for undisclosed paid editing in November of 2023, but it appears as though both this user and that account were unblocked by you (yesterday) after a successful appeal. Would we normally unblock both accounts in this situation, or are they unrelated users? I ask because I deleted a number of pages created by Mcwamcwa under G5 and, if these users were not actually related I would be inclined to restore the creations without question. However, if they are related and this user has simply had a successful appeal, I'm on the fence about whether it makes sense to restore the deleted content. On the one hand, they were still socking, and I'm not sure that that should be rewarded, but on the other hand, if they're allowed back, I'm tempted to restore them. This is a situation that I personally haven't dealt with yet, so I'd appreciate any feedback or thoughts. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I unblocked the original account as is customary; when the user requested to abandon the first account, and use the second one, I unblocked it as well. Speaking for myself only, I would look past the sockpuppetry; there was a certain amount of miscommunication involved. If the only issue with the deleted content was that it was created while evading a block, I'd lean towards restoring it. Maxim (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you Maxim, I appreciate the feedback. @Mcwamcwa: I've gone ahead and restored the pages. Happy editing! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
@Hey man im josh Thank you Mcwamcwa (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft deletion Jean Monnet Prize for European Integration

Hi, I saw that you removed my request for deletion. Once second thought, I might have been hasty, as I thought the draft was in my user pages (it is not, right?). At any rate, since this is a draft and the page has already been published, I do not think there is a need for the draft page to still exist and redirect to the real page, do you agree? If so, what is the proper procedure to request deletion? Thanks! Julius Schwarz (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Julius Schwarz: Pages in your user space will have the prefix "User:" whereas pages in draft space have the prefix of "Draft:". WP:U1, which you tagged Draft:Jean Monnet Prize for European Integration with, is not eligible for U1 deletion because it's not in user space. The procedure for deleting redirects from draft space to main space is that we typically don't do it. There's no speedy deletion rationale that these fall under because they're harmless to keep. Technically someone could WP:G7 delete them, but that would require the person who moved the page (and left the redirect behind) to add the G7 tag. In this particular case, that won't happen because the user who moved the page is blocked. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the explanation and quick reply. Guess I'll let just leave it at that, then! Julius Schwarz (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Some of the sporting events are known as 'Country Year'.

Some of the sporting events are known as 'Country Year'. Abhiramakella (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Abhiramakella: You are being disruptive by repeatedly changing CountryName Year redirects, as you did here (as well as with a number of other places). There has no been consensus that CountryName Year redirects should direct to specific events as opposed to the Year in CountryName lists that exist. I nominated 11 redirects you created that fit this criteria and the discussion (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 24#CountryName Year redirects to events) ended in delete. The current discussion, regarding Qatar 2023, is set to end with the redirect being retargeted to 2023 in Qatar. I understand YOU may have familiarity with these terms and it's the first thing YOU think of when you read them, but these redirects are not unambiguously affiliated with the events. For most people, the default expectation is to be redirected to the relevant Year in CountryName articles. What will it take for you to accept this? I do not want to keep wasting people's time at RfD if the outcome is going to be the same and I don't want to take this to ANI. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Additionally, the discussion about France 2024 (Olympics) was closed as redirect to France at the 2024 Summer Olympics as opposed to the 2024 Summer Olympics target you kept pushing. If that redirect discussion ended in retargeting to the country at the Olympics then there's no reason that France 2024 should target the Olympic event, given that the redirect that was more specific ended in retargeting. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
@Abhiramakella: Communication is important on Wikipedia, so I'd like to hear why you think it makes sense to keep retargeting this and other redirects. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm disappointed with your inability to communicate @Abhiramakella. I'll be sending this to RfD. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

List of Green Bay Packers records

I have been slowly but surely working on List of Green Bay Packers records, which is probably one of the most challenging lists to develop, because it gets dangerously close to WP:NOTSTATS imho. So I started on the career section, which I thought would be the most straightforward. Just create tables for the Top 10 under each category. Easy-peasy. Then I was going to move on to season and game records. Well now I have sort of a conundrum. At this point, for consistency, I would assume that I would do the same thing for career records: top 10. However, with the way that season and game stats are, this won't really make sense. As an example, for a season a player may have set one record, but not set the others. As an example, the Packers game passing records are all held by different players during different seasons. Meaning just showing the basics, let's say COMP, ATT, YDS, TD, INT, QBR would mean there are going to be 6 tables of 10 players! As you can see, this would explode the size of he article. I am leaning towards leaving the format as is for season and game records, just listing the actual record, the player who did it, and the season they did it in. This keeps the size of the page more manageable and imho avoids the WP:NOTSTATS concerns. That said, what do you think of keeping the top 10 career leaders tables, since they are pretty condensed and are the typical way career stats are summarized, while having the format below for seasons and games as just bulleted lists? Think about this from a WP:FLC standpoint, as I intend to bring it there at some point. Thanks fr any insight you may have. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: I get what you're saying, that definitely is a bit of a head scratcher. Just spitballing here, but what about, let's say, 3 tables that are 11 rows tall and 3 columns wide, with the year of the record, player, then statistical value (x number of yards), with all 3 small tables beside each other? I'm thinking of something like 2024 NCAA Division I FBS football season#Conference standings layout wise. That's if you wanted to go that route. I personally prefer the idea of using the single game records that you currently have in place. Too many of the NFL records lists bloat out of control with insignificant records. That's not saying there might not be other relevant stats, but I like that you've kept it clean in that regard. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I'll probably stick to the single records at this point. The layout is one consideration, but overall page size too. And from a mobile POV, the tables would still lay out one after the other. Thanks for the second opinion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Ok, two other items popped up.
  • First, I can't seem to find reliable stats for tackles in a season. As an example, Statmuse has Devondre Campbell and Nick Barnett with 102. PFR and FootballDB don't include Tackles as part of their single season leaders. FoxSports has Blake Martinez as the leader. This obviously comes down to the difference between solo, assisted and combined tackles, the crappy statistical records for tackles up until recently and the different sources of what constitutes an official "tackle".
  • Second, there doesn't seem to be a cohesive database of game records. So I may end up having to go by one-off sources and probably risk having to not report on certain records because definitive records don't exist. As an example, I would need to cite 6 passing touchdowns in a game to ESPN.com.
Thoughts on both of these? I knew this list was going to be tough. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
@Gonzo fan2007: Tackles is a big issue, and it's inconsistent based on who's reporting it. It's the reason I've never wanted to touch List of National Football League annual tackles leaders and I realized an issue about the difference in reported tackle numbers at Talk:List of National Football League career tackles leaders. Your best bet may be to reference the Packers' media guide, which, starting on page 283, contains a ton of records. I've spent a lot of time looking through the media guides for my first-round picks series and I was surprised just how much information they include while also leaving out (trade details or pick #s). Hey man im josh (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Omg, you may have saved my life with the media guide. I totally forgot to look there. Thank you! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Woohoo! Feels so good when you find a fantastic source with so much of what you're looking for :) Hey man im josh (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Highlighting

