text:
User talk:Josh3580
|This is Josh3580's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Josh3580.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
- 1 Welcome!
- 2 Congrats
- 3 AWB and contractions
- 4 Reviewer permission
- 5 New Page Patrol survey
- 6 Membership of the Counter-Vandalism Unit
- 7 Huggle 3
- 8 Huggle 3 beta is out - and we need more feedback!
- 9 Your stepping on my toes, bro!
- 10 Deleting my objective posts
- 11 Objectivity
- 12 MPs, Orwell, Jack, Hansard, food banks, etc
- 13 I would like for you to confirm that you aren't a BOT...
- 14 Welcome to STiki!
- 15 Mass suicides in 1945 Nazi Germany
- 16 Jacob Epstein
- 17 The change I've made to List of computer science conferences
- 18 Changes I made to Codecademy
- 19 Edits to Tizanidine
- 20 Richard Morton Musical Comedian and Composer
- 21 Orthodox Presbytarian Church
- 22 User:Tsoro Deep,page
- 23 A barnstar for you!
- 24 James McCann
- 25 Tony Briggs Photographer/Director
- 26 99% Invisible
- 27 r4rating.com
- 28 ClueBot NG Keeps Changing My Things That are Correct
- 29 ClueBot NG Keeps Changing My Things That are Correct
- 30 Talkback
- 31 Page Deletion
- 32 Quickly respon
- 33 Re; Antifeminism
- 34 Accio Quote
- 35 Cowhen
- 36 Judaica Museum question
- 37 Mindfulness
- 38 Scott & Bailey page
- 41 American History X
- 42 Devyani Khobragade incident page
- 43 I have no idea why you sent me a message.
- 44 Talkback
- 45 Correctons
- 46 Some baklava for you!
- 47 Richard Morton Musical Comedian and Composer
- 48 Zoogle Media Silicon Forest
- 49 Ford Crown Victoria
- 51 Infinity Property & Casualty Corporation
- 52 Thanks for the help!
- 53 Edits to Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow
- 54 People who delete primary sources because they argue with secondary sources.
- 55 Mistake
- 56 MH370 Crash
- 57 Your ability to fight vandalism
- 58 A cup of coffee for you!
- 59 17 March 2014
- 60 Hao Moat
- 61 Reverting my edit
- 62 Zombie Night
- 63 Cossacks Edit
- 64 CU Powerline Songs
- 65 We need your help testing latest huggle
- 66 Accidental Warning
- 67 The Stand (TV miniseries)
- 68 User 220.127.116.11
- 69 New huggle 3.1 is going to be released soon
- 70 Hi - Edit on Godhra was verifiable on wiki
- 71 Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews
- 72 Hunger Games: Mockinjay Jay Part 1
- 73 This is my Edit
- 74 MK 68 Naval Gunfire Control System
- 75 A little help about sandbox
- 76 HOPE probation
- 77 Note
- 78 Dear Josh
- 79 Help with vandalism
- 80 Punjab, Pakistan. Badshahi Mosque during Sikh Empire.
- 81 Vandalism
- 82 Flamenco
- 83 Regarding Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences
- 84 Josh
- 85 Dear Josh
- 86 Kurds are not Iranian
- 87 Josh
- 88 Regarding removal of edits in GIET Gunupur
- 89 RE: December 2014
- 90 "Oppose"
- 91 Good job
- 92 Huggle message
- 93 mistake
- 94 There's apparently an ANI thread about you
- 95 why
- 96 Josh
- 97 Kurds
- 98 Kurds again, I see
- 99 Christine Ben-Ameh was not authorised
- 100 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 101 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 102 Colin Welland
- 103 Edit
- 104 Booty?
- 105 Colin Wellan
- 106 Thiyya
- 107 New deal for page patrollers
- 108 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
- 109 New Page Review - newsletter
- 110 BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
- 111 New Page Review - newsletter #2
- 112 New Page Review - newsletter No.2
- 113 New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections
- 114 New Page Review - newsletter No.3
- 115 Rob Griffin edit?
- 116 New Page Review - Newsletter No.4
- 117 New Page Reviewer Newsletter
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)
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)
AWB and contractions[edit]
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.
- However, I disagree that contractions should not be expanded using WP:AWB. On WP:AWB#Rules of use, examples of inconsequential edits include:
- 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.
Reviewer permission[edit]
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[edit]
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.
Please click HERE to take part.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey
Membership of the Counter-Vandalism Unit[edit]
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[edit]
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![edit]
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![edit]
"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 184.108.40.206 (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.Josh3580talk/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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleting my objective posts[edit]
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 126.96.36.199 (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.Josh3580talk/hist 20:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Is 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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- 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. —Josh3580talk/hist 20:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- 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. —Josh3580talk/hist 20:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- 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, —Josh3580talk/hist 21:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
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 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- 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. —Josh3580talk/hist 15:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
MPs, Orwell, Jack, Hansard, food banks, etc[edit]
Thank 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)
- 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. —Josh3580talk/hist 22:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I would like for you to confirm that you aren't a BOT...[edit]
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, —Josh3580talk/hist 16:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Congratulations, you are first to pass the Turing test! Please inform your operator. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- 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. —Josh3580talk/hist 18:17, 18 January 2014
- Congratulations, you are first to pass the Turing test! Please inform your operator. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to STiki![edit]
Hello, Josh3580, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Here are some pages which are a little more fun:
We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Tentinator 07:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Mass suicides in 1945 Nazi Germany[edit]
What about my edit of the Mass suicides in 1945 Nazi Germany page was vandalism? I even included a link to another wikipedia page, so it's not like I was just making up stuff on there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, the problem was that you didn't cite a verifiable, reliable source for your contribution. I apologize for mistakenly issuing the vandalism template, instead of the unsourced template. I have fixed that now. —Josh3580talk/hist 03:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Also, I see that you have removed other warnings - that is perfectly acceptable. These messages are to inform you, not notify other users about the history. You are free to remove things from your talk page that you don't want on there, as everything is logged in the page edit history. —Josh3580talk/hist 03:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- But I included a link to another wikipedia page.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany
- Doesn't the inclusion of that in my edit count as sourced material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for asking, that's a very interesting question. It may seem counterintuitive, but since Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time, is not considered a verifiable, reliable source for the purpose of citation. Please see WP:CIRCULAR for the official explanation. Your best bet is to cite a book or news article, and you can find more information on how to do that at WP:Citing sources and Referencing for beginners. I believe that your contribution is probably factually true, but it does have to be properly sourced. Thanks, —Josh3580talk/hist 03:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Doesn't the inclusion of that in my edit count as sourced material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Jacob Epstein[edit]
Epstein. You are wrong. I have done extensive research on his residence in Loughton, using primary sources. He rented no 49 Baldwins Hill in c 1922 from the exors of the Hicks family. A large shed in the rear of this house (extant) is where various of his large sculptures were created. In 1933 a larger house opposite became available (present nos 50-52) and he moved there. The house was subdivided again after his death. The plaque was put on no.50 because it was occupied at the time by an influential person. 40 should read 49 in the edit - sorry. See my Buildings of Loughton and Notable People of the Town,2nd ed Loughton 2010 entry Epstein. Chris Pond— Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 28 January 2014
- Just make sure you cite a verifiable, reliable source for your contribution. Also, please familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Primary sources policies. —Josh3580talk/hist 17:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
The change I've made to List of computer science conferences[edit]
I happen to be an active researcher (and some of the conferences have website which list the proceedings).
