User talk:Joseph2302

Currently focusing on helping clear backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation, all other queries may be responded to less quickly. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

PLEASE READ

If I have nominated your article for deletion (WP:AFD or WP:CSD), removed your content or reverted your change and you would like to know why,
please review the following Wikipedia policies and guidelines, among others that may be mentioned in a message I left on your Talk page:

• WP:ADVERT (Promotional Content)
• WP:N (General Notability)
• WP:BIO (Person Notability)
• WP:ORG (Company or Group Notability)

• WP:MUSIC (Musician or Band Notability)
• WP:V (Verifiability)
• WP:RS (Reliable Sources)
• WP:COPY (Copyright)

If none of these pages addresses your concerns,
you can leave me a note.
If you do, please sign and date your post by typing four tildes: ~~~~.

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

If you fail to do these things, you won't necessarily get a proper reply.
Paid editors are banned from this talkpage.
WordSeventeen is indefinitely banned from my talkpage.

If you've come to this page because you got a notification saying I'm patrolling your page, then it just means that I've checked your new page meets Wikipedia standards. If it didn't, then I will have tagged the problems on the article itself.

May 2015

Harassment hidden, user now blocked

Hello, I'm WordSeventeen. I noticed that you made a comment on the page James Rhodes (pianist) that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. James Rhodes (pianist) and your related postings at relevant boards WordSeventeen (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@WordSeventeen: Exactly what was the uncivil comment? Just because I disagree with you doesn't make you right, and the fact is that you have violated WP:3RR, and the talkpage and BLPN both support the content being there. Also, don't template the regulars. This feels like harassment to me, since it is improperly justified. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on James Rhodes (pianist). Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. James Rhodes (pianist) and related noticeboards WordSeventeen (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@WordSeventeen: Rather than templating me again, please could you explain exactly what you think is wrong with my actions? Joseph2302 (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

"Unprotection: There is no BLP violation, as it is covered in reliable sources. This semi-protection appears to be an attempt to quash the talkapge consensus to include it, by preventing the IP user from editing. Joseph2302 (talk) 4:40 am, Today (UTC�5)"

See here: [1] This posting is both uncivil and a personal attack on a specific editor suggesting that someone was attempting to "squash" talkpage consensus. The posting is also in violation of WP:AGF. An editor who has only been on wikipedia for five months is hardly a regular. If you continue all of your disruptive posts and behaviours I will be presenting this disruption that you have caused at WP:ANI. So please do read up on WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:DISRUPTION. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment This user is banned from my talkpage whilst the ANI discussion is ongoing. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

This user is indefinitely banned from my talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Note

Comments about the above incident

The heading of the AN/I was changed again by an anonymous IP on its first edit. Strange, I wonder who did that?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, their actions seem to be making my case stronger. Why mess around with article headings if you've got nothing to hide? Joseph2302 (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh they have plenty to hide. The user used to commit the very thing you are reporting him for, but in a tag-team with another user (who is now long gone). Together they made non-notable articles that they aggressively defended when it was nominated for deletion. It's about time that this AN/I was setup to stop these things from happening, and these kind of actions only improve your case.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow seriously? In which case I'm glad I brought it up. I thought the arguments at Cody Sipe were almost enough to report them, as I felt unnecessarily pressured to self-revert. But then there was the actions involving James Rhodes (pianist), templating me without explanation, improperly proposing a merge of 2 articles I created and not answering my questions about it. And now all the messing around at ANI too. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Fortunately, someone at AN/I noticed the disruption and pointed it out. Even added further hounding by the user. I was unaware of it since there has been about a two month gap from the last time I encountered the user. Shows a long pattern of uncollaborative editing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• i left a note at ANI. It seems that folks see a problem but you didn't ask for anything. Asking for something will galvanize action. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• I've asked for a block, but no idea if the time I suggested is reasonable- not been involved in a case like this before. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I have just looked at WordSeventeen's editing history. Look for yourself, on a talk page he accuses everyone who pointed out his disruption at AN/I as sock puppets, obviously referencing you, me, and several others. This is getting sad, his lies are getting way out of hand.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

