User talk:Josh3580

This is Josh3580's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6

Welcome!

Hello, Josh3580, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

Josh you are a major insult to my Ego you have beat me several times in reverting vandalism we need more people like you --Zaharous (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aww shucks, tweren't nothin! Glad to help! Josh3580 (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AWB and contractions

While contractions (didn't, don't etc) are discouraged on Wikipedia, they are not "typos" and should not be marked as such. (AWB Rule 4: Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits.) Furthermore, you are sometimes altering direct quotations! [1] [2] Please check your work so far and revert where necessary. Xanthoxyl ^< 10:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the corrections in direct quotes, AWB RegExTypoFix is supposed to automatically skip any contractions in quotes. The examples you gave had either no quote marks, or quotes that spanned across multiple paragraphs, which must have confused the algorithm. I apologize for those mistakes, that was negligence on my part for not paying closer attention as I was editing.

However, I disagree that contractions should not be expanded using WP:AWB. On WP:AWB#Rules of use, examples of inconsequential edits include:

Only adding or removing some white space
Moving a stub tag
Converting some HTML to Unicode
Removing underscores from links (unless they are bad links)
Bypassing a redirect
...or something equally trivial.

According to WP:Basic copyediting, "Unless part of a quotation, contractions (don't, can't, etc.) should be changed to non-contracted forms (do not, cannot, etc.)."... This causes me to disagree that such changes are inconsequential. Also, the WP:AWB/Typos project recommends using the [[WP:AWB/T|Typo fixing]] summary for any corrections identified from the RegExTypoFix database, so that false positives can be identified and reported. I'm not sure how else to tag the edits, other than just typing "clean up," which is much less descriptive and robust.

Thank you so much for your feedback. It is always helpful to take a fresh look at things! I will pay closer attention in the future. -Josh3580_talk/hist 21:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol surveyNew page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Josh3580! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP SurveyMembership of the Counter-Vandalism UnitAs you may know, the Counter-Vandalism unit is inactive. So for reviving the WikiProject, we will need to sort out the members. So if you are active, please put your username at the bottom of the list at Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit#Sort out the members. You are receiving this message as a current member of the CVU. Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Counter-Vandalism Unit at 00:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]Huggle 3Hey Josh3580! I am Petrb, one of core developers of Huggle, the antivandalism tool, which you are beta testing (according to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Huggle/Members#Beta_testers). I am happy to announce that Huggle 3 is ready for some testing. You can read more about it at WP:Huggle/Huggle3_Beta. Please keep in mind that this is a development version and it is not ready for regular use. That means you must:Watch your contribs - when anything happens you didn't want, fix it and report a bug Frequently checkout source code and build latest version, we change it a lotIf you find any problem with a feature that is supposed to work perfectly, please let us know. Some features are not ready yet, it is listed in known problems on Huggle3 beta page, you don't need to report these - we know it! So, that's it. Have fun testing and please let us know about any problems, either using bugzilla @ http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ or #huggle ^connect. Please respond to my talk page, I am not going to watch your talk page. Thank you Petrb (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]Huggle 3 beta is out - and we need more feedback!Hey Josh3580, how are you? I am Petrb, one of huggle developers, and you are currently subscribed as a beta tester of huggle on meta (meta:Huggle/Members. You may not have noticed, but this week I released first beta precompiled installers for ubuntu and microsoft windows! Wikipedia:Huggle/Huggle3_Beta has all the links you need. So if you can, please download it, test it and report all bugs that is really what we need now. Don't forgot that as it's just a beta it's unstable and there are some known issues. Be carefull! Thank you for helping us with huggle Petrb (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]Your stepping on my toes, bro!"Micro llamas" and "lego structure turtle building syndrome" there all real!!!! Look it up before you start stepping on my toes!