User talk:Josh3580

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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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!  Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

New Page Patrol survey

New 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 Survey

Membership of the Counter-Vandalism Unit

As 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).

Huggle 3

Hey 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 lot

If 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Deleting my objective posts

Hello 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)

Nicholas Serota

see the article talk page and edit notes. Please note article is about wp:alive Nonartinfo (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio on Commons images

I noticed that you were listing for discussion on en wiki possible unfree images. Commons is much more strict on what is allowed and it is usually more straight-forward to tag the image as a copyvio on its commons page instead of tagging the pass-through en wiki page as you are doing. See Commons:User talk:BriannaBoyceLuv4 messages and links to see what was done. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you so very much. I am unfamiliar with tags and templates on the Commons. I will study up on it a bit more, so I know how to handle this in the future. This user was uploading multiple copyvio's, blatantly ripped from copyrighted sources. Thank you again for your help. Josh3580_talk/hist 02:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it was pretty obvious. I'm always suspicious when I see a pro-level image added to an article. Usually a google image search or a search of Wireimage or Getty Images will reveal where it actually came from. Sometimes the EXIF will reveal the real owner. Commons admins want to see a link or some proof of copyvio before they will speedy delete images so a little research is required. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I really do appreciate you taking the time to give me a hand. Josh3580_talk/hist 02:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Undoing my edit on the "Libertarianism" talk page

My edit restored content removed by another, it did not actually delete content. It only appeared to due to the way the content was removed (hidden) by another editor "closing" the section. The section consisted solely of questioning the sources and neutrality of the article and a suggestion to make it more in line with Wikipedia guidelines on neutrality and the use of reliable sources.

I apologize if I didn't use the right procedure, perhaps you could clarify. Thank You, Lockean One (talk) 07:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, Lockean One. I was patrolling recent changes, and saw where you had removed the |} template with no explanation. I did not intend to disparage your comments, nor to give you the idea that I am pushing for a certain point of view here. It was simply a recent change, that removed a template with no explanation in the edit summary. Josh3580_talk/hist 07:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I just noticed your comments on the talk page right after I posted this. I'll try to remember that edit summary in the future. Thanks, Lockean One (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I didn't mean to "bite." But there are so many goofy kids just deleting stuff for kicks. That's what I am trying to stop, not people like you who are actually contributing to discussions. Once again, my apologies. Josh3580_talk/hist 07:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

External Link to Human Skin Page

Apologies Josh, if that external link is not appropriate for the subject, Human Skin. Wish I had a chance to give wiki readers more insights and information about oily skin.

Regards _{(SPAM link removed.)} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.200.121.165 (talk) 08:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me?

yes you asked for feedback if you stepped on toes.

you did. i submitted a paragraph to the chinese remainder article and you delted my work.

please explain why you would do that. i beleive you are a vandal using a program to delete other's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.207.160 (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• While I certainly appreciate your zeal to contribute, your comments appeared to be based on original research. All material added to articles must be verifiable, and attributable to a reliable published source. In this edit you cited no source at all, other than a Creative Commons image. Therefore, it has no verifiability. Feel free to include your paragraph if you do have such a source, but you will need to cite it when you include it. You can check out WP:Citing sources to see the best way to do so.Josh3580_talk/hist 23:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

LP Page

Josh, this is in response to the LP talk page. I have been receiving numerous threatening messages based off the LP article lately. I am to understand that the talk page specifically showing my name on Google and Yahoo. I have not been an active user since 2008 and I attempted to remove my name from the page a short while ago. I have submitted a name change request in the interim to dissolve any reference to my real name on this site. Is there any specific editing pointers that you could provide to remove my name from the LP talk page without inciting a riot on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Fearer(talk • contribs) 01:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that simply removing your name/comments would achieve what you are looking for. Search engines cache information, and it is stored by them indefinitely. The Wayback Machine is the perfect example. Unfortunately, when you post something online, it never really goes away. But to answer your question more directly... When it comes to removing your own comments, it is generally not recommended, because other users may have quoted you in a diff somewhere else. If you must remove your own comments, please follow the Redact guidelines. Now, with that said, you were blanking the entire page, and removing comments from other users as well as your own. That really isn't constructive. You should only remove other users comments if it is on your personal talk page, or when you have the permission of each user whose comments you want to remove. See WP:TPO for the guidelines on removing other users' comments. I am terribly sorry that you had to deal with harassment, and I hope that your problem was taken care of by the administrators. Wikipedia should be a positive environment, since it is all about gathering and sharing the wealth that is information, but I guess there are just some out there who have to make everyone's life more difficult. I hope I have been of at least some help to you. Josh3580_talk/hist 01:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. My problem was forwarded up to an administrator. I'm hoping the name change will at the very least not leave such a large trail of bread crumbs so to speak. I'd tried to go the original avenue of just removing my name, but I'm obviously not familiar with the site rules in great detail and it led to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Fearer (talk • contribs) 01:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism edits

