User talk:PTJoshua

So after I realized that you had deleted my changes - and before I received your latest comment - I did realize that the following words are not 'neutral' "in an effort to raise awareness through personal testimony of the devastating impact abortion has on women, men and society and the need for Christ-centered healing." - but I cannot find anything else that is not just listing facts, dates, and information about what Anglicans for Life is. If I changed the above wording, would this then be acceptable? Plus, do you work for Wikipedia, or who are you and why would you be policing the info here? (remember, this truly is 'my first day here!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julie030302 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think saying things like "the only global Anglican pro-life ministry dedicated to inspiring the Anglican Communion to understand and compassionately apply God's Word" and "a parish-based community outreach to women facing unplanned pregnancies who may be abortion-minded or vulnerable" is the kind of thing you would read on a brochure. None of your edits did anything except promote your employer. The original version states what your employer is and what it does. What is wrong with the original version? PTJoshua (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PTJoshua This was my first time on Wikipedia and I spent nearly 3 hours updating the entry for my employer, Anglicans for Life. It appears to me that you undid every change that I made to the entry! Please explain. And please re-edit the entry to include all of the updates I recently added. THANK YOU. Julie030302 (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You made the article a promotional article for your employer. That isn't how encyclopedia articles are supposed to be. PTJoshua (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, PTJoshua. I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Gurt Posh (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this would be useful...

I recently noticed you where reverting vandalism manually, even beating me to reverts when I was using an automated program! Great job! I do know something that would be very useful in even making reverting vandalism easier. It is a neat component of the MediaWiki Software (that I have and use) that allows you to revert all the edits a user has made in a row on a designated page in just one click. It is called rollback. Rollback should only be used to revert obvious vandalism and other disruptive edits. I highly recommend that you request rollback (you can do so by clicking here, but I recommend you read this page first. Crazymonkey1123 public (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

Hello! Thanks for all your work reverting vandalism. I would like to ask, however, that you use the warning templates when you do so. They're pretty simple to use. If you see a user vandalize for the first time, you would revert the edit and add {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} to his or her userpage. If the user already had, say, a level 2 vandalism warning, you would add {{subst:uw-vandalism3}}. The user generally gets four warnings, and then can be reported to AIV. Using these warnings makes it clear to the vandal that his or her behavior is unacceptable. Otherwise, the vandal may not know that the edits are being noticed and reverted. The templates also allow other users and administrators to see how much the user has vandalized. For example, you reverted User:Ltfcrobbo several times without warning. I reverted an edit, and my anti-vandalism program automatically gave him a level one warning, even though the user had already vandalized several times. By using the templates, other users can see if a user needs a block, or is just experimenting. Thank you! – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 22:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revert Don Kennedy?

Why did you revert to the old page? The guy is still alive and emailed his bio, telling me that what the original author(s) posted is inaccurate because it mixes him up with another actor. Basically, the author(s) combined two people into one bio and the page is wrong. Even simple data, like the birthdate is wrong. The place is right, but 10 years too early.

The other version was referenced. Your version is you saying you have an email. PTJoshua (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The other references have dead or incomplete links. None list simple demographic data, such as birth date and birth place. His email address is on the Big Band Jump web page (referenced in the original Wiki page) and I am sure you can email him and ask for his bio (which will amazingly match the one he sent me).

Me or anyone else emailing that address would still be the same problem. It isn't really a reference. I don't know who is on the other end of that email, you know? This might help Wikipedia:Verifiability. PTJoshua (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Will have the station that broadcasts his show (Stay Tuned America) as well as his actual show page (Big Band Jump) add a profile section with his info. Then will just make minor changes to the data that is referenced inaccurate. Thx.

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Dania salgado

Hello PTJoshua. I am just letting you know that I deleted Dania salgado, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't think having a photo captioned "Dania trying to drink water" and talking about a lack of popularity was an attack? PTJoshua (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really... I read the page and I didn't think its only purpose was to disparage this person. Granted, some parts of it were weird, but it was nothing particularly aggressive. Had this kid been notable, for instance, the article would not have been deleted, but it would have quite appropriate to remove those bits. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I guess I can see that. Thanks for letting me know. PTJoshua (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CSD notification

Hello. Please don't forget to notify the author of a page when you tag it for speedy deletion as you did with Parakai Springs. Thanks! —DoRD (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion tagging