Would a link to DBLP (the data base of publications in CS) a proof that the conferences are real? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- I can't promise that it's all you need; that decision will made by a WP:CONSENSUS with other editors. Of course, it would definitely be much better than external links to the conferences' websites. It's doubtful, but there may possibly be someone out there who would push back based on the WP:SOURCE LIST or WP:NOT#DIR policies, but that's no reason not to add them (with your sources), since a WP:CONSENSUS of editors will iron out the exact details. Hope this helps, —Josh3580talk/hist 21:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Changes I made to Codecademy[edit]
Here is my citation: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/codecademy.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, the 2,222 figure seems totally legit. Please add it back, and put in your edit summary that you are updating the stat based on the updated source. It was the "these classes teach users..." sentence that was unsourced. I apologize for the confusion. —Josh3580talk/hist 04:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Edits to Tizanidine[edit]
yu should not mess with this your not a dr. if so i wanna see statements.! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, gosh. You are right. On this drug-related article, I should have left your contribution which stated, "This really is a bitch! shes in my head! and i think shes on my computure i got a key logger. peace deleted bitch!" How constructive of you. —Josh3580talk/hist 05:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- Come on Josh, produce your medical credentials ;) Flat Out let's discuss it 05:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Richard Morton Musical Comedian and Composer[edit]
Hi Josh I'm trying to add references to this new page I've created… and you've marked for deletion Please could you give me some guidance? I'm looking through the wizard but I'm getting into a bit of a panic. The article contains very well researched quotes but at the moment they're all in the article If I put them into the references bit will that mean you won't delete it? and how do I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktwhitehouse (talk • contribs) 15:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- If you properly cite verifiable, reliable sources, the article will not longer qualify for deletion under the WP:BLPPROD policy. —Josh3580talk/hist 16:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Orthodox Presbytarian Church[edit]
Hi there, you reverted one of 220.127.116.11 (talk)'s edits on Orthodox Presbyterian Church for " 'unexplained content removal' " which was removal of Citation needed tags I had placed there to avert an edit war (or rather stop one that was gaining steam, I shouldn't have edited WP while angry).
Is there any chance you could spare a minute to have a look at the discussion on the talk page and help the two of us work out why we're working at cross purposes? Thanks in advance SPACKlick (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Tsoro Deep,page[edit]
hi ;—Josh3580talk/hist thanks for restoring this article but can you delete this page along with this one User:Tsoro Deep/sandbox again, I'm still new on Wikipedia so I'm learning on how to edit and I've make a mistake and saved it - Bobbyshabangu (talk) 9:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbyshabangu (talk • contribs)
- Actually I cannot delete pages, only an Administrator can do that. Even if I could, these pages belong to User:Tsoro Deep, and only that user can request for the pages to be deleted. You do have your own sandbox at Special:MyPage/sandbox as well as the Public sandbox to play around with, if you want. Also, the signature you are using is pointing to the wrong place. Wikipedia will create this for you automatically if you add four tildes at the end of your post, like this: ~~~~ —Josh3580talk/hist 17:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you![edit]
|The Original Barnstar
|Hey Josh. I see you've made a number of constructive edits on Wikipedia. Therefore, that simply constitutes a barnstar. 'Nuff said. Hehe, no really, I think you deserve this. K6ka (talk | contribs) 04:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, K6ka (talk| contribs)... Much appreciated!!! —Josh3580talk/hist 17:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
James McCann[edit]
I don't understand why McCann should have his own page when players just like him, such as Ramon Cabrera and Melvin Mercedes, must share a page. I think McCann belongs on the Tigers' minor league players' page, because he is just a Minor League player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Tony Briggs Photographer/Director[edit]
Hello Josh3580, I am trying to update my photography and director credits on several pages; Bill Bailey, Frankie Boyle, Alan Davies and Ocean Colour Scene amongst others. I am directly involved in all of these projects as I am the sole photographer and/or director and I am the original source. I own the rights to all of my images detailed and my contracts show I am to be fully credited. Please see www.tonybriggs.com I am represented World Wide by Camera Press and members of the NUJ (National Union of Journalists) and The LPA(London Photographic Association) Thank you Tony Briggs Campions (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Please familiarise yourself with the WP:COISELF WP:COI policies. Making edits about yourself, especially unsourced edits, is strongly discouraged and can be challenged and removed. —Josh3580talk/hist 20:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I am not trying to make any editorial or unsourced edits but add my factual credit to my published work. As I can not add credits myself I'll pass the matter onto the Camera Press and The Association of Photographers, for advice on obtaining credits as per terms of my legal binding contracts.Campions (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Again, the veracity of your edits is not at issue. It is the fact that you are basically referencing yourself as a source. Just check through those policies I linked for you, they lay out all of the details. —Josh3580talk/hist 20:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Will do, thanks.Campions (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
99% Invisible[edit]
Hello Josh3580, Curious why the inclusion of information about the network the show belongs to was considered to be inappropriate. Nearly every Wikipedia entry for television shows makes reference to the networks that carried the show, so it certainly seems like standard practice. The reference or external link for most shows appears to be the official page or a page on the network's website. This seemed to be standard practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farski (talk • contribs) 05:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- The problem was that you listed a link to where the product was available as a reference. This is not a reference. Perhaps if the network issued a press release about starting the show, that might be a verifiable reliable source. Just linking to where you can find the product is not a reference. —Josh3580talk/hist 05:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. I have changed the reference to the official press release. Would it be inappropriate to, additionally, list the network's website as an external link, as most other productions from networks tend to do? Farski (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe. See WP:ELNO. I would tend to allow it myself, if you made it clear in your edit summary that you were including an external link to the network that premiered the show. However, WP:CONSENSUS is a funny thing. *I* would say it is fine, but I can't promise you that someone else might not disagree. —Josh3580talk/hist 06:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Josh, I saw your warning at this user's talk page. Just a heads-up that they appear to be a single-purpose account that is here to promote a site called r4rating.com. I've brought the site up at WP:RSN (if you have a second to contribute your thoughts, that would be appreciated, but no pressure...) because it doesn't appear to meet WP:RS, and I noticed also today that their website has reprinted content from the article on Mohanlal, then inserted their site as a reference in the very same article that they have reprinted. So it's both shady, and disruptive. Anyhow, heads-up. I'll shut up now. :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
ClueBot NG Keeps Changing My Things That are Correct[edit]
Hello Josh3580, I just wanted to let you know that I keep correcting this one page, and ClueBot NG keeps saying that I am wrong when I am not. The page is For Archbishop Carroll High School in Radnor PA, and Mike Costanzo went to that school and he is a professional baseball player for the Cincinnati Reds, and ClueBot NG keeps incorrectly editing it saying that he plays for the Washington Nationals even though he doesn't anymore. Please help, and if even have a tab to prove that he plays for the Reds, http://www.rotoworld.com/player/mlb/4231/mike-costanzo.