Josh, I am 74.101.50.76 and LennySkutnik. Also the subject of George Malley (athlete).

I am also the moderator of a track and field related website and have had problems with the two malicious trolls, Hardloop and Jamin12345 who created this Wikipedia entry as a means to harass me. If you will note both of their contributor IDs were created today. Either ban them from further edits are take the wiki entry down completely.

74.101.50.76 (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)LennySkutnik aka 74.101.50.76 aka George Malley 12/14/13

• I voted for deletion, simply because there were no references as to the notability of the subject, nor references to support a biographical entry. But please understand, that we have to go through this process, and it isn't OK to simply delete material that we disagree with.Josh3580_talk/hist 06:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I just wanted to let you know what's going on here.74.101.50.76 (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)74.101.50.76

AIV

I can't tell if this is vandalism or just a content dispute; if there's clear evidence now or even later on, just post to my talk page; same with this one. Dreadstar ☥ 07:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• I understand and empathize with your reservation. It truly is not clear if it's actually vandalism, or just people on laser-focused missions to get multiple articles to appear correct in their point of view. I was trying to do my part in patrolling, yet your reservations convince me that I should take a step back, and perhaps we should let it go, as the community will do the correct thing in the end. Thank you for your assistance, and your continuing contributions. Josh3580_talk/hist 07:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the kind words; my same thanks to you for your excellent contributions and your vigilance and anti-vandalism efforts. I think my own issue with the edits by these two editors is twofold, one is my lack of familiarity with those areas and a certain laziness (well, really time-conservation efforts..:) that didn't allow for me to actually try to find internet sources that might show whether or not the edits were correct or indeed vandalism or mistakes by the reported editors. If you happen to find a source that disagrees with the edits made, then that's sufficient evidence for admin action (well, by me anyway). I did note that the first report sat there for a while, so other admins probably looked and had the same lack of knowledge as I and took no action. I've got your talk page watchlisted, so no need for those response notifications, you can just post here and I'll see it. Thanks! Dreadstar ☥ 08:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

History of Logic (Revision as of 02:08, 15 December 2013)

Hi Josh,

The impact of public assemblies on the study of argumentation (specifically of elenchos) is a commonplace among classical scholars and ought to be included. Or so I believe. Do you have a justification for deleting it? Also, your deletion was closely followed by one from 80.89.84.200, and so it might be useful to see that contributor's talk page, where I've pointed out a few more things about related passges. Please feel free to write to me on talk. Many thanks. Oliveristhingone (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

That specific change was reverted, not because of its content, but because the user (Dick P Nuss) who had made the changes had been banned from editing soon after he made the change. I'm glad that you added it back, so that now it is a contribution from a user that isn't banned. Josh3580_talk/hist 19:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Josh, for your explanation and very quick response. I really appreciate it. Best wishes,Oliveristhingone (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Josh,

May I trouble you again with another question about the same page?

It appears that 80.89.84.200 has returned to delete all the same passages once again, though this time for a different reason. In a previous edit from the same IP address, the contributor wrote in the edit summary, "conjecture, not fact." I left a post on the contributor's user-talk page (for that IP address) to explain that the deleted material was indeed factual and to ask politely for a justification of the deletions. But so far I've got no response from the contributor. And now the reason given in the new edit summary for the renewed deletions is that the deleted material is "generally unhelpful." No other explanation.