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.67.150.247 (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]Please cite your sources if your edit contained a valid fact. The phrase "lego structure turtle building syndrome", as well as "lego building turtle disease" both bring up zero results in Google. Dubious at best, vandalism at worst.Josh3580_talk/hist 20:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]You must have laughed a bit I thought. I thought I might make your job as a page patroler a bit funnier seeing as though its the most tedious,boring,saddest and suicide enducing 'job' in the world and its people like me that keep you in this line of work. Love you!! xxxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.67.150.247 (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]Your comments could be construed as uncivil. I volunteer my time. My patrolling is at my leisure. You and I don't know each other at all, so let's keep our discussions to article content.Josh3580_talk/hist 05:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]Deleting my objective postsHello Josh, I'm not promoting the alf nor bite back, I'm telling the objective truth like a journalist, I'm doing what's right please look on there site left hand side below pgp key, they're not random links,they're citations. Here's the link: http://directaction.info/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.80.245 (talk) idiot (me), I accidentally I 1 000 000% assure you deleted these links, it was an error, sorry, now that I've told you that, I'll re-edit.Hello. Deleting referenced content without discussion and consensus on the article's talk page is anything but objective, it is unconstructive. If you feel that the citations are not reliable, by all means start a discussion on the article's talk page, but don't unilaterally remove referenced material.Josh3580_talk/hist 20:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]ObjectivityIs there a greater source than this guy's name (Muhammad)? Whoever provided the guy's name, I provide him as my source too. If his name was written wrong, then why aren't you deleting it as well? But if that's his real name, then it shows he is Muslim. Can there be any greater proof than this? His name is Muhammad and he will be Buddhist in that period?! Is such a thing possible at all? Moreover, not only him but all the rulers are labelled as Buddhist? What a stupidity! So,the those calling him as Buddhist, what sources have they provided, can you tell me? Just stop palavering. This is obviously the infection of Burmese assimilation against those Muslims on the internet platform... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.172.231.88 (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]If you are correct, you will have no problem in citing a verifiable, reliable source for all of the articles you have changed from "Buddhist" to "Muslim." Making such changes en masse to a vast number of articles without citing a source appears to be vandalism, and will be reverted. Hope that clears things up. —Josh3580_talk/hist 20:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]The resources that you have shown aren't reliable? I told you my resources are the same with yours. I mean he was a Muslim based on the same resources. In those resources that you have given in all those articles all the "Shahs'!" names are Muslim names, moreover they are prophet names! If they were Buddhist why would they adapt such names? Are you sure you are really conscious? In other words, in the resources that have shown, all the Shahs had Muslim names. Do you mean the sources that you have given are not reliable? Because they all say these guys have Islamic names but you still insist they are Buddhist. Are the sources are not reliable? Or is that you that is not reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.172.231.88 (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Actually, I haven't cited any sources, because I am not making changes to the article content. You are the one making the changes, and therefore the burden of proof lies with you as the contributing editor. If you feel like information is incorrect on a specific article, find averifiable, reliable source, such as a news article, to support such a change. Things like "personal knowledge" or "common sense" are primary sources, and not acceptable as a basis for information in an encyclopedia. Not to mention the fact that people don't choose their own names under normal circumstances. Besides, it's the fact that you are changing articles en masse, without citing sources, that makes this look like vandalism, and you haven't really convinced me that you are interested in adhering to the policies I have referred you to. —Josh3580_talk/hist 20:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]My friend, I already told you that in the current sources in those articles, they say these people have Muslim names. Why do you force me to provide you further resources? You say "Not to mention the fact that people don't choose their own names under normal circumstances." Very well, parents name their children under normal circumstances as you say. So if the previous ruler was not Muslim, why would he name his son with a Muslim name? Your words are definitely causing a paradox... Why would whole dynastic line carry Muslim names if the previous ruler was not Muslim? By the way, you might think that these Muslim names were given them by other Islamic states due to their relationships. But in Islam, infidels can not carry Muslim names, so no any Muslim ruler in the world would give an infidel ruler an Islamic title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.172.231.88 (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Look, I understand and appreciate what you are trying to do. I don't disagree with your purpose, as we all want Wikipedia to contain correct information. However, you didn't explain any of this when you made the edits. If the source states the opposite of what is in the article, then put that in your edit summary when you make the change. Just changing it without explaining is what caused the red flag. I pick through all of the recent changes throughout the encyclopedia, and I have to be sure that people aren't adding incorrect information. Use a clear edit summary when you make these changes, point to which cited source has the correct information, and state that you are changing it to match the cited source. Your statement about "infidels" not being allowed to have Muslim names is exactly what is NOT appropriate, as you would