User talk:Josh the newcastle fan
Nomination of Chad Redman for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chad Redman until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Repeated reverts and deletions in Korbin Sims article
Regarding your repeated reverts of the references to the genital grabbing incident on the page of Korbin Sims. Wikipedia seeks to remain netural, and editors with a passion for a particular topic can, at times allow that passion to cloud their neutral tone and good intentions when editing an article.
The sports writer you refer to as "some random journalist" has close to 3,000 published articles for Fairfax Media, one of Australia's largest media companies (according to Wikipedia). He is one of the leading Rugby League writers in Australia.
When I added my content back in following your second removal, the first from 220.127.116.11 citing "tabloid nonsense", I kept much of your following additions and merely corrected grammatical errors and improved the flow of the article such as rewording "grabbing the genitals of former teammate Willie Mason while coming up against the Manly Warringah Sea Eagles", and removing unnecessary POV stuff that added nothing to the article like "When questioned about the incident, Mason said, "Offended? Please. I think it's hilarious, I hope it doesn't come to anything because me and Korbin are really good mates." rewording it so that it made sense in the context of the article and didn't just leap to being a piece about what "The Brains Trust" Roy_and_HG's_State_of_Origin_commentary#Player_nicknames thought about the matter.
Please refrain from engaging in an edit war, particularly given your passionate support of the team and player in question. Thank you for your contributions to NRL based articles, however you need to take a breath and step away from this one for a while.
Have a great weekend
Would you care to elaborate on how my version is clouded by passion. The first paragraph states the basic facts of the happening of the incident and the NRL warning letter. The second paragraph states what the "victim" thought of the the incident and the third paragraph states that Sims apologized. Nothing added in there.
Your version is talking about the opinions of a journalist and includes subjective phrases like 'international notoriety'.
I don't know about you but I think the opinions of the two people in question are far more credible than a person who had nothing to do with it. My version stated the bare facts and the opinion of the two in question, without putting a negative or positive tone on it, letting a reader make up their own mind, your version is trying to force the negative opinions of a journalist who had nothing to do with it onto the reader. Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)