ClueBot NG Keeps Changing My Things That are Correct[edit]
Hello Josh3580, I just wanted to let you know that I keep correcting this one page, and ClueBot NG keeps saying that I am wrong when I am not. The page is For Archbishop Carroll High School in Radnor PA, and Mike Costanzo went to that school and he is a professional baseball player for the Cincinnati Reds, and ClueBot NG keeps incorrectly editing it saying that he plays for the Washington Nationals even though he doesn't anymore. Please help, and if even have a tab to prove that he plays for the Reds, http://www.rotoworld.com/player/mlb/4231/mike-costanzo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scsander (talk • contribs) 22:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Message added 07:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Page Deletion[edit]
Hi Josh3580, I've done some more research and reviewed the documentary I referenced on the Spencer Luckey page and have come to the conclusion that the subject, Spencer Luckey, does not meet the notability guidelines for creative professionals. As a new user, I do not know the process for deleting articles that I've created, but I will not contest you or Randor1980 from deleting or redirecting the page. Hillbillyhoboken (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Quickly respon[edit]
Hello Josh3580,
I think you make a big mistake about launched on this article too early, most of the peoples of that city were disagree about rename process. Why you had to release the articles with the new name of the airport ? You could make the issue about it, due to not an official airport name yet, it still under a big debating. I hope you understand, and plz don't be a provocator.
Best Regards,
Esther — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Your change may be correct. However, if it's controversial, as I assume it is (if it's "under a big debating"), the proper thing to do is leave it as it is, until a consensus of other editors decides otherwise. —Josh3580talk/hist 06:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Re; Antifeminism[edit]
|Re; Antifeminism
|Hi there! I'd like to contest the continued reversion of clean-ups on this page by the user [EvergreenFir], which are both constructive and necessary to promote the integrity of Wikipedia's content.
Accio Quote[edit]
That was on this article before I even revised it. If you notice in Hermione's magical skills and abilities section there is quotes from accio quote. In fact there is quotes from accio quotes everywhere if you look closely. The whole point of the accio quote webpage is to record quotes from J.K. Rowling herself.
I have edited the article again and this time I only used book examples and references, so therefore they're legit, don't change again please. Respond to my post please and if you don't think my edit is accurate you can look it up in the books yourself and see that it is. I also used the Wikipedia's way of citing sources too.
MrRaina (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)MrRaina
Please Josh, I realiseed that I accidentally copied all that text onto the talk page of cecil jay roberts. I did not intend to - it has no function/cause, so I want to remove it... I created the article. Thankyou. Im not wuite sure why you put it back on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowhen1966 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- You need to explain so in your edit summary. It looks like you weren't logged in when you created the page, as the page creator is listed as 18.104.22.168 (talk). What you should do is add the following template to the now-blank page (copy the entire line):
- {{db-g7|rationale=I wasn't logged in when I created the page, but I am the page creator, and I would like to request deletion.~~~~}}
- Then an Administrator will review the page, and they will delete it if appropriate. In the future, be sure you leave a detailed edit summary. Simply blanking a page with no explanation at all is usually construed as vandalism. Hope this helps! —Josh3580talk/hist 19:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Judaica Museum question[edit]
Hi! I don't speak AWB, so this may be a stupid question. But if the official CiteX template uses one format, why does AWB fix it? Shouldn't it be fixed in template so you don't have to clean up after us? Will try to remember year v. date going forward. StarM 03:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hey there! I am definitely not an expert by any means as to AWB's algorithms. But if AWB's recommendation for an edit seems to make sense to me over all, I hit save. In the case of this edit... When combined with the other minor changes made in that edit, it appeared to be a constructive edit. If I had to guess, (and it's only a guess) I would assume it has to do with the context of the data. i.e.: If a day and month were included, I think it would have left it as "Date" instead of "Year." On the other hand, that could be a completely incorrect assumption on my part. Their algorithm is a bit nebulous to me, since (like everything around here) it is constantly evolving. I try to take AWBs recommendations, look at the proposed diff, and apply them where they appear to be constructive changes. —Josh3580talk/hist 04:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- That makes total sense, thanks. I didn't realize I didn't have the full publication info. Thanks, also, on fixing the underscores here. I kept trying to sort it out and got red links so I gave up knowing someone/bot would come along and make it behave. Have a good evening. StarM 04:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello there. I'm just letting you know that I have replaced my correction as it is factually and grammatically more correct. I'm the author of the original sentence. Thanks. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Scott & Bailey page[edit]
Hi Josh,
The reason I changed the external website link earlier was because it seemed pointless having the Scott and Bailey website linking to the ITV Player page when there is currently no episodes on there. Whereas there is a Scott and Bailey website (www.ScottandBaileytv.co.uk)
Aimeefran (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC) Aimeefran
- This is a fansite, not an official website. Please see #11 of WP:ELNO. The site does not claim to be written by a recognized authority. It even contains the following on the bottom of every page,
- —Josh3580talk/hist 23:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
HELP ME![edit]
Hello Josh, I hope you remember me! You were one of the first people to welcome me on WIkepedia! I was completely shocked and overwhelmed at the attacks I was getting from all over. I now don't know who o turn to and what to do! I need help with using Twinkle and I think a patroller has put my article up for deletion. I am at my wts end as to why I am being targeted. Please Josh help!Cowhen1966 (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hey there! I definitely remember you. I'm sorry you are having a rough go of things. WP:CONSENSUS is a tricky concept. It seems to work really well for governing content, but it does cause arguments from time to time. If an article was tagged for deletion, and it does not qualify for deletion under the WP:Deletion policy, then the administrator who reviews the request will not delete the page. It does help if you contest the deletion in the deletion discussion, explaining why you believe it shouldn't be deleted. I also see where you got quite upset during this recent conflict. Try not to these things personally, although - believe me - I completely understand your frustration. Usually when you are disagreeing with someone, it is about the content, not about the people people involved. Try and keep this in mind. Those templates that get added to articles aren't intended to insult or shame anyone (or any article); editors add those templates to invite other editors to make the article better. Take a step back, clear your mind, then come back more dedicated than ever to improve the content. A person with your passion is a useful resource around here. Of course, there are others just as passionate who may disagree with you. That is the double-edged sword of WP:CONSENSUS. Please let me know if I can be of any further help to you, my friend. —Josh3580talk/hist 02:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much Josh! Your words are comforting! Trust me when I say, there have been lots of underhand things that have happened. I did not even put this up for discussion. I have simply been bombarded with message after message and all I have been doing is answering them. Thanks for the advise. Secretly I am happy that we are here because at least a fresh pair of eyes can look at everything that's gone on. I will go on the site and talk to the admin. by the way someone sent me a standard message about my IP address etc. could you take a look at tell me what it means? Do you want my password to be able to see it ? Thanks Josh!Cowhen1966 (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- No. I don't want your password. You shouldn't offer, as some people with malintent could use your account to screw you. Can you copy-paste the message here? I'd be happy to interpret it for you. —Josh3580talk/hist 04:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Josh will do!Cowhen1966 (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Morning Josh! Saw that the individual in question has posted it on my the top of my talk page. ThanksCowhen1966 (talk) 10:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