Hey Joshua - I just wanted to bring this to your attention. When you tag articles for deletion, don't tag them after minutes of creation. Give the author a few more minutes to add more detail in the article, because the article might just meet the guidelines to stay on Wikipedia. Thanks, - Dwayne was here! ♫ 16:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Sorry. PTJoshua (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - you see what I mean? The author included more information and he/she sourced it. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 17:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hotdish deletions

It is not at all nice to delete information while I am working on it. I would have not thought that an article such as hotdish would have so many readers that I would need to be concerned. Gandydancer (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you added was just your opinion. PTJoshua (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the process of adding my information. Please explain why you deleted the photo. Please explain why a blog is acceptable, and why you deleted my rice correction. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What blog? I didn't add a blog. Vegetarian Times is not a blog. The potluck photo added nothing and your "correction" was your own opinion. PTJoshua (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some things you might not know.

(pressed enter too soon) Anyway, check out WP:TWINKLE, it's very helpful for reverting with out the rollback privilege. Bluefist^talk 19:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered why you wrote half a sentence. :)

OK. I will check that out. Thanks. PTJoshua (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you reverting alot of vandalism, and I thought this might be a better tool than undo. It's very helpful for warnings and reporting people too. Bluefist^talk 19:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just installed it...wow. This thing is awesome! Thanks! PTJoshua (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Dust buffalos

Hello PTJoshua. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Dust buffalos, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not nonsense - there is meaningful content. Thank you. —DoRD (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greenbrier Academy

Hello, this article was created by a new user. I am concerned about WP:BITE in this instance, as it's a new page by a new user. Don't want to scare someone away. Assuming good faith, etc. Just saying...

Roodog2k (talk) 19:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Pickles

Just a suggestion... after seeing the revert you made to Sweet Pickles, I think you should read WP:BITE. Although I don't see much of a problem with the changes the user made to the article, try to remember that this particular user is new, and this was their first edit on Wikipedia. The books have been out of print for some time, so I am unsure that this was 'too promotional.'

Have a nice day, my friend!

Roodog2k (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! If I could suggest, take a moment and look at the other contributions a user has made, when you see something questionable. In the case of the Sweet Pickles article, rather than a revert, maybe you can improve on the changes to the article. Use it as a teaching experience to the newcomer. Reach out to them, let them know you're here to help.

Be well, my friend!

Roodog2k (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... OK, I just realized something. After posting on the editor's page from Sweet Pickles, based on the username of the editor, MAYBE it was a tad promotional. It's possible that the editor is a son or grandson of one of the authors. Still, the books are out of print and difficult to find as a complete collection. The fluffery was unsourced, however, but likely accurate. Still, that would be a NPOV issue more than anything. Best regards! Roodog2k (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice the name but I will try to be less BITE-Y from now on. :) PTJoshua (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Mike fantastic

Hello PTJoshua. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mike fantastic, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. Ale_Jrb^talk 21:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Ring

Thanks for switching back that edit. Someone out there wants to totally blank the Ring/Fukuda judging controversy and done that several times (maybe it is Nick Ring himself? Ha!). Anyway, thanks for the revert and keeping an eye out. Udar55 (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marking as Patrolled

Hello there PTJoshua. Just a little request. It seems that Twinkle, quite annoyingly, doesn't mark pages as patrolled even when you tag them for WP:CSD, WP:PROD or WP:AFD. I've just come across an article, that you'd tagged for WP:CSD on the unpatrolled list. I'm sure you already know, but if you scroll down to the bottom of the article, there will be a little link in square brackets that says mark this page as patrolled. If you click that the it'll get taken off the unpatrolled list and no-one else will come across it. It's not your fault, I know; it's Twinkle's. But until they fix it, it'd be great if you clicked that link just before you tagged an article. I've marked that one as patrolled. Sorry to be a pain. Keep up the good work. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I didn't know about marking them patrolled. I will look out for that. I don't want you to have to do twice the work. Sorry. PTJoshua (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise. Like I said: it's a problem with Twinkle. But I just thought I'd mention it. All the best. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. :) PTJoshua (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

faridasharan

I have just spent a considerable amount of time fixing factual errors and extremely prejudiced and false statements on the Iridology page and you have deleted them. Currently on the Iridology page even the definition of Iridology is incorrect and has been written by someone who is deliberately trying to discredit a field that he/she clearly is not qualified to write about. Please will you look at the actual edits that I have written. Asking me to NOT write about Iridology is like asking Andre Agassi to NOT write about tennis. An encyclopedia should have verifiable FACTS and not be at the mercy of people with personal agendas... which is all the current text on the Iridology page is stating. Please look at what I have actually written. I have contributed significantly to the page. Without my comments the Iridology page is extremely inaccurate and biased.User:faridasharan —Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