need to back that kind of statement up with a source. You have to make sure and clearly document this sort of thing. I mean no disrespect, I am just trying to be sure that the correct procedure is followed. Thank you, —Josh3580_talk/hist 21:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]I know you have no ill intentions and we are both here to improve the realibility and quality of the informations in wikipedia. Did the guy who wrote they were Buddhist explain anything? Anway, I have found lots of resources related to our topic and will list them here respectively: http://danyawadi.wordpress.com/2012/04/08/the-history-of-rohingya-muslims-of-arakan-rakhine-state-burma/ http://www.rohingya.org/portal/index.php/scholars/65-nurul-islam-uk/293-muslim-influence-in-the-kingdom-of-arakan.html Check these websites and you will see the heavy influence of Islam in Burmese history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.172.231.88 (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]I honestly don't know if the editor who made that change supported it properly, as it is recent changes that I watch. You see, I get a list of all edits to Wikipedia as they happen, and if any of those edits are not supported by properly sourced information or otherwise explained, I undo them. Verifiable, reliable sources must be cited for any edits, but I don't always see old edits. I honestly believe that your edits were most likely correct, but that doesn't change the fact that you still have to cite a source in the article. I apologize if I upset you originally, this has nothing to do with you or I, but about the policies that the community has established. If I had been online when the editor entered "Buddhism," and they didn't cite a source, I would have reverted them as well. Thank you for keeping the dialogue open, I really do appreciate it. —Josh3580_talk/hist 15:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]MPs, Orwell, Jack, Hansard, food banks, etcThank you for your assistance in dealing with the recent random outbreak of Orwellism (or whatever it may be). As a tangential curiosity that may be of interest, I do have some sympathy for Jack Monroe ("a girl called jack"), and in fact still have a copy of the London Evening Standard that featured a lengthy profile of her. I originally planned to use it to create a Wikipedia article about her; but it turned out that someone else had already done so long beforehand. Jack is silly, though, to think that only unemployed people do things like buying Value/Basics supermarket items, or turning off the LED clock on the oven to save electricity. I've been doing the latter on environmental grounds since the early 1990s (much to my parents' annoyance), and, come to think of it, even my parents buy value supermarket products occasionally. Having said all that... some of the rest of her blog makes hard reading. The original facts about the vote are indeed in Hansard, so one doesn't need Jack's blog to verify them. One of the other concerns is that the Orwell fellow was using the data... selectively. (i.e., did any Liberal Democrats vote against the proposal, and if so, did he edit their articles too, and if not, why not?) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Thank you. You seem to see exactly where I was coming from here. It was POV-pushing, plain and simple. Think how messy political articles would become if we included every vote they have ever made? This was more of the issue I had with the edits, although it is still true that her blog is not quite a verifiable, reliable source. I hope I didn't give the impression that I was passing any judgement on her or her work, that had nothing to do with my reversions. That was the source that was cited, and it's just not a source to base encyclopedic content on, you know? Thank you for seeing where I was coming from, and thank you again for your comments, honestly. —Josh3580_talk/hist 22:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]I would like for you to confirm that you aren't a BOT...I feel like the only messages I'm getting are automated. Not acceptable. I removed bits under the roster section of the New England Patriots because It was all messed up. But now it's fixed somehow... 06:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theroux721 (talk • contribs)I'm definitely not a WP:BOT, but I do use WP:HG, WP:TW, and WP:AWB to do recent changes and new pages patrolling. They allow me to pick a choice from a list for vandalism or WP:CSD, and it inserts Wikipedia's standard templates. I have to physically click each edit I make, but no, I do not have to type the messages in each time. Hope this helps, —Josh3580_talk/hist 16:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Congratulations, you are first to pass the Turing test! Please inform your operator. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Hah! Thanks for the congrats, Demiurge1000 (talk)... Skynet is here to stay! Reminds me of the insurance "robo-calls" in recent news... Reporter: "Say, 'I am not a robot'." Robot: "I am a real person." Reporter: "No, say the words, 'I am not a robot'." Robot: "I am a real person." Here's the article and recording. —Josh3580_talk/hist 18:17, 18 January 2014References on biography.Josh a list of published books of this author were cited in the article. Each of these books have been published in hard copy by international and nationally recognised publishers. Each of these books on their hard covers have potted biography of the author. Noel Shaw in Bird and natural history circles is a recognised expert. I wrote it today , because he died today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowe street (talk • contribs) 06:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]My sourcePlease search