NAH MAN[edit]
NAH G GO AWAY — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissionHeightS (talk • contribs) 06:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- First, your caps lock is stuck on - this seems indicative of your level of due diligence. I assume you are snidely responding to the warning you received after making this edit. My advice? You can either try to be constructive in your edits, or I suggest you take your own advice, G. —Josh3580talk/hist 21:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
American History X[edit]
Hi, I'm just wondering who you've talked to about the council? It has been designated to the US Congress, however there ARE some customs, laws, etc, that are upheld by the people. Please reference. Ely S. Parker's designation to Morgan Lewis is the greatest example of co-operation so I think in terms of English Wikipedia, it should be held in esteem. Please contact his descendants or the book Lweis wrote. Thank you in advance. InternetHero (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- I responded on your talk page. —Josh3580talk/hist 08:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Devyani Khobragade incident page[edit]
I was just providing the source when our edits clashed188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk)
- Sorry for the edit conflict. Thank you for fixing it! —Josh3580talk/hist 07:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- You are welcome. BTW and FYI, I've also reverted a deletion of an appropriately referenced statement (made by the candidate who is leading all opinion polls in India to be the next Indian PM) regarding his views on the case. He made the statement during talks with the US Ambassador so that the US Govt knows his official position on the matter. I believe that this info is of importance to the article126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea why you sent me a message.[edit]
hj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry for the confusion. You changed several values in the American Airlines fleet article, and removed a reference in [this edit]. I did not fact-check your numerical value changes, they may very well be correct. However, you did remove a valid source without explanation. That is why you received the message that you did. If you had a reason to remove that reference, please explain your reasoning in the future, using the edit summary field, so other editors understand why you took the action that you did. Thank you for contributing, sorry again for any confusion I may have caused. —Josh3580talk/hist 08:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Message added 18:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Slazenger (Contact Me) 18:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Josh
i am new here and dont know how to put in sources but if you watch the movie brother where art thou you will see my point.
kind regards Mememe23432— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mememe23432 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 19 February 2014
- Actually I completely got your point. I explained in my edit summary, but I should have put it on your talk page as well. The issue was that it was actually Babyface Nelson who helped the trio in O Brother, Where Art Thou?, not Machine Gun Kelly. Hope that clears things up. —Josh3580talk/hist 06:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
i am very sorry i must have gotten the two mixed up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mememe23432 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's no problem at all, friend. Keep learning the ropes around here, keep making constructive edits, and you'll have all the details and policies down in no time, and will find yourself a veteran editor before you even know it! —Josh3580talk/hist 07:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Some baklava for you![edit]
|baklava Hellochickenzombie (talk) 07:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Richard Morton Musical Comedian and Composer[edit]
Dear Josh3580 (Ktwhitehouse (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)) I'm endeavouring to create a page about Richard Morton and have collected a lot of well sourced information. You deleted the first page I created, I think because I published it…(intending to keep working on it) so now I've created a draft one and will be working carefully to get everything right. I'm a bit baffled by all the citation stuff, even when I look at the tutorials. Anyway I will try - please be patient with me. And if anyone can help me with it please let me know! Thaanks
Zoogle Media Silicon Forest[edit]
Hello Josh,
Thank you for your interesting response. Zoogle Media's main office is located in the heart of Downtown Portland, Oregon 1326 SW 12th Ave, Portland, Oregon 97201 that's the heart of Silicon Forest. Zoogle Media deals in complexity analytical software marketing development.
Christopher Blair— Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 25 February 2014
- I have no doubt that the company exists, however, to meet the notability guidelines, verifiable, reliable sources are required to show significant coverage of the company. —Josh3580talk/hist 06:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Please see this link of valid address http://businessfinder.oregonlive.com/zoogle-media-portland-or.html— Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 25 February 2014
- Again, I do not debate that the company exists, did you read the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines policy? —Josh3580talk/hist 06:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Josh, below is a reliable source from Oregonlive.com which is Oregon's local news company. [3]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 25 February 2014
- I'm afraid that a simple business listing does not establish notability. Please familiarize yourself with this policy before you continue spamming this company's name. —Josh3580talk/hist 06:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Josh, below is a reliable source from Oregonlive.com which is Oregon's local news company. [3]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 25 February 2014
- Again, I do not debate that the company exists, did you read the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines policy? —Josh3580talk/hist 06:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Please see this link of valid address http://businessfinder.oregonlive.com/zoogle-media-portland-or.html— Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 25 February 2014
I was looking through the list of suppose article's on companies in "Silicon Forest" such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensis I don't see any relation to any article stating "Silicon Forest" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. We are discussing your contribution, not other users' contributions. —Josh3580talk/hist 06:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
There on "Silicon Forest" with no verifiable sources
Christopher Blair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- So because other people added things that are unsourced, you should be able to do the same? That's not how it works. If you look at the page history, I removed quite a few unsourced additions, not just yours. Find extensive coverage of Zoogle Media, and cite it, and it can be included. It's as simple as that. —Josh3580talk/hist 06:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
K boss, can you be a bit more elaborate "Extensive Coverage"? Give me an example of what you need to make this stick.
Christopher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Absolutely! Click here -> WP:CORP explains the policy in detail. Please understand, I have nothing against the company being listed, but at the same time, I don't make the rules, the community adopts them by WP:CONSENSUS. I am just trying to make sure that the guidelines are being followed. —Josh3580talk/hist 06:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
No worries bud your just doing your job. I get it!! :)
Christopher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Can we have a private conversation? Let me just make sure I understand this correctly in order for Zoogle Media to be part of "Silicon Forest" in wiki you need a 3rd party sources mention Zoogle Media in an article about Silicon Forest, correct?
Christopher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- GREAT question. Actually there's no way to have a private conversation, it's all public here. But let me try to explain... What is needed here is 3rd party sources which simply COVER the company. It needs to be notable enough to merit its own article to be listed (even if the article doesn't exist at this time). The fact that the company is a part of Silicon Forest is a different issue. I would tend to allow it to stay, since you can show by its location that it is part of Silicon Forest. I can't promise that some other editor might disagree, but I would allow it - IF you can show the company's notability with media coverage. —Josh3580talk/hist 07:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Josh do reviews count, if it comes from a 3rd party reliable source that state's the location of the review?
Christopher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Ford Crown Victoria[edit]
I apologize for the edit. I know that the source I was providing may not be reliable, but there are two exceptions regarding that:
1) The Ford CEO posted that.
2) His profile appears to be Alan Mulally-ish, not Justin Bieber-ish.