He got one month, not what we wanted but perhaps he will learn from it (or not)... TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

1 month seems a bit lenient, but hopefully they'll learn some good faith in that time. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Joseph2302 for your notes and strikeouts of sections added by WordSeventeen over at my page. I have added notes to each section stating that WordSeventeen had been blocked from Wikipedia for his disruptive editing practices, part of which included adding those sections to my page. It doesn't really matter as I doubt I'll continue to contribute much, if anything (I've spent more time on this incident than I intended to contribute over at least the next 6 months, and it's left a very bad taste in my mouth). However, it will remain as further evidence of WordSeventeen's disruptive editing practices, and possibly prevent him from referring to and misusing those sections in future against me or anyone else.

I wish you and the others well (who worked to stop his disruptive editing practices). I admire your stamina, and Wikipedia (and the world) is a better place for it. I don't know how to add an award, but would if I did.131.191.80.213 (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

PS: If you're interested, you might read up on narcissistic personality traits; that might give you insight into WordSeventeen's behavior.131.191.80.213 (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

PPS: Just a note that on my talk page, a few hours before you added your comments, there was a comment added in the May 2015 from an IP that was supporting WordSeventeen's comments. There's nothing on that IP's page, but I thought I'd mention this in case disruptive things start coming from that IP address; here's the link to the page for that IP address http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=User_talk:82.132.225.224&action=edit&redlink=1131.191.80.213 (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Nemea Bank Article

Hi Joseph2302, thank you for moving my Nemea Bank article from the draft platform to a live Wikipedia article. Although I have contributed to articles, this is my first fully-fledged article which I authored from scratch so, as you can imagine, it was a big learning curve for me. I've noticed that the article has been approved as Start-Class. Would it be possible to guide me on what I can improve to continue raising the standard of the article? So far I have uploaded 20 references, including references from 5 countries to support the bank's "pan-European" dimension. Furthermore, after upgrading the article even further, what process would I take to resubmit it for review? Thanks once again for all your support, David 11:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC) � Preceding unsigned comment added by David Herrera 1985 (talk " contribs)

ABRAHAM LOEB entry

The link to the Abraham Loeb entry was not inappropriate & it was not spam.

The link was to one of the best, most current profiles of Loeb that has been published (in Discover Magazine), and it was a useful reference. It is not inappropriate and it is not spam. The same holds for the CHRIS McKay entry. The link was to a recent article about McKay -- a cover story, in fact, that definitely adds to the body of knowledge about McKay. Therefore it is a useful & appropriate reference. Snake747 (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

New accounts whose only edits are repeatedly posting links to the same external page(s) are always going to attract suspicion. And I don't see any reason why that link is needed- Wikipedia is not a directory of external links. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The Westmont Montessori School

The criteria for A7 CSD specifically exclude schools so I removed the CSD. It's customary to merge primary level schools to their locality as an Education or Schools section. Or you may come up with another CSD criterion which may apply. Regards, Bazj (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. It was deleted before, and I'm sure it'll get deleted again anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Argument

Discussion moved to Talk:Argument

Hello,

I'm editing the page on the term "argument" as it is used in philosophy and logic. Specifically, I'm reverting it to an older, better form it had under the work of Philogo before Walkinxyz started editing it with all sorts of material that actually does not pertain to arguments in philosophy (his/her work more appropriately fits into what people nowadays call rhetoric, not philosophy).

Why did you switch it back? Did you think I was intentionally defacing the thing? I assure you I am not. I'm actually trying hard to clean it up so readers don't end up believing all sorts of false things about the nature of philosophical arguments.