Karter Fury on facebook and add me as a friend. Then you can have a look at my friends list and you'll see exactly who my source is. I would like to add that you are posting undocumented rumors, that my friend is called slander and libel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarterFury (talk • contribs) 12:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]That's not exactly how it works, please see WP:Verifiability. Facebook pages or personal knowledge are not considered verifiable, reliable sources for the purpose of an encyclopedia. I'm sure you are acting in good-faith, but please familiarize yourself with the policies. This article may be of help: Help:Referencing for beginners. Hope this explains things, —Josh3580_talk/hist 16:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]YoI happened to go to that school, and jono honey happens to be my close friend and local celebrity of the area, considering you are from Texas, please return what I wrote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnagesupervisor27 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]That's not exactly how it works, as this is an encyclopedia. You must cite a verifiable, reliable source for any contributions. Personal knowledge is not a verifiable, reliable source, and all article content must be written from a neutral point of view. Hope this clears things up. —Josh3580_talk/hist 19:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Yo...againThat's ridiculous, if personal knowledge is not "viable" in your eyes, then this whole Encyclopedia is bull. It's created by people on here, by they're on knowledge, to add to it. Just because you think they are wrong doesn't make it so. Who made you the boss of this website?!?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnagesupervisor27 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Firstly, I said "verifiable", not "viable". Secondly, no one has made me the boss of anything. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and all of its governing policies are approved by all of us through WP:CONSENSUS. I am a recent changes patroller, who watches the changes to Wikipedia, and tries to make sure that everyone follows the established policies, in the interest of correctness. As for your specific issue, I will again refer you to the established policy WP:No original research. —Josh3580_talk/hist 20:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]User talk:BrainiacalYou may want to reconsider the warning you left on his talk page. If you look at the section above, you'll see that User:Huon already warned him. Your warning makes it look like he did it twice, which he didn't.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Thank you very much, Bbb23 (talk). I completely missed that. I hit "rollback" on my edit. That was entirely my fault. Again, thanks for watching my back! —Josh3580_talk/hist 00:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] No worries. As long as I'm here, I don't think in this instance I would have removed the attack from DMacks's talk page. I understand why you did it, but generally I would remove only vandalism or something really egregious. I can't speak for DMacks, but I prefer to see those kinds of comments and decide for myself whether I want to leave them, remove them, respond to them, whatever. I think that particularly applies to administrator talk pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Bbb23 (talk) - I see exactly where you are coming from, I'll keep that in mind in the future. Honestly, I have been on the receiving end of several personal attacks and legal threats during the vandalism uptick over the last few days, and I guess it made me a bit overzealous. I'll be more deliberate in the future. Thank you again, your input is always, always appreciated. —Josh3580_talk/hist 02:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] I guess I'm a talk-page-stalker-stalker here, but I appreciate everyone's actions and comments about this situation. I tend to leave those sorts of messages (it goes away soon anyway via autoarchiving, and I don't want to look like I'm either trying to intentionally hide it or hide from it, and its visibility often speaks loudly to those dealing with the poster), but I don't object to others removing them either as part of their handing of the poster's behavior. Happy editing, all! DMacks (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Hillshire BrandsHello Josh3580, why did you remove the brands link on Hillshire's wiki page? I fine many many similar examples on wikipedia where a companies products are posted in their brands subject heading. Sincerely, Ksenyak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksenyak (talk • contribs) 17:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]That is very possible, and such articles would probably need to be cleaned up as well. Please see WP:ELNO, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTLINK. A list of the products may be appropriate, with links to the products' Wikipedia articles, but an exhaustive list of external links to product pages is not. Many of your other edits to the article were helpful, however. Please don't take this as a disincentive to contribute to the article. It was just that one edit (that I noticed) which had issues. I hope this helps explain my reasoning. —Josh3580_talk/hist 17:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Understand and thanks for the guidance and instruction. Appreciate the help! Sincerely, Ksenyak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksenyak (talk • contribs) 17:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Luis Miguel TourAs I explained to the other user, no template or content was removed from this article. IF you chose to look at the diffs, you'll see any information that I changed or added had a source attached to it. I don't get you editors who choose to act high and mighty and blindly revert edits. 