Also, take a look at his profile:
http://answers.yahoo.com/activity?show=pxs3E8etaa --126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, no dice. The account was created within the last 24 hours, it simply doesn't qualify per the community adopted standards. See WP:RS and WP:V. Find a news article and cite it if you want to include this information. —Josh3580talk/hist 04:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- I did not create that account, neither did SpongeBob SquarePants, nor did Justin Bieber, or even Barack Obama. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- BTW, it was the real Alan Mulally. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- I did not create that account, neither did SpongeBob SquarePants, nor did Justin Bieber, or even Barack Obama. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Please read the rules of use for WP:AWB. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Could you be a bit more specific as to what I am doing incorrectly? I've been using AWB for years, but I definitely want to be constructive in my edits. —Josh3580talk/hist 08:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Infinity Property & Casualty Corporation[edit]
Hey josh i agree with the neutral thing if that is the case then i believe that Yelp a neutral site for consumers should be authorised on Wikipedia yelp only shows reviews good or bad for a company despite the reality that they have ripped off millions of lower class Americans and continue to do so yelp is open to good comments as well if they take care of their customers then it will be relevant to yelp. The local news is going to be doing an interview with me and some of their other customers on Friday the news as a whole has a neutral standpoint can i not post the news report. I guess in a city of 500,000+ i can still get my point across. — Preceding unsignedcomment added by Nicholas.brown18 (talk •contribs) 18:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- This is an encyclopedia. It is not the place to air your grievances. If there is extensive coverage regarding some controversy, by all means cite your source and include it. Your edit, however, was making negative assertions of the company in the article body, which is a violation of WP:NPOV. —Josh3580talk/hist 18:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the help![edit]
Thanks Josh3580, it was indeed a mistake. Thanks for cleaning it up for me!
Mikejcunn (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Mikejcunn (talk): No problem at all. Please touch base with me if I can be of any further assistance on any questions you might have. —Josh3580talk/hist 06:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Edits to Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow[edit]
Hello there.... I just made some contributions to the Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow page and after 30 mins they were all removed. Im confused. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkwardmotors (talk • contribs) 06:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Absolutely. First off, your username suggests a conflict of interest, but even disragarding that entirely, you didn't cite a source for any of your contributions. I actually believe that your edits were correct and accurate, but you have to cite a source to make those kinds of changes. Hope this clears things up some. —Josh3580talk/hist 06:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm finding this site rather complicated and confusing. I couldnt even find a "reply" button to your message! So things like the citations (which I can easily provide) I dont know how to do. I will do some research.
But when something is blatantly in error, for example, the Bentley T2 was written as "Bentley T II", what citation is necessary and why? It is simply a fact. The car is a "bentley T2". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkwardmotors (talk • contribs) 07:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
People who delete primary sources because they argue with secondary sources.[edit]
I will tone down my introduction. Reversions to honest editions are not civil, either. [4] 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
You did make a mistake. The user named HappyRagingPandas replaced content with ,"Storm Bay is a large bay located in Storm Bay Island." on Storm Bay (which is fixed now) and is called as removing content. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
MH370 Crash[edit]
Hi Josh I've put up a new reference after reading your article on WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! That's exactly what it needed, much appreciated! —Josh3580talk/hist 04:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Your ability to fight vandalism[edit]
You're quite bad at spotting vandalism and someone needs to stop you making poor reverts of quality, sourced material. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Your tone is a bit harsh, perhaps even uncivil, but I am always open to constructive criticism. What edit or edits are you are referring to? I'll be happy to review them, if you clarify a bit. —Josh3580talk/hist 06:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- I was going to help but seeing as you want to call me names, I don't think I'll bother. People like you make Wikipedia the worst place to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting. I don't seem to remember calling you any sort of name. Maybe you want to clarify that? I seem to remember trying to work with you. Perhaps I need to request an interpretation from a sysop? I'm sure that whoever looked into it would be impartial for both our sakes. —Josh3580talk/hist 06:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- I was going to help but seeing as you want to call me names, I don't think I'll bother. People like you make Wikipedia the worst place to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you![edit]
|please dont delete my stuff! Jcschulman (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Jcschulman (talk): Thank you so very much for the coffee. As for reverting your edit, please cite a source the next time you call someone out as a "balloon human". —Josh3580talk/hist 01:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
17 March 2014[edit]
Sorry, I do not make test edits. Another user always deleting part of the article without any sources given, so I restore to the last verifiable revision.--18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, to which article are you referring? You aren't logged in, so all I see is your current IP address in your signature above, and I don't see that I have reverted any edits by 18.104.22.168 (talk). But just as general information, adding information is what requires a source, not removing it - especially if the information being removed doesn't have a source. Of course if you have found yourself in a disagreement with another editor, the article's talk page would be where you would want to hammer out your differences. There, everyone can come to a WP:CONSENSUS, instead of it being one person's opinion vs another's. Please be aware of the Three Revert Rule if there is some kind of argument. If there is a specific article or edit of mine that you would like clarified, feel free to leave me a message with the details, and I would be happy to review it. Cheers, and happy editing. —Josh3580talk/hist 06:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Hao Moat[edit]
Hi, I've undoed your revision because 1. there are multiple sources, but because it's Chinese it's hard to find reliable sources 2. don't use Huggle for non-vandalism, please 3. I am an experienced Wikipedian editor. I've been to Nantong and the tourism dept there calls it "Moat Hao". My source, if you don't mind adding a cite: http://www.vhotel.org/Attractions-1647.html --184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for contributing. To answer your questions... 1) I empathize with the problem of sources, but it is still required. 2) Why shouldn't I use Huggle for vandalism prevention? It seems to serve me quite well. 3) Your experience has nothing to do with this, it is the source that matters. The source you cited says that the "Hao river" is a "historical moat," so it is not an appropriate reference for this change. I would guess that you are correct, but a source is still required. —Josh3580talk/hist 03:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Reverting my edit[edit]
Yo, I was reversing misinformation by changing Kenny Britt to a free agent because he's not a Ram, nor has he ever been. source: http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/5130/kenny-britt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 28 March 2014
Please do your homework before spreading misinformation, thanks.
- That's wonderful that you are trying to make sure that the information is correct. However, please cite your source in the article, not on my talk page. Readers of Wikipedia should be able to easily verify any information that is asserted as fact in the articles. —Josh3580talk/hist 04:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- How about you site where you believe he's a Ram. You're the one with the burden of proof, here, brah.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKillerNacho (talk • contribs) 04:02, 28 March 2014
- You are simply incorrect there. The editor making changes is the one with the burden of proof. If what is currently written is incorrect, then change it, and cite your source. Please see WP:V and WP:RS. —Josh3580talk/hist 04:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ok then, so reverse the edit who put his team as the Rams when they had no proof, not my edit. Hell, the first line on his page says he is a FREE AGENT. All I changed as the Infobox to correspond with the information that was ALREADY ON THE ARTICLE. If Wikipedia is really so nazi I guess I will withdraw my funding as I currently pay $20 / month as a donation to the site. I'm sorry for making an edit to a page that was obviously contradictory and incorrect. I will never do it again. /sarcasm.