Sparky Macgillicuddy (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Your version: [2]

Version I reverted to: [3]

The version I reverted to is in my opinion clearly better. Wikipedia works on text being supported by reliable sources, and your version has 3 reliable inline sources, and the version I reverted to has 19. I fail to see how your version is better. If you want to make drastic changes, you should discuss it at Talk:Argument and get a consensus to do so. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It was indeed well-sourced content, just from 2011 before it got defaced by soeone with an axe to grind. The nature of argument in philosophy and logic is in no way controversial (which ones are *good* is, though). Philogo really did have things stated correctly in his original work. You can go to any--I mean ANY--logic textbooks on this and see what I'm saying. for that matter, you can just go to plato.stanford.edu in its peer-reviewed articles on formal and informal logic. There simply is no subcategory of argument caled a "world-disclosing argument;" arguments, ontologically, are NOT about persuasion; they are about entailment and probability, and that's all they're about. If you want to know why I'm so confident of this, it's because I'm a philosophy professor at a four-year college who specializes in logic (I rather suspect Philogo is, too). I was trying to give my new sources when you reverted the page. I also DID give my justifications for what I was doing in the Talk page on argument.

I am (brand) new to Wikipedia, certainly, so perhaps I inadvertently broke some rule here, but if so, I still don't see it yet. What, exactly, did I do wrong?

Thanks,

Sparky Macgillicuddy (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sparky Macgillicuddy: I disagree that the 2011 version is better, for the reasons above. I've started a discussion at Talk:Argument, so I'm only going to be replying there from now on. Also, per WP:3RR, you shouldn't make another reversion of my edit. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Susan Strange struktkrin�s galios teorija

Thanks! Familiarizing myself still at NPF. Robvanvee 19:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Help adding logo

Sorted

Hi there. Thanks for creating the article for First Fidelity Bank that I submitted. I appreciate you reviewing it. If you have time, would you be able to add the bank's logo to the infobox? As I have a COI, I don't want to make any direct edits myself. This is the file: File:First_Fidelity_Bank_logo.jpg. Thanks again! Heatherer (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Heatherer:  Added I've added the logo. In future, you can also request edits at Talk:First Fidelity Bank as well- if you add {{request edit}} at the top of your request then someone can come look at it. I'm watching the page and talkpage, plus this will let other people see it as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow. That was so fast! Thank you for your help�the logo looks great. I'll definitely make sure to put any other requests on the Talk page. I wasn't sure anyone would see a message there because the article is so new, but I hadn't considered that others could find it through a {{request edit}} tag. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It was easy and uncontroversial to do it, so it made sense to do it quickly. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Possible Cali11298 Sockpuppets -- Advice Sought.

One was, one wasn't

Hi, earlier, you struck User:SilverSurfingSerpant's input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regeneration Who (thanks for that, by the way). I have a feeling though, that the other two involved users, User:TimeHorse (the original article author) and User:Lois Millard may also be socks. User:Lois Millard's only contributions are to that discussion. User:TimeHorse has slightly more history but does make a contribution to United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2014 which to my understanding fits into the Cali11298 behavior pattern. So you think I have enough to take this to WP:SPI or am I falling short? I've submitted a couple successful SPI's before but I feel like this is a bit thin. --Non-Dropframe _talk 01:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Haven't looked very closely (coz I'm about to go bed), but looks possible. Lois Millard is SPA on that AfD, which are often socks. TimeHorse seems to have a mixture of Doctor Who, and non-Doctor Who edits, plus that American politics one. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply

I did not vandalise his page! ok thank you for telling me that i had to post it to his talk page but why warn me? I understand.......--Xelophate (talk) 01:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Because editing their userpage is vandalism, and you've done it 3 times now. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Time to delete??