50.152.18.168 (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Firstly, please keep your comments limited to the content, as opposed to the contributors (e.g.:"high and mighty"). Also, you DID remove several templates, replacing them with single lines. You left no edit summary to explain why you believed that those templates should not be included. This is why your edits were reversed. —Josh3580_talk/hist 18:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]new pageHello Josh, I am new to wikipedia. I observed that I had created the page 5 months ago, but it was still not online and searchable. I though something is wrong with my account. So I have created a new wiki account and has posted the same post with many chnages on a new account. You can check it now on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mag_drill Let me know, if I have done all correct or not? regards RohanKona LanesThis article is "finished" from my standpoint, so I've listed it for peer review, hoping to get feedback from others who may find the subject of interest. Feel free to add your opinions if you so desire, with my thanks. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 06:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Aryana SayeedSorry Josh, im new to wikipedia. I see I made some mistakes here and there. Here is my article with references The reason why there are some facebook pages is because afghan artists are still very new and dont have official websites where they communicate. They all use facebook pages as their official pages. I workes really hard on the article please review it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lailasamadi (talk • contribs) 00:05, 21 January 2014‎You need to familiarize yourself with the following policies: WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources, WP:No original research. Any contributions you add must be supported by a verifiable, reliable source. If you do not have such a source, you should not add the content. This is an encyclopedia, and must be based on external sources, like news articles. "Personal knowledge" or Facebook pages do not meet the community-set standard. Hope this helps. —Josh3580_talk/hist 00:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Aryana Sayeefd Againok I copletely undestand your point. No one writes about afghan artists in the news. How am I supposed to find news articles. It's a war torn country and I feel the Artists that contrubute positively should get a mention in the encyclopaedia. These are not random pages, i have included video proof and the facebook pages are official. They are not simple user pages, so I comply with the rules here. Thanks for your quick response. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lailasamadi (talk • contribs) 00:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Just make sure you read those policies I referred you to. Your response indicates that you still don't understand completely. YouTube is a questionable source at best, and Facebook pages are never considered verifiable, reliable sources, even if they are official Facebook pages. I'm sorry you are having trouble finding news articles about the artists, but this suggests they may not meet the notability guidelines. I'm glad you are so eager to contribute, but please familiarize yourself with the rules first. —Josh3580_talk/hist 00:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Editing the last topicsHello Josh, The information that I edited (actually deleted) is not relevant to Dr. Mannan's biographical information. If you read that portion you will be able to understand. It was added intentionally to direct other people in wrong direction. Moreover, the information that I edited was wrong previously. The reference that was given at the end is not correct for these information. I had a huge respect and dependence on wikipedia. But after seeing these misguiding things on webpage I am disappointed and lost my faith on wiki. Moreover, I would like to request wiki to add information, especially history and life story, to check through proper reference. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.152.33 (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Perhaps you should start a discussion on the article's talk page if you are unable to cite a source for your edit. —Josh3580_talk/hist 00:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Aryana SayeedPlease take a look again: [3] Thanks --Frze ^{> talk} 12:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]/* Substitute hosts */The reason why I changed it because it was a duplicate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.116.184 (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]FoodaJosh, did you read this: http://www.builtinchicago.org/blog/startup-month-fooda We're a viable startup in Groupon founder Eric Lefkofskys Lightbank space. Please feel free to help me with hyperlinks on the page I created, but I believe it to be a legitimate entry as I work here and we are growing rapidly. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strandyfranch (talk • contribs) 17:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]The question isn't whether the company is viable, but whether it meets the WP:CORP standard. Also, please see the following policy: Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. These standards have been adopted by community consensus. Hope this explains things. —Josh3580_talk/hist 17:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]I will read the standards. I just figured that if 'Black Twitter' could have its own page as a 'cultural phenomenon', tour group of hard-working individuals turning more of a profit than Twitter as a company ever has, could allow our clients and partners access to our history via the web's best source for information. Just saying Josh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strandyfranch (talk • contribs) 14:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]The difference is in the establishment of WP:NOTE with multiple, verifiable sources. It may seem like a silly article to both of us, but it has met the guidelines to establish notability and verifiability. Just saying. —Josh3580_talk/hist 14:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Ok sounds good. Sorry for not following SOP, I was simply providing the third party sourcing that WP:NOTE referenced. It doesn't seem silly to me, I understand it. But if I follow the new route you've suggested, provide the sourcing, and elaborate more in depth on the organization and am still turned down; I'm coming back to your talk page. Have a good one and thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strandyfranch (talk • contribs) 21:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]I removed the links you posed on my page, the article was the place for those, not my talk page. I see that the article has since been deleted, so an Administrator agreed with my recommendation. Try starting an article at WP:Articles for Creation. Here, you can work on the article, and then submit it to the community for revising and approval. You would have a better chance taking that route, as other editors can help you meet the requirements needed if the company indeed is notable enough to warrant its own article. —Josh3580_talk/hist 20:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Song QuachHello Josh3580, I realize that your goal here is to promote credibility and accuracy. I also realize that my page regarding Song Quach probably seems antagonistic to this goal, but I implore you to let the page survive. A lack of sources makes it seem like a no-brainer "speedy deletion," but Song Quach's name deserves recognition on this database. Thank you, Amienieto00 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amienieto00 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]I think you answered yourself here. The lack of sources and notability are what qualifies it for deletion under the community-adopted guidelines. To clarify, I will not make the final decision on deletion, I only recommend it. An Administrator will review the recommendation, and delete it only if appropriate. —Josh3580_talk/hist 01:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Done. Pretty sure it's a hoax--"Imma Cutchu, Bitch"? Drmies (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Thank you as always for reviewing my request, Drmies (talk), and agreed. I felt silly searching for that string in Google, and found nothing, as expected. —Josh3580_talk/hist 02:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Noooo now no one will know the Song Quach story... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amienieto00 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Lion vs TigerSo you reverted to a less reliable and constructive vision? State your reasons for reverting a unreliable revert, for in the lion vs tiger section I gave mine for removing it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tiger_versus_lion Whats yours? oh yeah, you have none, so change it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golden Prime (talk • contribs) 03:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Normally I would invite you to start a discussion on the article's talk page, and inform you of the WP:3rr policy, but your block history tells me that you are already aware of these things. Don't know what else to suggest at this point, you don't seem very receptive to the idea of WP:CONSENSUS. —Josh3580_talk/hist 03:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Chris19231 and "his" imagesChris19231 is a liar and forger. File:Open Europe's London Office.jpg is not his own as he wrote but File:FaithHouseTuftonStreet.jpeg. File:William Hague Open Europe.jpg and File:George Osborne Open Europe speech.jpg are not his own but copyright violation. I added the source of this images in commons and requested speedy deletion. This images were always deleted see [4] [5]. It seems to me me that Chris19231 should be warned and / or blocked. Thanks --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frze (talk • contribs) 15:01, 22 January 2014‎Frze, you may want to make a report at WP:AN/I, if you feel that an administrator needs to intervene. I am not an administrator, just a rollbacker like yourself. I agree that the user seems to be inclined to make unconstructive/misrepresentative contributions, but there really is no action that I can take myself. Again, a submission to WP:AN/I would probably be your best bet. Be careful with the name-calling, though. While your comments are not incorrect, they could be construed as personal attacks, and I would hate for the WP:BOOMERANG to get you, as I know you are trying to do the right thing. —Josh3580_talk/hist 15:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Thanks - I need to calm down. Best wishes to you --Frze ^{> talk} 15:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Marc MoranoJosh, Thank you for your interest in my comments. I would ask that you please specify what was not referenced. Everything I added was referenced appropriately. I would add that you please actually investigate before making comments so this would not have been a waste of your time. Jvaughters (talk)I don't see any inline citations to your additions. If it is already covered by a cited source, you need to add an inline citation