- Dude...... he's not a Bill, either. Try again. He's a FREE AGENT.
- Ok then, so reverse the edit who put his team as the Rams when they had no proof, not my edit. Hell, the first line on his page says he is a FREE AGENT. All I changed as the Infobox to correspond with the information that was ALREADY ON THE ARTICLE. If Wikipedia is really so nazi I guess I will withdraw my funding as I currently pay $20 / month as a donation to the site. I'm sorry for making an edit to a page that was obviously contradictory and incorrect. I will never do it again. /sarcasm.
- You are simply incorrect there. The editor making changes is the one with the burden of proof. If what is currently written is incorrect, then change it, and cite your source. Please see WP:V and WP:RS. —Josh3580talk/hist 04:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- How about you site where you believe he's a Ram. You're the one with the burden of proof, here, brah.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKillerNacho (talk • contribs) 04:02, 28 March 2014
- Done. I honestly couldn't care less about your funding, that is a donation issue, and is between you and the foundation. As far as this edit, you are absolutely correct. In the future, if you remove unsourced information, make sure it is clear in your edit summary that the information is unsourced. Just stating that it is untrue with no source, or challenging existing sources, will most likely trigger a filter just as happened here. I had to look 16 edits back to find where the unsourced addition on the Rams occurred, and you are now unhappy with THAT revert. I found the next version that had no team reference. In the future, do your own research if you want to change things. Don't just try to pick a fight. I'm trying to help here, too. —Josh3580talk/hist 04:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- I never tried to pick a fight. I just changed "St. Louis Rams" to "Free Agent". I suppose in the future if I spot misinformation I will simply source it in the edit description... is that the proper way to do things? I already did my research. I knew Kenny Britt was a free agent. I changed it. Why do I have to justify it to you? Btw, it's not that I was unhappy with your revert. It was that your edit, a revert, made the page less accurate than it was before. This is against the spirit of wikipedia. You are the one who "picked a fight" so to speak.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKillerNacho (talk • contribs) 04:36, 28 March 2014
- I'm sorry if I came across that way. Since WP is publicly editable, people often add things for the hell of it which are unexplained and incorrect. The truth is, the answer to your question is even more simple than you posit. If you are removing dubious, unsourced information, just remove it (like you did), but make sure you explain in your edit summary that the content is completely unsourced. If you add information, that's when you need to cite a source. Again, your edit was correct, your explanation was the issue. And again, I'm sorry if I came across as confrontational. —Josh3580talk/hist 04:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, I get you. I will do this in the future. Sorry for being unclear - it's just frustrating to try to help and then have it reverted every 5 minutes, haha. Thanks for the help, I did not mean to be a burden... just correct an obvious mistake. —TheKillerNachotalk/hist 04:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if I came across that way. Since WP is publicly editable, people often add things for the hell of it which are unexplained and incorrect. The truth is, the answer to your question is even more simple than you posit. If you are removing dubious, unsourced information, just remove it (like you did), but make sure you explain in your edit summary that the content is completely unsourced. If you add information, that's when you need to cite a source. Again, your edit was correct, your explanation was the issue. And again, I'm sorry if I came across as confrontational. —Josh3580talk/hist 04:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- I never tried to pick a fight. I just changed "St. Louis Rams" to "Free Agent". I suppose in the future if I spot misinformation I will simply source it in the edit description... is that the proper way to do things? I already did my research. I knew Kenny Britt was a free agent. I changed it. Why do I have to justify it to you? Btw, it's not that I was unhappy with your revert. It was that your edit, a revert, made the page less accurate than it was before. This is against the spirit of wikipedia. You are the one who "picked a fight" so to speak.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKillerNacho (talk • contribs) 04:36, 28 March 2014
- Done. I honestly couldn't care less about your funding, that is a donation issue, and is between you and the foundation. As far as this edit, you are absolutely correct. In the future, if you remove unsourced information, make sure it is clear in your edit summary that the information is unsourced. Just stating that it is untrue with no source, or challenging existing sources, will most likely trigger a filter just as happened here. I had to look 16 edits back to find where the unsourced addition on the Rams occurred, and you are now unhappy with THAT revert. I found the next version that had no team reference. In the future, do your own research if you want to change things. Don't just try to pick a fight. I'm trying to help here, too. —Josh3580talk/hist 04:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Zombie Night[edit]
Thanks for reverting the vandalism at Zombie Night (2013 film), but why do you think it fails WP:NFILM? The article has five sources. That's quite more than enough to make it notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- That is an awesome question! With some of the folks editing around here, I am pleased to see such a well considered observation. The number of sources are not all that make a film notable, it is the content of those sources. The WP:NFILM#Other evidence of notability section lays those things out. I do not debate that I could be incorrect in my tagging, but you have the WP:CONSENSUS process on your side. A third editor can remove that tag if they do not agree with the classification. Thanks again, for being diligent and thoughtful. —Josh3580talk/hist 04:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that it's nice to have a civil conversation with someone on a talk page. I've become quite tired of sarcastic teenagers, which makes me wonder if maybe everyone was right about me back when I was teenager. Anyway, sure, if we were talking about trivial mentions you'd have a good point, but a review in Variety is hardly trivial – and there are two more reviews from reliable sources besides that. I admit that I had a bit of trouble tracking down enough sources to make a case for notability, but if it went to AfD right now, I'm pretty sure it would be kept. Most people don't even require that many sources before they start berating you for WP:BEFORE, and I learned that the hard way. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Reviews are normally not enough to meet the WP:N standards, but I did not think that the article should be deleted outright. That's why I added this improvement tag, instead of an AFD or CSD tag. I just wanted to invite any other editors to improve what I saw as a weakness in the WP:N department. And I'm with you on the "teenager" assertion! —Josh3580talk/hist 05:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I think I'm beginning to see where you're coming from now. In WikiProject Film, reviews are generally held to establish notability. Whether three reviews is enough is up for grabs, but I think that the other two sources push it into a much safer zone. (Is it just me or did you hear "Danger Zone" in your head?) The original vandal did not add the tag in good faith; he simply replaced the current article with another one that had already been tagged for notability. But if you think the template is warranted, then that's good enough for me. There's always room for debate when dealing with Wikipedia's vague guidelines. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'll tell you what, my friend... You and your Kenny Loggins reference have convinced me. Seriously, though... I suppose I was trying to reason and glean SOME good-faith from the other editor's changes, but I think you are correct in how the entire edit was not in good faith. I'm restoring the previous version, and I will try to give a clear explanation in my edit summary. —Josh3580talk/hist 02:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I think I'm beginning to see where you're coming from now. In WikiProject Film, reviews are generally held to establish notability. Whether three reviews is enough is up for grabs, but I think that the other two sources push it into a much safer zone. (Is it just me or did you hear "Danger Zone" in your head?) The original vandal did not add the tag in good faith; he simply replaced the current article with another one that had already been tagged for notability. But if you think the template is warranted, then that's good enough for me. There's always room for debate when dealing with Wikipedia's vague guidelines. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Reviews are normally not enough to meet the WP:N standards, but I did not think that the article should be deleted outright. That's why I added this improvement tag, instead of an AFD or CSD tag. I just wanted to invite any other editors to improve what I saw as a weakness in the WP:N department. And I'm with you on the "teenager" assertion! —Josh3580talk/hist 05:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that it's nice to have a civil conversation with someone on a talk page. I've become quite tired of sarcastic teenagers, which makes me wonder if maybe everyone was right about me back when I was teenager. Anyway, sure, if we were talking about trivial mentions you'd have a good point, but a review in Variety is hardly trivial – and there are two more reviews from reliable sources besides that. I admit that I had a bit of trouble tracking down enough sources to make a case for notability, but if it went to AfD right now, I'm pretty sure it would be kept. Most people don't even require that many sources before they start berating you for WP:BEFORE, and I learned that the hard way. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Cossacks Edit[edit]
Hello, I'm Josh3580. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Cossacks, but you didn't provide a source. I've removed it for now, but if you'd like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —Josh3580talk/hist 03:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, you have left the message above to me on my homepage. I am not the author of the deleted batch of text (which was left by some new, inexperienced user). I believed it was of a good faith edit, and felt it is not proper to delete it by just declaring it to be a POV. So I basically intervened as a third (impartial) party. Another editor accused the author of pushing a POV, which I don't agree with. I checked and as far as I checked the description was okay. In any case, if you are not the same IP person who kept deleting the entry, I am happy to agree with you, and otherwise not. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think you're confused by what we mean by "impartial" and "secondary" sources. I'm not doubting the good faith of the editor, but the addition is wholly unsuited for wikipedia. We need reliable, secondary sources (reputable news coverage, historian's analysis) to interpret the significance of events and validate them. Many "firsts" occur every day (I ate breakfast on March 28, 2014 for the first time ever today!), but not all such events have real significance and historical context. If this Cossack Congress is as important and significant as the participants claim, then there should be other, neutral third parties who agree and explain what is and is not significant about it. You as an editor do not count as such an impartial third party. WP:RS explains what counts, and why they count.