MiloStevens was writing an article about you while you were slipping your own promotional stuff into Iridology. Today seems to be Farida Sharan promotes herself day or something. With that whole Agassi thing if he was promoting himself in tennis articles that would be removed too. PTJoshua (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Joshua - You are not getting my point so I will begin again. Where is the promotional stuff that you are referring too? I outlined the actual definition of Iridology (versus the inaccurate definition currently listed - if you read what I wrote then this will be clear.) I provided links that show that this definition is correct. I then included significant improvements in the history of Iridology. Farida Sharan is a part of that. By the way - my name is Bonny White NOT Farida Sharan...so I am not self promoting. I have been a practitioner and teacher of Iridology for 25 years. That is the Agassi reference. I know what I am talking about. The current 'facts' on the Iridology page are entirely inaccurate. They are written by someone deliberately trying to discredit Iridology, using research that was focused on disproving something that Iridology doesn't even claim to do - if you look you will see that that I what I said - I didn't delete the inaccurate research..I pointed out WHY it was inaccurate.. making it a very valid entry on this page. If the page is inaccurate, rather than deleting my corrections, perhaps you should delete the whole page so that it isn't Iridology bashing day, which is all the Iridology page currently is. I would appreciate your help with this. Sincerely, Bonny (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

You took the name faridasharan and add material from Farida Sharan but you aren't promoting Farida Sharan? Why don't you lay out your grievances on the article talk page instead of readding your promotional material again and again? PTJoshua (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added the material again because I was trying to figure out why it wasn't there and was trying to replace hours of work. faridasharan

faridasharan

Also Milo Stevens is another account that I made for my own work. I have been signing on between firefox and safari. Sorry if that bothers you. When doing the Iridology article I noticed that there wasn't a Farida Sharan page and thought that there should be one. Is that a problem? (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

So you are using two different accounts to promote Farida Sharan? PTJoshua (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Faridasharan (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC) faridasharanFaridasharan (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Dear Joshua, Nice that you have a sense of humour. No I am not promoting Farida Sharan. I don't use my own name to make a wikipedia account because I am paranoid. I used FaridaSharan as my own work account because I am an iridologist and I ADMIRE her significant contribution to Iridology. The primary textbook used in the world to teach Iridology was written by her and she is the founder of one of the three most respected schools of Iridology in the world. Where may I ask am I promoting Iridology in my contribution to the Iridology page? On this page I have added the names and contributions of several iridologists including Dr. John Christopher (a pioneer like Farida Sharan), Dorothy Hall, and numerous others. Please point out the offending sentence. To discard hours of carefully researched work because you have decided I like Farida Sharan too much is not right. Also, Wikipedia has lots of pages about people. Encyclopedia's do. What is wrong with making a page about her? User:faridashran[reply]

faridasharan

Dear Joshua, What do you have against what I have written? I do not understand your rudeness, and you refusal to engage in a dialogue beyond claiming that I am promoting a particular person. LOOK at what I have written and it is clear to anyone that this is not true. You are erasing hours of work without looking at the facts and that is NOT right. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Dear Joshua, I require help. I have worked for seven hours today on this because when I looked up Iridology on wikepedia I was shocked at how inaccurate and biased the Iridology page was. I gave of my time to correct the facts on this page, add to the history and to provide relevant links. You have unilaterally erased all of this work because I reference one the leading Iridologists in the world on the Page (along with several other leading Iridologists). What you are doing is wrong and I deserve to be listened to. How would you like it if someone deleted seven hours of your work. It has been a nightmare just figuring out how to edit on Wikipedia and it has been a major learning curve for me. Will you please help instead of insisting it is just promotional. WHERE is it promotional. If you want me to delete a particular part than say so. You are acting like I am some kind of criminal and all I have done is try to add accuracy to one of the pages on Wikipedia. This is not a way to treat someone. Sincerely, Bonny (talk)