after your sentence which references said source, or at least explain so in your edit summary. Also, you are also adding external links into the body of the article, which is not appropriate; external links belong in the "External links" section. I would suggest that you actually familiarize yourself with the policies before criticizing other editors. —Josh3580_talk/hist 16:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Fair enough Josh, I admit I am new to the editing concerning the links in the body. Concerning the reference, I merely added to the already referenced source. I find too often that one sided views are referenced to a source and merely add more accurate comments. I find it a bit hypocritical that you asked me to use the talk page when I have edited it now 3 times with no response including you. I am not sure how you can claim the previous statement to the one I edited is of higher quality. I am waiting for the argument and I will not back down on my addition. It is accurate, sourced and I removed an author's personal opinion, which is indisputable as a no no! So by all means please bring this argument to the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvaughters (talk • contribs) 17:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Josh, Again thank you for informing me of some of the policies concerning edit wars. I am new to the editing, but I have to admit, I have done what you said in the past about working on the talk page first and have gotten no where, because the article is not big enough for many to care, so if you do not change the article you will not get a response. In this case I was getting reverted with no discussion on talk page. I hope to be a valid contributor and I will be a little more patient on waiting for responses, but I would hope that others will engage without just a flip of the switch and poor excuse and not even defend their arguments on the talk page. Jvaughters (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]If your information was already covered by an existing source, you need to put that in your edit summary when you make changes. You should also give the discussion time for others to contribute; unfortunately, WP:CONSENSUS can be a slow process, but the outcome is usually the most correct. As for me being hypocritical, (besides the fact that you are commenting on me personally instead of the content, notice that I have not done the same), I am not familiar with the subject, which is why I haven't contributed to the discussion - I don't have "a dog in the fight". The burden of proof regarding edits belongs to the editor adding content, not the editor reverting it. I am a recent changes patroller, which means I watch the feed of recent changes to ALL pages, regardless of topic, and I am trying to be sure no one is vandalising pages, advertising, adding unsourced content, or violating any number of Wikipedia's community-developed policies. My only interest is in correctness, fairness, and reliability. Again, please make sure that you explain things very clearly in your edit summary, because we RC patrollers can see that as we are checking through the recent changes, and if you had said something like "added additional information from the following listed source", you probably would not have been reverted in the first place. I honestly value your desire to contribute - it takes people like that to continue improving the content - but please familiarize yourself with the policies, and do your best to work with the community to improve things by WP:CONSENSUS. Don't take this kind of thing so personally, Wikipedia is not about winning. Thanks again, —Josh3580_talk/hist 20:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Josh, Thanks for the advice, I will improve going forward on my community efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvaughters (talk • contribs) 20:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Spencer LuckeyHi Josh, I've already added content to the talk page of Spencer Luckey that discusses the charges made by Randor1980. We've already had discussions on his talk page after he deleted and redirected the page. I've addressed his concerns and he has not responded, but continues to impose his opinion on the page with the template. Engaging in discussion about the article is one thing, but (effectively) vandalizing it with the template is another. I intend to take the template down but will give you and Randor some time to respond before I do. Hillbillyhoboken (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]I reviewed it, and removed all but the WP:N template. Once you have satisfied WP:CREATIVE, that one can be removed as well. Keep in mind that these tags are not criticisms of the article, only requests to improve it. Please don't see them as some sort of "mark of shame." There are many very good articles that still have tags, as there is still room for improvement. Thanks for taking the time to discuss it, a lot of editors in your situation decide to edit war, and find themselves blocked. You did the right thing. —Josh3580_talk/hist 21:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]EditsMy edits are correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohsmmed123456 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Mine too! Which article? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the giggle, Demiurge1000 (talk). To Mohsmmed123456, the accuracy of your edit to Raunds is not the problem. The problem is that you did not cite a verifiable, reliable [[WP:CS|source] for your contribution. —Josh3580_talk/hist 22:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Markus RaetzIt's not an article for speedy deletion. Please consider this. He has got really important sculptures. Major Wikis have it. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Wikis are not verifiable, reliable sources for establishing WP:Notability, as anyone can create any article, just like you did here. The fact that someone has created an article doesn't make the subject notable, per the community adopted standards. Please see the WP:ARTIST policy - it explains exactly what standards must be met. If the article explained how the artist meets those criteria, supported by verifiable, reliable sources, then it would not be eligible for speedy deletion. I would recommend submitting the article to WP:Articles for creation, where other editors can assist you in getting the article ready before it is posted into the main space. As far as the deletion of the current article, it will be up to a Wikipedia Administrator to review it, and decide if it qualifies for speedy deletion. Hope this helps, —Josh3580_talk/hist 02:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] I added some .edu links. There are plenty more about the artist. He's not a pop star. Understanding the notability lies in searching deep. Try .edu sites and major art platforms. Thanks.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]PortoThank you for being polite with me. The city of Porto is called "cidade invicta" because it has never been conquered, the word "invicta" means unconquered or undefeated. I hope there are more modders like yourself out there, not like Derth, he clearly doesn't care if the information contained here is correct or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.120.96.150 (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]You are welcome. I hope you understand why your comment, "The information contained in this page is all wrong," was inappropriate. If there is incorrect information in an article, then be WP:BOLD, and fix it, as long as you cite a verifiable, reliable [[WP:CS|source] for your contribution. —Josh3580_talk/hist 02:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Possible BLP violationHi Josh3580 I do think it is worth looking at the placement of the second paragraph of lead at the Denham article, since allegations were never proven. What do you think? Flat Out let's discuss it 04:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]You are probably right, per WP:BLPCRIME. I don't think that editor understood the whole concept of WP:CONSENSUS. But gaining consensus is tricky, as I would hate to "collude" with another editor. ;-) —Josh3580_talk/hist 04:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] I have boldly moved the paragraph into a new section, even though Ceekay215 was going about things the wrong way they did have a point re: placement of the paragraph. Cheers Flat Out let's discuss it 04:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Declined speedyHey, just a heads up to let you know that I declined the speedy at Markus Raetz. I do think that notability is still in question, but the exhibitions are enough to just squeak by a speedy deletion. I do see where he has an article on other WP sites where there is more sourcing, such as here. In any case, there's enough notability to where this would probably have to be a speedy deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]It's not vandalism.It's not vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.69.249 (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]I assume you are talking about this edit. Blanking pages without discussion or explanation is always vandalism. —Josh3580_talk/hist 16:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Holy Mountain (band)I declined the speedy deletion of the article as they meet criteria number 5 of WP:BAND. While their second full album is yet to be released, they do have a single released by the label along with their first album. I also think that being signed with a known label and having released an album with them gives the band some notability. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Thank you for taking the time to review it. Much appreciated. —Josh3580_talk/hist 17:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Haworth Pottery editsThanks. I wasn't so much "editing" as trying to upload onto the page a photo image. Easy enough to move it from my pc to Commons but even following instructions failed to get it onto the page. Suggestions?S2308rasc (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Pink MoonHi - although it's not me making the edits adding the Pitchfork review of Pink Moon, technically speaking the people doing it are correct that the link gives the album 10/10. The overall score of 8.5 is for the Tuck Box box set as a whole, but if you look underneath the album cover they also give individual scores for each of the five albums included in the box set, which give the overall average of 8.5 (8.6 actually, but I'm not going to argue with Pitchfork's maths). Whether a score taken from part of a box set rather than the individual album should be included in the reviews is another matter... Richard3120 (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]Teide National ParkJosh, Thanks for the tips. I noticed that the wiki article on TNP was not only inaccurate regarding its status as the second most visited national park in the world, but that this was easily verifiable based on park service stats. It actually led me to create a user account on wikipedia. Before I created my account I put the NPS and UK Parks links on the Teide NP Talk page as verifiable statistics for all to see. I will try to explain what I'm doing a little more clearly going forward! Everytime I remove the incorrect language, someone from the Canary Islands (usually the island of Tenerife) tries to put the language back in. It's a little frustrating, to say the least...