- And no, Josh3580 is not me, but the identity of the editor making the change should have no affect on your acceptance or recognition of that change. You seem to be carrying a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality here. I'd suggest stepping back and viewing the whole thing for what it really is: an ultimately largely meaningless squabble about a small amount of text on a single webpage on a large site in a much larger internet. Cheers. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2014
- I am certainly not the one having WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality here (and people, who claim to read other people's mentality off the internet, a bit worry me :-). I am fine/cool with whatever Josh3580 has decided. I just found your editorial activities a bit more POV than those of the original poster. Have a wonderful day :-) 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- It's all going to be just fine. It took me a long time as an editor to embrace the idea of WP:CONSENSUS, but I eventually found out that, no matter how impassioned any editor is, the community does a pretty good job at ironing out the messy details as time moves along. If an edit is so controversial that the currently active editors can't agree, the article's talk page invites others to give their opinion. The whole consensus idea was very strange and foreign to me at first, but I must admit, it works pretty darn well on this project. Surrender to consensus. We can all just do our individual part, editing in a way that we feel is correct, and let the community either agree with us or reject us. In all, the consensus seems to turn out the best product. Cheers to the both of you. —Josh3580talk/hist 01:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- I am certainly not the one having WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality here (and people, who claim to read other people's mentality off the internet, a bit worry me :-). I am fine/cool with whatever Josh3580 has decided. I just found your editorial activities a bit more POV than those of the original poster. Have a wonderful day :-) 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
CU Powerline Songs[edit]
Hello, Josh3580! I'm contacting you regarding my attempted revision of the CU Powerline Controversy page, which you reverted. I attempted to add the song "Pope County Blues" by Minnesota folk singer Larry Long to the "Inspired Art" section. You reverted it giving the reason that I provided no reason for the edit and no source. I had assumed that a reason was self-explanatory in that I was adding a song to the list of songs inspired by the conflict, and that the source was unnecessary as most of the other songs in that section are unsourced. Lyrics and clips of the song are available online, and I would be glad to provide a source for the song if necessary to put it into that section of the article. I am myself a folk singer and resident of the area the CU Powerline went through, and would very much like if Mr. Long's song could be included in the article.
18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
We need your help testing latest huggle[edit]
I am sending you this message because you listed yourself on meta:Huggle/Members as a beta tester. We desperately need attention of testers, because since we resolved all release blockers, we are ready to release first official version of huggle 3! Before that happens, it would be nice if you could test it so that we can make sure there are no issues with it. You can download it packaged for your operating system (see Wikipedia:Huggle/Huggle3_Beta) or you can of course build it yourself, see https://github.com/huggle/huggle3-qt-lx for that. Don't forget to use always latest version, there is no auto-update message for beta versions!
Should you find any issue, please report it to wikimedia bugzilla, that is a central place for huggle bugs, where we look at them. That is i mportant, if you find a bug and won't report it, we can't fix it. Thank you for your work on this, if you have any questions, please send me a message on my talk page, I won't be looking for responses here. Thanks, Petrb (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Accidental Warning[edit]
Assuming you somehow accidentally gave me a warning. Although I do have mental arguments with myself, I typically don't attack myself - that would be akin to self-harm. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 07:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, I rolled it back. Not sure what happened there. Glad you hear you aren't a "cutter"! :P —Josh3580talk/hist 23:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- All good, crazy things happen relatively often. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 04:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
The Stand (TV miniseries)[edit]
Re your reversion of all my work:
I had a hidden note in the text stating the source was IMDB. Also a note on the article Talk page.
Since when does anyone need a source for episode titles of a TV show already broadcast anyway? The show itself is the source.
And you also restored all the trivia and WP:OR that was COMPLETELY UNSOURCED. Didn't you read my edit notes? If you dispute that, please explain on the article talk page, don't just revert. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- I apologize, I looked at that edit completely backwards. You are absolutely correct. I am removing the warning that I put on your talk page. Sorry again for the trouble. —Josh3580talk/hist 17:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
User 18.104.22.168[edit]
Hi Josh, I ran across a vandalism-type edit from 22.214.171.124, and after fixing that I took a look at their contributions page. All recent edits are vandalism-type stuff, some change the meaning of a sentence, like this one; others don't but are all meaningless.
I noticed you put a warning on that IP's talk page; I feel like 4 days of that behavior continuing is enough to warrant a block. Also for some reason, four tilde's isn't working as a signature on your talk page. Not sure what I'm screwing up. —Josh3580talk/hist 06:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
New huggle 3.1 is going to be released soon[edit]
Hi Josh3580, we are to release a new major version of huggle, but we did receive almost no feedback from our beta testing team, which you are a part of (see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Huggle/Members). It would be of a great help if you could download it (if you have windows, all you need to do is getting http://tools.wmflabs.org/huggle/files/huggle3.1.0beta.exe and putting it to a folder where you have installed huggle) and test it. You can always get a help with making it @ #huggle connect!