I also notice that the first edit on the page from 80.89.84.200 came less than a minute before the one from "Dick P. Nuss" (since blocked), and that 80.89.84.200 also made edits shortly after the work of "Nuss." I realize that the contributor is entitled to anonymity, but I can't help asking myself whether it's just the same contributor appearing in different guises.

I wonder if I may ask your advice. I'm not sure how to proceed from here, because I have no experience with these kinds of difficulties. I've tried to start a discussion, but so far without luck. And I don't want merely to generate an edit war. The deleted materials are factual and relevant, and ought to be available to readers. You have much experience; could I ask what course of action you would suggest. Many thanks. Oliveristhingone (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

That is such a great question, but I'm afraid that the answer will be a bit ethereal, due to Wikipedia's Consensus Model, and the inherent organic nature of a publicly editable encyclopedia. If it is obvious that several other users are disagreeing with your additions, the best option you have is to start a new section on the History of Logic article's Talk Page, give your references, and what you would like to contribute, and just take it from there. It's an involved process, and can sometimes be a bit slow, but the consensus model has seemed to produce fairly good, usually reliable results. I'm sorry I don't have a "magic pill" answer for you. All you can really do is take it to the community, and perhaps after discussion, your contribution will stay. Josh3580_talk/hist 23:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again, Josh, for your help--and for your remarks about the "ethereal" nature of things. I'm learning from this, and I know it will be useful in the future. I'll wait a while and then try the article Talk Page if nothing else turns up. Best, Oliveristhingone (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Content referencing and re-wording

Hi Josh, apologies, I am trying to post a balanced/counter argument to generalized terms that are used in that paragraph. The generalised terms, especially “integral part of ” denotes that this is the normal, when infact it is the reverse and such practices are not advocated. The source is from Google Scholar and has 36 citations. Here, we are talking about a religious and philosophical practice and a core to that practice is as I write. Please would you kindly inform me how to include this counter argument. In the least please request a reference for what is currently being included in that paragraph and to re-word so it does not make generalised statements or please request that paragraph deleted as it may easily lead to misinformation. Thank you for your help, time and consideration to this request. (Tdmdb (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC))

I seriously empathize with your desire for balance. Balance in the Wikipedia environment is extremely difficult, no matter your opinion on any variety of topics. And that is sort of the point of Wikipedia's Consensus Model. The community has to agree with your changes. I don't exactly disagree with your contribution, but you have to back it up with good citations that the community will accept. If you wish to add content like this, you need to cite references that the community will see as unbiased and verifiable. Start a new section on the article's Talk Page, include your arguments and verifiable references, and it will become much easier to gain consensus for inclusion of your contributions. Josh3580_talk/hist 02:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. I will speak with the other users who have reverted the contribution and I will try the Talk Page as suggested. Thanks again. Tdmdb (talk) 11:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Great Chinese Famine

I think the article is severely biased against Chinese ruling party. It contained so much speculation without credible evidence, and it missed out many important facts. All I did was to add certain facts backed by reference I believe reliable. For instance, there is well-documented study by a reputable researcher that there were only 2.5 death. This is a scholarly opinion. Another example is that economic embargo imposed by the western nation was also a well-known fact. It should be included. The original article didn't even memtion the severity of natural disaster. The definition of "neutral" is that all sides of opinions must be included. Oldhand 12 (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to start a discussion on the article's Talk Page. Like I told another user earlier, I empathize with the desire for balance, but you must understand that WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:RELIABILITY depends on a consensus of the community, not on what you personally find as Verifiable and Reliable. Josh3580_talk/hist 04:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Fracture Mechanics correction

Hi Josh, I appreciate your message. I would think the function f should depend both on loading and geometry . You can check that out reviewing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracture_mechanics#Stress_intensity_factor and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_intensity_factor. At first I thought your correction was wrong, now I'm not so sure it was, but in any case one of these articles' definition of the f function need to be corrected. Best regards. NNN.Nikon (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Editing Reza Negarestani

I have read and complied with all of your requests. I want this page to be as accurate as possible, you will notice all sentences now have references etc. Whatelse needs to be done for the puffery note to be taken down from the page?