Hello! I think you'll remember this userpage User:Greendondo/OAK Racing.if you don't, you declined my CSD there stating the reason here. Well, the the article OAK Racing is still not updated.. Think it's time to delete? Regards --JAaron95 (Talk) 05:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Go for it- their only edits have been there, and they haven't edited since 10 April. I genuinely thought they were working on it for the article, but it seems not. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Your reports at AIV

Hi Joseph2302. I appreciate your work patrolling new pages and watching for promotional editing. However, I have to take exception to the heavy-handed way you have been dealing with the users you encounter, most of whom are here for their very first day of editing. Most would have absolutely no idea of our rules and guidelines for what is considered notable enough material for a Wikipedia article. It must be disheartening for them to not only see their article deleted, but being told that they will be blocked for trying to re-add it will surely drive them away forever. Most of the people who are creating an article about a non-notable company are doing so because their boss has told them to, but I think at least some of the time the people who are trying to create autobiographies might stick around and help us write the encyclopedia if we just encourage them a little bit. Threatening them with blocks is not the way to make that happen. Please desist in adding threats of blocking to people's talk pages (unless they are obvious spammers or vandals) and instead consider posting hand-written notes as to why we can't accept the material and encourage them to edit on other topics. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Understood, although I personally don't see how User:Nextwings is not a promotion-only account, they've created an advert for their organisation about 5 times now. And the other 2 users have been given information on why their actions are inappropriate, although I take the point that templating them isn't the best approach. I apologise for being too heavy-handed with users, even if their actions weren't in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

People like "Nextwings" persist because their boss has told them to get a Wikipedia article in place, and has given them a deadline to do it. Their job might even be on the line if they fail. If we take the time to explain why the content will not be accepted no matter how many times they re-post it, hopefully they will be able to go back to their boss and tell them why it ain't gonna happen. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess, although couldn't the time be better spent improving articles that actually have a chance of being accepted? But I understand that lots of people get forced by bosses to create Wikipedia articles, so it's not their fault that their articles are bad. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Diannaa: That is their problem, not ours. We are building an encyclopedia, they are here to spam. This isn't some well-meaning person attempting to write an article about a butterfly species or a historical event. While I don't deny sometimes we make mistakes in the way we welcome (or not) new users, quite frankly this is an example of what we should be doing, and more aggressively. I'll be the first to WP:TROUT Joseph or any other user making life difficult for a well-meaning new contributor, and anyone is free to trout me as well if I screw up. But please have a look at the contents of Nextwings. And I count at least six recreations of that material in article space and their userpage. I'm not sure how that can be construed as anything other than flat out persistent, blatant spamming and rightly deserving an indef block, which I just applied. �FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Like I said in my last post, it seems like a better use of time to help people making good articles, rather than telling spammers why their spam is wrong. It's not our fault if someone loses their job for not creating a Wiki article, it's their bosses' fault for being unrealistic. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for your comments. I agree that corporate accounts that repeatedly re-create their articles should be blocked. A lot of these re-creations of the Nextwings page were going on while I was busy doing two-three other things at once, or I would have blocked them myself. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Joseph, have you read meta:Research:The_Rise_and_Decline? I noticed you're pretty active in touching new users, and I'm really glad you're working so hard, but it is really important that we be as gentle as possible, especially since our processes are extremely confusing for newbies. II | (t - c) 02:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The National Society of Leadership and Success

I've removed the advert and COI tags that you added to the article The National Society of Leadership and Success. See the talk page for details. Orthogonal1 (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I already replied at the talkpage, seems fine to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Joseph2302!

I have been on Wikipedia since last Fall, but many times I have trouble setting up the correct formatting or following guidelines. It feels overwhelming. Writing is the easy part! Thank you for your help.

Ftomberlin (talk) 23:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks ...

... for your message. In fact, I have just spent a very frustrating time doing exactly what you suggested, because I am editing from my phone, which decided this was a good time to start doing everything at super-slow speed, perhaps because its battery was nearly out of charge. What would have taken me about half a minute on a computer instead took for ever.The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

the chauntry cup

Obvious sock, now blocked

According to YOU wrote the article. How can you dispute it? � Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipfreely247 (talk " contribs) 22:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

References

I didn't, that article is wrong. It was written by User:LichfieldCC, that website is wrong. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