Also, not sure if you have any thoughts on it, but I personally like to and have been standardizing with a background colour of yellowish gold for hall of famers. Feels more appropriate over the red, but that's just a personal opinion of course. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I have honestly had the thought that we should standardize color shading across all NFL lists. Like maybe a standard color for Pro HoF, Pro Bowl, All-Pro, Team HoF, etc. Would be really nice and consistent for the readers. Maybe we should propose something at WP:NFL? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
@Gonzo fan2007: It'd be good to propose that and standardize. For what it's worth though, I hate that we sometimes include highlighting for Pro Bowl selections in various lists. It's a popularity contest and has been for a long time and I don't think it holds the same weight that highlighting All-Pros would. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I think in general we over-highlight in lists. That's why on some of the head coaching lists, I have asked for the highlighting for "Coached entire career with TEAM" be removed. Like it is a nice detail, maybe one tat could be a note, but highlight worthy? I don't think so. I'd support any proposal you put forward regarding standardizing colorscheme. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Key
Color Symbol Color & Symbol Recognition
#FFFF99 † † Pro Football Hall of Fame
#AFFFAF ‡ ‡ Team HoF/Retired Number/Team recognition
#FEE7E6 # # MVP
#88FFFF ^ ^ All-Pro
#F3E7FF * * Pro Bowl
None Bold Bold Player is currently active in the NFL

I just randomly threw some colors and symbols together. Am I missing anything? Thoughts on symbols? Colors? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Gonzo fan2007. I like the idea of a consistent key like this, but I think it's going to be tough to implement much beyond a certain colour for HOF and/or for active players. I think, if we were to try to do so, we might be limiting ourselves to using more obscure symbols on different lists when it might be unnecessary, so it's probably important to call out that this type of standardization would only apply to lists of players. A proposal could possibly be worded as something like... For NFL lists of players that indicate a player has been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, it's proposed that a standardized icon and background be used for consistency. The usage of the rest of those items listed in the recognition column may be less necessary, but could potentially be useful still. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
My thought was along the lines of "if it is deemed beneficial to call out specific awards/recognition in player lists, please use these standard colors/symbols so that readers have some semblance of consistency. These colors/symbols also already meet accessibility guidelines". Not trying to push anyone to include anything specifically, but if it is included, then let's try to make it consistent. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
You make a good point. I think I expect the HoF colour and symbol to be accepted and expect less certainty with the others, so I'm mentally sort of considering whether these standardizations should be proposed as a group or not. Nevertheless, we can just say screw it, propose it, and see what type of feedback is given and adjust from there. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Quick help

Hello! Since you deleted the cross-redirect Gaganyaan-3, could you help with this? Someone created the Gaganyaan-4 while there are already the Draft:Gaganyaan-4 under development. Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Erick Soares3: I'm sorry, but we don't delete articles to make way for drafts that may be better written. Your best option would be to improve the article that's in main space now at Gaganyaan-4. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
The only real option is to copy-past the draft into the main article (the draft predates the main article for a week), but it seems that you need to move the history together. Erick Soares3 (talk) 10:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for List of Dallas Cowboys seasons

On 11 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article List of Dallas Cowboys seasons, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Tom Landry led the Dallas Cowboys of the National Football League to a record 20 consecutive winning seasons? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/List of Dallas Cowboys seasons. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, List of Dallas Cowboys seasons), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of List of Buffalo Bills first-round draft picks

Congratulations, Hey man im josh! The list you nominated, List of Buffalo Bills first-round draft picks, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Hi, you seem to be regularly giving source reviews of FLCs. Please review this nomination. Pls don't mind as I have personally sent you the message. Actually, I'll go for a wikibreak next month. That's why I just want to get it closed fast. Thanks RoboCric Let's chat 05:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@RoboCric: Your list has only been up for 4 days and be patient. It's common for lists to take at least a month to be promoted. If you'd like to get more reviews then you should review lists that are nominated by other users and provide feedback. As for reviewing your list, I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in reviewing this content. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hey_man_im_josh/Archive_15&oldid=1215732683"