Best,

dadabase — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dadabase (talk • contribs) 23:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Southern Arizona Pride

Hi Josh,

I have edited the Southern Arizona Pride page in that they continue to say that they are a non=profit organization and yet admittedly haven't even filed paperwork with the IRS for ANY 501 status. The 3 members of SAP all were removed from Tucson Pride's Board of Directors. Drew Pratz resigned while under censure, Edward Castro (then VP) was unanimously voted off the Board for trying to sabotage the 2013 Tucson Pride event and the third member of SAP quit the Board when Drew did. An IRS case has been opened against SAP for fraud. To be a non profit one must, under federal law, be recognized as such by the IRS and Southern Arizona Pride is not listed on the publicly available IRS non-profit website. SAP is trying to use Wikipedia to further commit criminal fraud by stating they are a non-profit and that is why I have added (not recognized by the IRS). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidA373 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

You must cite a verifiable, reliable source to add this sort of content. If you include such a source in your addition, it will be able to remain. Josh3580_talk/hist 18:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

how to use this wikipedia shit. i dont understand. can you teach me?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.143.187.144 (talk • contribs)

External Links

In light of the edits you made at Difference United, would you mind reviewing the guidelines around WP:External links? You might want to focus on the "Links normally to be avoided" section where it indicates that social networking sites should be avoided. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the policy, but thank you for the tip. Actually, another user had added the links before I got there. I was patrolling recent changes, saw the existing links, and cleaned up the WikiCode - using templates for the links, instead of direct external links. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I hadn't participated in any discussions on the article to know if they needed removed, but assumed they could remain, since they were "a link to an official page of the article's subject." Thank you again for working to improve the content. Josh3580_talk/hist 02:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Reza Negarestani's page

I was the unsigned contributor whose changes were deemed inappropriate. I have since signed in several times and have reedited the content and have added all the proper notes to then page. Since the top notification on puffery only relates to edits that are no longer on the page, can you please remove the puffery notification from the page, or at least indicate what needs to be changed for this note to be removed. Thanks! user: dadabase — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dadabase (talk • contribs) 19:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't unilaterally remove the tag without a consensus, especially since I wasn't the user who added it. The best thing you could do is to start a new section on the article's Talk page, explaining what you just explained to me. Then the community can discuss it, and if appropriate, remove the tag. Thank you so much for helping by contributing to the article! Josh3580_talk/hist 02:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks I just added the above text to the talk page. seems strange that something you guys added so quickly needs so much paper work to be removed. how that consensus was made? and if the consensus was made so quickly, the removal should take that long either especially the necessary changes were made soon after the puffery note was left at the top of the page. Please expedite the process if you can. Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dadabase (talk • contribs) 17:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I was not involved in the original process or discussions about adding the tag to begin with. However, from what you have told me, the {{peacock}} tag was appropriate at the time it was added, but if it is no longer appropriate, a discussion is the only way to resolve it. You might have to allow a few days for the discussions to conclude, unfortunately it is a deliberative process that does take some time. It's a community effort, and of course that has both benefits and drawbacks. Being patient yet active in the discussions is the best advice I have for you. And I honestly do appreciate your efforts to improve this or any article! —Josh3580_talk/hist 19:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

thanks so much!-dadabase (i don't know how to add my proper tildes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dadabase (talk • contribs) 05:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Either click "Sign your posts on talk pages: ~~~~" at the bottom of the page where you edit, or just type ~~~~ at the end of any of your posts. That will enter the signature for you "automagically." —Josh3580_talk/hist 04:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dadabase (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

With Thanks

Cheers appreciated. Kramervskramer (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. Apologies for the first edit, it smelled like vandalism to Huggle. Glad I stopped and double-checked it now. Josh3580_talk/hist 23:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hi Josh3580. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Molalla River Academy, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion or proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. Educational institutions are ineligible for deletion under the A7 criteria. If you have questions, feel free to drop me a line. Cindy(talk) 23:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. I knew that, and had simply forgotten. Thanks for the reminder, and for taking the time to review it. Josh3580_talk/hist 23:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem, your work is sincerely appreciated. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 23:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The Swag Party

Hello please don't delete my page called the swag party it is a real thing and is a small developing group a friend of mine is in and he asked me to make a Wikipedia page for it so more people can learn about his political party and i didn't have alot of stuff on the page because im very new to Wikipedia and am trying my best to make articals Drcheese100 (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)drcheese100 12-19-13