No it wasn't. It was written by a journalist from the Lichfield Mercury. Published and printed years ago. YOU, Sir are wrong. You can't admit it can you? � Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipfreely247 (talk " contribs) 22:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm arguing that Wikia is wrong in claiming I wrote the article. Also, your blatant, constant telling me I'm wrong seems to be the exact same mentality as the users who created the article and got blocked, you're not a sockpuppet are you? Joseph2302 (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2015

You need to read if you can. Keith Miller played in the Chauntry Cup. You need to allow that info, even if it contradicts your own beliefs I am no sock anything. You Sir, are wrong and you won't admit your mistake.Ipfreely247 (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

References

No, you needed to add to the article beforehand, per WP:VERIFY. And sign your posts,it's super-annoying. If a source says he played, then readd him with the source. Although frankly the page is meant to be about Lichfield Cricket Club, not The Chanutry Cup.

And we'll see, I've opened a sockpuppet investigation. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, implying I cannot read is a personal attack- keep it up, and you'll be blocked. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Page 92 Column 6 reads.... "One of the greatest all-rounders Australia produced was Keith Miller who, after playing at an unofficial wartime test Match at Lords, raced up to Lichfield and played in the finals the next day." Time to admit YOU are actually wrong. Ipfreely247 (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Why are you continually trying to get people blocked? Is it because you are wrong?Ipfreely247 (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC) I assume you can't read purely because you ignore evidence put before you. Try reading the article before deleting or crying to an administrator.Ipfreely247 (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I never said he didn't play- I said that you shouldn't add content without a reliable source, per WP:VERIFY. Also, lose the battleground mentality- I'm here to improve the encyclopedia, and I hope you are too. Stop trying to attack me by questioning my intelligence- you're the one who failed to add a source about it, so disobeyed Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

And I genuinely believe your aggressive mentality is consistent with you being a sockpuppet of the other aggressive users. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Stop with the "You can't read" personal attacks. I couldn't read a source that you hadn't bothered to provide, I've already told you 3 times to add it with the source. Also, final warning about personal attacks, next time I'm reporting to WP:ANI. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

You have been given the source several times. You chose to ignore it because it doesn't suit your "history " of cricket. Have you now read it?Ipfreely247 (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I've already read it, and told you to add it 3 or 4 times. I only removed him in the first place because you didn't provide a source at the time. Seriously, stop asking me if I've read the source, and just actually add the source. I have no problems with the source, I have issues with your aggressive attitude, and the fact that instead of actually adding the text and source, you're having a pointless, circular argument with me. I've already said many times above "Add him back with the source". Joseph2302 (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Checking back through the history on wiki, Dartman1001 told you about this article. I'm also telling you and you still won't accept it. Time for you to leave it be and stop trolling the Chauntry Cup.Ipfreely247 (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Just add it instead of trying to cause arguments on my talkpage. And no he (you?) didn't. I'm not trolling the history, I only accept verified statements. So now it's verified just add it instead of posting a load of rubbish on here. If you were actually here to contribute, you'd have readded it by now, since it's beneficial to the encyclopedia. Instead, you decide to try and start pointless arguments instead? Almost like you have an axe to grind, Mr Sockpuppet. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

thank you !

Thank you for your answer :) Adnan (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		message YES, Thank you for making it simple and not complicated Adnan (talk) 02:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo's page

Sorted

Next time please look at what you want placed back in, one of the user-boxes involved was a transgender one. Unless you have definite proof that Jimbo says its okay for certain infoboxes don't include them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

fair enough, I reverted them anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, and thanks =) To your credit, I am not sure myself what Jimbo means when he says that anyone can edit his userpage but I don't think he means that kind of stuff. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yh me neither. The user who added it got blocked as a sock by the way. I guess he meant mess with the text etc... Joseph2302 (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft:E Square Young Engineers

Hello there, I am actully new to the EN but I write and edit on the HE a lot. If I make any mistake, please forgive me and teach me if you can :) And now to why I am writing you.. I corrected what you pointed and would want to know if now you think its ok and if you have any ideas for what I can add/edit to make it better...? thanks you! Onlinejonathan (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi

can you please tell us your opinion about this topic : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Thomas_Vermaelen.27s_page_question_please_:

I see you active in sport pages so thought you might have an opinion about this . thank you Adnan (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I've replied there, but have no idea what the Spanish procedure is. Cannot find any sources about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, but why can't we use the videos which shows him with the team getting the medal as a reference..? I am just curious.. Adnan (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

These questions are probably better asked at WT:FOOTY. Youtube is a user-generated site, so not considered a reliable source, see WP:NOYT. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup! thank you again bud :) Adnan (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Authour/author

Re this edit: the British spelling of author is author. "Authour" is obsolete in all dialects. :) Frickeg (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed at Wikipedia:Help desk why it was mistaken to add it there. Although I disagree that it's obsolete, since it's the only way I've ever seen it spelt in the UK. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I find that very odd indeed. I'm Australian, not British, but not only have I never, ever seen the spelling "authour" before (and we get almost all of our books/media unfiltered from country of origin), I have been unable to find a single reliable source online that doesn't call it either obsolete or downright incorrect. I would be interested to hear if you have been able to find any, or if you have text sources that back it up as a contemporary accepted spelling. Frickeg (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Can't find any reliable sources that use it, including the (small amount) of books I own. However, authour was how it was spelt at my school, and I'm surprised to realise that it appears no-one uses it. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Might be one of those regional oddities - I remember talking to a fellow Australian who had always spelled the colour "gray", despite this spelling being almost unknown here. Out of interest, I looked it up in the OED, which says that "authour" has been obsolete since about 1700! Possibly your school had a very particular house style. :) Frickeg (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that's weird. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement weekly vote

• Hello Joseph2302:

This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaboration has begun at Week 26 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 05:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Pearl S Buck page - Material Omissions

The Pearl S Buck page that I have unsuccessfully tried to add real, verifiable information to, information that pertains to information already provided on that page, that page (Pearl S Buck) contains very significant material omissions. That may be why it reads more like a marketing puff piece than a periodical reference. We are especially concerned that several weeks after we had posted information regarding Pearl S Buck Welcome House adoption agency act of ''trafficking/human traffickingItalic text (originally, instead of the word 'trafficked', although that is exactly what occurred, we used the terms 'transited' and 'brokered') that page has deleted those well substantiated references and now instead accuses a deceased dance instructor of New York City's Arthur Murray School with the crime of human trafficking, the trafficking of Canada Scoops victims to USA. Why does Wikipedia allow that unsubstantiated allegation but not the well evidenced, documented information on the same topic that we provide but that shows Pearl S Buck herself and her Welcome House adoption agency are responsible? WV NYC (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

For the same reason that @Zero0000: mentioned a week ago- ""201100009" is not an archive file number. If you add this material again without satisfying the requirements I have outlined, I will block you from editing."- the only source you added was to a file number that doesn't appear to exist. Yet you removed lots of content sourced with proper reliable sources, see difference, your reversion, and other version. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It is possible that 201100009 is an sequence number for victim testimonies at the TNC. My point was that it is definitely not an Archives of Canada file number, which would have to contain enough information to uniquely identify among the millions of files held. Zero^talk 14:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

List

I'm thinking of putting a list of users who I trust on Wikipedia, I'd like to add your name to the list, but I'll need your personal permission first. Thanks TeaLover1996 (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, thank you for trusting me. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

AsOne Creation Page

Hello,

I'm writing regarding the denial of gospel music duo AsOne as listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:AsOne#AsOne .

According to your note, they were declined because their debut album has not been released yet. However, I do feel they're notable enough to have a wikipedia page. Maybe you can provide suggestions on ways I can update their Wiki page to ensure it is published.

They've written songs for singers Usher, Fantasia, Jennifer Hudson and more. Also, they're on a major label (Capitol Records). Also, they have a song "Hero," that is being played in syndication on national radio stations. They've also performed at Disney functions.

Any help is greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.69.116 (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

DRN Notice about Pearl S. Buck

DR/N now closed

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Thank you for notifying me, I'll look and write a message there when I have time. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Admin?

Are you an admin TeaLover1996 (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@TeaLover1996: He is not. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Brian Lisus is at AFD

A page you accepted at Articles for Creation, Brian Lisus, has been nominated for deletion by DGG. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Lisus. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me, I've given my input there. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Feathers

I see what you did there! :) Crow^Caw 23:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Completely unintentional, but amusing with hindsight. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Hi! do you know how to make all tabels beside eachother at this not the new one under them ? the same as this ? thank you :) . Adnan (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed @Adnan n2: I think I've fixed it. The correct way to end one table and start another seems to be to add the code:

|}
|valign="top" width=0%|
{| class="wikitable" ,
but this had the code;
|}
|}

|valign="top" width=0%|
{| class="wikitable"
- I think some the extra |} and {| must have been stopping it from working. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you mate ! Adnan (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Communist Party of Britain

Hello Joseph

Thank you for deleting the Communist Party (UK) redirect so that I can move Communist Party of Britain to Communist Party (UK)

However when I now try to move Communist Party of Britain to Communist Party (UK) I get a message saying

"You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason: The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid."

Please can you advise, so that I can move this page to the correct page name.

Thank you

MartinGarageland66 (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Garageland66:/Martin,

I can't delete the redirect Communist Party (UK), it needs an admin to do it, and I'm not an admin. I've put it up for speedy deletion, which notifies admins that I want it deleted. Once an admin has deleted the redirect, then anyone can move the page to Communist Party (UK). Joseph2302 (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Garageland66: Admin has fixed it, the page is now at Communist Party (UK). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Susan Cameron

You reverted to a revision earlier than mine, which was, according to you, the "unspammed version." Isn't that implying that I spammed the page? I clearly did not. I apologize for the confusion if there is any. --WikiWinters (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@WikiWinters: My apologies, it wasn't your edits I was removing, it was most User:ADDgrammar's edits that I was trying to get rid of- my edit summary should have been clearer. Seems ADDgrammar was part of a sockpuppet farm of PR people, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Factsonlyplease39, and I was trying to clear up some of their mess. Your edits [4] and [5] were both helpful, and definitely not spam. Apologies for the confusion. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	thank you thank you thank you ... Bichetteln (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem, congratulations on creating an article that was good enough for Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yann Benoist

i really enjoy that you accept my work foe wikipedia

Thank you thank you thank you

Best regards

Bichetteln (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I'm offline in a few minutes, but before I go I just wanted to thank you for the sterling work you're doing checking the Factsonlyplease39 article creations. Such tasks are generally pretty thankless, so I thought you deserved a bit of recognition for it! Yunshui 雲水 15:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I hope there's actually some half-decent articles left at the end of it. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!!!

Can you stop helping me? Only kidding, thanks for all your help, it means a lot TeaLover1996 (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

My Wikipedia Input

While I understand some of your points on the input I've entered into wikipedia I'm appalled at the implication that I'm a vandal. That is far from the case. On the issue of a football "honour", it is merely a prize of winning a competition and/or receiving a medal for one and also individual prizes like "player of the year". Football league play-offs in Scotland and England and even if the winners are only surviving relegation, they are still a competition. I'm not going to re-enter the information you have deleted but I would appreciate a little respect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JOESPICE (talk • contribs)

Really, because you've been warned 7 times in the last year, including 4 times in the last 2 months, not to add unsourced content, yet you did it at Graham Dorrans. And as recently as 2.5 days ago, you were told by @GiantSnowman: that playoffs weren't an honour, yet you continued to add them. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Started a discussion at WT:FOOTY about this, and added your comment above about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