I am unable to delete articles, only Administrators can do that. I can only recommend, based on the WP:CSD policy. An administrator should review the article, and delete it ONLY if it is appropriate. My recommendation was based on the WP:A7 policy, which simply requires that for an article about an organization to be included, it must make "any credible claim of significance or importance." This article did not make such a claim in my opinion, but it will be up to the reviewing administrator to make the judgement call. Josh3580_talk/hist 04:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Walter White (Breaking Bad)

Hi. What I meant to say in my edit summary was "removed unsourced information that was reinserted mid-discussion". I also replied to your message on my talk page. Chunk5Darth (talk) 07:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Mark Assq

Hello Sir I added some references to protect. If these references are not useful. You can delete that article. So please rereview that article (Krishnan S. Don (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC))

AfD Timeline of Google Street view

I have now restored the version of 26. June 2012 of that archived debate that you partially tried to restore earlier today. You can look at the revision history there. I was responsible for the vandalism as well. I know I have problems and that they are not solved by terrorising wikipedia and I try to keep away but I have said this before as well so you never know Let's hope the best though. People like me should not have dynamic IP :)188.67.52.174 (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

People like you should not abuse dynamic IP. I hardly think it is your ISP's fault that you decided to vandalize Wikipedia. Josh3580_talk/hist 04:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

There was smiley at the end of that sentence. I have never meant it is the fault of my ISP. I have only meant that it somewhat facilitates the process. It is like traffic safety, you can always moralize that people should obey the rules but that is never enough because you have to constuct safe infrastructure as well like avoiding clotoid curves, too long straights (that ecourage speeding) etc. Bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.67.228.163 (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I detected your snide. I was just making a jab with the ISP comment. It is obviously your free choice to take your own actions. Wikipedia is VERY open, and free to edit, because the end results tend to be incredibly informational and accurate. Abusers simply gum up the process, without significantly affecting the end result (besides delay). I can empathize with your having problems, more than you may know, and always wanting to stir the metaphorical sh!t, but I try to turn my argumentative side to the productive. Make this site better. Get mad at clueless people. I've found it a way to be constructive as well as obstructive. Give that a shot, it might be more rewarding for you. Point out the best way to build a safe infrastructure here, or point out the ways the current system fails. I'd love to have someone of your passion working to benefit the project. —Josh3580_talk/hist 06:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Justin Pierre

Hey there! Thanks for the insight on the Justin Pierre article. I cited the absolutepunk.net announcement as reference, what other sources are needed to verify his marriage? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caughtinbeauty (talk • contribs) 21:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

IP user adding categories.

I don't think adding categories constitutes vandalism. I haven't read the policy on adding categories though, at most I think the edits should be reverted an the user directed to the addition of categories policy. (if they conflict with what he's doing) Bluefist ^talk 04:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

(IP user Special:Contributions/108.6.110.176)

Thank you for reviewing it, you are probably correct. It just looked like a red flag to me. Josh3580_talk/hist 04:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe this covers it. Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles Bluefist ^talk 04:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Gibson Byrd

Hello Josh3580. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Gibson Byrd, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 08:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your review of the request. When patrolling recent changes, one sees so much crap, it is too easy to find a false positive. I am so appreicative of the review process, and of you taking avail of that process to do the right thing for the community. Thank you again, if I haven't thus made it clear. :P —Josh3580_talk/hist 06:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

And thank you for your reply. The script a lot of admins including me use to assess speedy deletion requests doesn't include an option to write "yeah, passes A7, kinda sorta, but take it to WP:AfD asap". There are a lot of articles I've declined speedy deletion requests for that have been deleted by an AfD. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Your advice was most helpful. I have listed the article at WP:Articles for deletion/Gibson Byrd. —Josh3580_talk/hist 14:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy Brieden

Hey there, i'm Andy I really don't know how wikipedia classes their info, i only came here to fix up my niece's information. as per the website you mention, i have asked them repeatedly to correct the information, jes doesn't actualy edit that herself. also if you're in the muncie aria, then you'll most likely be able to hook up with Carol Brieden, who's still there. I believe she's still there anyway, it's been years. Anyway, i'm going around trying to correct the information on her birth place. she was raised in New York, but born in Muncie, where the family's from. However, how to ad this on wikipedia without it being removed, i have no idea. heck, to write this i have someone helping me out. Thanks for your time, and if there's anything i can do to correct this information then let me know. PS, i really advize you or anyone in the Muncie aria to find Carol Brieden if she's still there. i'll close with a question: Is there anyone here that i can contact in order to ensure that this info stays? i'd really like this sourted out now, i've been trying on the "official" website for 3 years, and some dude keeps saying no. thanks

Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.61.190 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

You must cite a verifiable, reliable source to make a change to any article, but especially a biographical article. If you find and cite such a source, then the changes shouldn't be reverted. However, personal knowledge is not such a source, see Wikipedia:No original research. —Josh3580_talk/hist 17:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems a little wierd in a bad way that they don't except relatives info, but then again, people could play the system, so i understand. andy

Social Franchising

Josh,

I am in the midst of using wikipedia as a contributor for the first time. If you could help me that would be excellent. I was in the midst of searching how to link correctly.

Evolve works closely with the International Centre for Social Franchising here in Cape Town and I'm drafting my contribution as we speak for an internal link to a "Social Replication" page.

Would be great to know your familiarity with the topic.

Thanks so much!

Johanna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johanna Stamps (talk • contribs) 17:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Johanna,

You should be able to find everything you need here: Wikipedia:External links. This page explains what links are appropriate, what links to avoid, and exactly how to add links. Familiarize yourself with this policy and its instructions, and you should be well on your way! Hope this helps, Josh3580_talk/hist 17:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Josh3580. You have new messages at Talk:Germany–Israel relations.
Message added 18:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Mono·nomic 18:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edits by 91.60.163.227. Thank you. —Mono·nomic 18:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Nichola Gutgold

Hello, I have removed PROD tag on this article after adding some references. If you think that this article shouldn't exist then please take it to AfD. Regards. Hitro talk 19:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Please could you explain the following message left on my talk page: "A page you created, 8-8-8, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it redirects from an implausible misspelling."? I created the page for good reason (it was previously empty & linked to from Whyte notation). It may seem like an "implausible misspelling", but it is not. Rather than have a link to an empty page, I created a redirect page that links to a page explaining it. The reason I didn't just link to the destination article in the original article is that there are a whole series of similarly-named pages (see the "3.1 Common wheel arrangements" section on the page Whyte notation). At some point, I intend to write something in the actual page 8-8-8, but for the moment I would prefer it not to link to an empty page.

Request for speedy deletion (page 8-8-8)

Hi. Please could you explain the following message left on my talk page: "A page you created, 8-8-8, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it redirects from an implausible misspelling."? I created the page for good reason (it was previously empty & linked to from Whyte notation). It may seem like an "implausible misspelling", but it is not. Rather than have a link to an empty page, I created a redirect page that links to a page explaining it. The reason I didn't just link to the destination article in the original article is that there are a whole series of similarly-named pages (see the "3.1 Common wheel arrangements" section on the page Whyte notation). At some point, I intend to write something in the actual page 8-8-8, but for the moment I would prefer it not to link to an empty page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tranquility2007 (talk • contribs)

It is not at all clear what 8-8-8 has to do with Breitspurbahn, therefore it is an implausible redirect. Feel free to contest the speedy deletion by clicking the appropriate button on the 8-8-8 page if you believe it should not be deleted. It will be up to an administrator to make the decision. Josh3580_talk/hist 19:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Lyrick Studios

Stop undoing the Lyrick studios page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connorizback2000 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

If you are going to make such significant changes to the article, you must cite a verifiable, reliable source. See [[WP:Citing sources]. Otherwise it appears that you are adding information based on original research. —Josh3580_talk/hist 00:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment from 50.88.218.76

I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and the section I removed was something I put in earlier. I was trying to fix an error I made on the page, My userpage is KellyLeighC but I'm on a computer where I'm not logged in.50.88.218.76 (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I've advised the Kelly, at the IP's talk page, that it's bad practice to remove her comment when another user has replied to it and it's not allowed to remove another user's comment. —C.Fred (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Good looking out, C.Fred. Thanks for keeping your sharp eye on things. —Josh3580_talk/hist 00:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

This Lyrick studios page is mine Not yours