03:16:08, 4 June 2015 review of submission by Mokawn

• Mokawn (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mokawn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have written an article that I think it could be noticed by Wikipedia page because it is one of the success issues in Asia on the issues of construction. I would like to develop on the article that I summit. However I do not know how to develop and what to develop. Please help me and I would like to request to review the article again. Moreover please help me to develop on the referenceItalic text. I find the information on the website because when I review other article they also put a source from website. But when I summit on the article it suggest to find source on newspaper and others. Could you please highlight and help me more on reference? Thank you so much for your help and consider. momo 03:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC) momo 03:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome, and I need your guidance on handling a direct copyright violation

Hi Joseph2302-

Thanks for the welcome. Still learning, and made my first mistake. So I'd appreciate your help in resolving an issue I found. Recently, a new user (GPMIP) made a large contribution to the Merger integration article. It appeared suspect, and really didn't relate to merger integrations, and was more appropriate for Mergers & acquisitions. When I viewed some of my M&A materials, I noticed it's a direct copyright violation, word for word, from pages 7&8 of Mergers & Acquisitions Integration Handbook (ISBN 978-1-118-00437-1). There are no publically available sources to prove this.

How should I handle this? Do I just undo the changes and include the "db-copyvio" language, or is there another way to take down the copy written materials. I can send you a PDF to prove the violation, but I don't feel comfortable posting the pages, in case I am then in violation of the copyright.

I've appreciate your help & guidance.

Jperks7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jperks7 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jperks7: If it's a copyright violation, then it should definitely be removed. I assume you mean this addition? Joseph2302 (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I've removed it, and warned the user about copyrighted materials. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi- You just left me a note I am actual the author of the referenced book but could not figure out how to footnote myself and ran out of time yesterday. My name is scott c. whitaker and I am the author of the Mergers & Acquisitions Handbook, John Wiley & Sons, July 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GPMIP (talk • contribs) 13:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Even if you're the owner of the text, the text doesn't have a suitable copyright license to be used on Wikipedia. To release text for Wikipedia, you have to donate it to Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, however this would also place the text into public domain, so anyone would be allowed to copy and use it- I would advise against this. Instead, writing it in your own words (by which I mean words different from the handbook) is easier and better.

Although a second issue is whether that text would be better at Merger integration or Mergers & acquisitions, which you would need to discuss at the article talkpages. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

the conflict of interest with my posts

Hi !!! i wasn't sure of how to reply on the previous thread. i'm writing primarily to apologize to the 70 odd posts to the cricketers pages. i am trying to post the company who manage cricketers across India and was advised that since Wiki is the place people search for info, it would be best if i sign up and start there! i now know how wrong it was of me to do this. i have read the COI now and have realized that i shouldn't have done the same. i am still learning the ropes when it comes to what to do on digital/social media platforms and what not. i realize this incident was one of the don'ts. I thank you for sending me the warning this early, else i would never have known why the posts were getting deleted and the count would have surely gone from 70 to 90 or 100. Also, is there a way i can reach out to you via mail so that i can get to know the do's and don'ts of going digital and getting my stuff right? it would surely help a great deal. looking forward to hearing from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tejasraomys (talk • contribs) 14:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

But most Wikipedians don't care who a cricketer's manager is- unless it's covered in reliable sources (e.g. newspaper articles), then it's not notable enough for Wikipedia. Most of the Wikipedia comes from content on ESPN Cricinfo, Cricket World, and newspapers (for Indian cricketers, a lot comes from Times of India and Hindu Times)- content from primary sources about companies isn't encyclopedic material. With respect, if you want people to know which players you manage, then you should use your website and their personal websites, not Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for advertising, see WP:NOTADVERTISING. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

GreenEarth Cleaning

I received your message. I have made the changes with descriptions in the edit summary. Also, please remove ref 3 &5; Cite error: The named reference sfenvironment was invoked but never defined (see the help page) and Riesenman, Stephanie. “Alternative Dry Cleaning Method May Be Unsafe.” February 17, 2005. Accessed 2007-08-01. they are not accurate, and are outdated. We have multiple studies much more recent proving otherwise. As they are listed in our references.