Major changes:
- Multisite support - you can now log in to unlimited number of wikis in 1 huggle session and get a huge queue of all edits made to these wikis. This is good for smaller projects which gets overlooked often.
- Ranged diffs - you can select multiple revisions and get a huge diff that display all changes done to them.
- Fixes of most of bug reports we had so far
In case you found a bug, please report it to bugzilla: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/buglist.cgi?product=Huggle&list_id=147663 thank you! —Josh3580talk/hist 06:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi - Edit on Godhra was verifiable on wiki[edit]
The site of Babri Masjid is disputed and is considered by Many Hindus to be the site of an older temple demolished during the medieval times Ram Janmabhoomi.
- I see no reason for controversy there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, you can't use Wikipedia as a source for other Wikipedia articles. Please see WP:CIRCULAR. Hope that clears things up. —Josh3580talk/hist 06:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews[edit]
Hello Josh3580. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.
The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.
If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)
If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.
Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.
I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).
Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Hunger Games: Mockinjay Jay Part 1[edit]
From my part that wasn't vandalism (here). I merely tried updated the figure by matching it between two section. Check the box office figure for Interstellar in 2014 in film and Interstellar, the box office figure does not match, when they should. That was the same case with the hunger games. Clearly you got a different idea of vandalism. I too strongly criticise vandalism.
I don't feel the reason why should I explain myself to you, but I did it anyway.
P.S. It's 2:50 AM in my region. Am going for a sleep. Please don't poke me further. DtwipzBTalk 21:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- There was a cited source immediately after the figure, and none of the sales figures you inserted appeared in the cited source. If you decide to update sales figures in the future, please do so based on the cited source, and not from elsewhere in the article. Hope that helps clear things up. —Josh3580talk/hist 21:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Cool. You could've said that in the very first message instead of aiming a gun to my head. Bye.DtwipzBTalk 21:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't seem to remember threatening violence, but perhaps I can explain why you received a strongly worded warning template. The way that warning templates work in Wikipedia is that as your warning level increases, the language becomes a bit stronger each time. The Level 4 warning that you received from me was based on the fact that you had already received a Level 3 warning from C.Fred. This prior warning was also for edits to box office figures, section blanking in that case. My anti-vandalism tool, Huggle, automatically chooses the next highest level warning template, which is why you received the warning that you did. I apologize for any confusion. —Josh3580talk/hist 21:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Different people got their own perception about what 'vandalism' is. In case of C.Fred, I tried to put the box office section above the critical reception, which is the case for most of the film articles. And the user went cuckoo over it (here.) What I think is, there are some purist out there and if someone like me tries to do a little something, They think that the world is falling apart. But that ain't the case. I appreciate your work. Good luck. DtwipzBTalk 05:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- C.Fred is a very experienced user, with whom I have dealt with many times during my work with Wikipedia. I assure you, he wasn't out to get you, although only he can speak to his exact reason for warning you as he did. There are so many bad actors out there performing bad-faith edits, that, on the surface, some edits are very hard to assume good faith on examination. You should absolutely be bold in your edits. This is an essential part of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Don't allow this scuffle to set you back, everyone's help with the project is needed. I'll admit that the Wikipedia consensus model can be nebulous and hard to follow, even for me. The guidelines and their associated discussions are open to being reinterpreted and changed at any and all times. As a Recent Changes patroller, I often find myself undoing edits that I actually agree with, because of the way the guidelines are laid out. When you are confronted, don't take it personally. Try and figure out what the other editor thinks you are doing wrong. Usually, editors acting in good faith will explain what issues they have with your edits. If you have a question about their criticism, ask them, just as you did with me. Take their criticisms and responses into account, and move forward. I honestly appreciate your willingness to discuss this incident. Many editors choose not to do so, to everyone's detriment. —Josh3580talk/hist 05:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for particularly the message above. I needed it badly. I ain't naive if that's what you're asking, but I hate bullies more. I had my fair share in dealing with them. I have moved on. But then again I needed to discuss with you. Thanks agian. This help is much appreciated. DtwipzBTalk 06:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- You are no more naive than I. I just meant that I understand (so very well) how frustrating it is to butt heads with another editor, and with the consensus model, it can easily become that much more frustrating. I'm heading to bed myself, now. I hope you have a great day, and happy editing! —Josh3580talk/hist 06:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for particularly the message above. I needed it badly. I ain't naive if that's what you're asking, but I hate bullies more. I had my fair share in dealing with them. I have moved on. But then again I needed to discuss with you. Thanks agian. This help is much appreciated. DtwipzBTalk 06:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- C.Fred is a very experienced user, with whom I have dealt with many times during my work with Wikipedia. I assure you, he wasn't out to get you, although only he can speak to his exact reason for warning you as he did. There are so many bad actors out there performing bad-faith edits, that, on the surface, some edits are very hard to assume good faith on examination. You should absolutely be bold in your edits. This is an essential part of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Don't allow this scuffle to set you back, everyone's help with the project is needed. I'll admit that the Wikipedia consensus model can be nebulous and hard to follow, even for me. The guidelines and their associated discussions are open to being reinterpreted and changed at any and all times. As a Recent Changes patroller, I often find myself undoing edits that I actually agree with, because of the way the guidelines are laid out. When you are confronted, don't take it personally. Try and figure out what the other editor thinks you are doing wrong. Usually, editors acting in good faith will explain what issues they have with your edits. If you have a question about their criticism, ask them, just as you did with me. Take their criticisms and responses into account, and move forward. I honestly appreciate your willingness to discuss this incident. Many editors choose not to do so, to everyone's detriment. —Josh3580talk/hist 05:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Different people got their own perception about what 'vandalism' is. In case of C.Fred, I tried to put the box office section above the critical reception, which is the case for most of the film articles. And the user went cuckoo over it (here.) What I think is, there are some purist out there and if someone like me tries to do a little something, They think that the world is falling apart. But that ain't the case. I appreciate your work. Good luck. DtwipzBTalk 05:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't seem to remember threatening violence, but perhaps I can explain why you received a strongly worded warning template. The way that warning templates work in Wikipedia is that as your warning level increases, the language becomes a bit stronger each time. The Level 4 warning that you received from me was based on the fact that you had already received a Level 3 warning from C.Fred. This prior warning was also for edits to box office figures, section blanking in that case. My anti-vandalism tool, Huggle, automatically chooses the next highest level warning template, which is why you received the warning that you did. I apologize for any confusion. —Josh3580talk/hist 21:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Cool. You could've said that in the very first message instead of aiming a gun to my head. Bye.DtwipzBTalk 21:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
This is my Edit[edit]
The United States obligated nearly $67 billion (in constant 2011 dollars) to Pakistan between 1951 and 2011. Reference: http://www.cgdev.org/page/aid-pakistan-numbers I am still adding numbers and in process. Is this objectionable? depressing. talk तेजा శ్రీనివాస్ 21:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Teja srinivas (talk • contribs)
- That is not objectionable at all, and I appreciate your contribution. Just be sure that you include your source when you add factual information. See the Wikipedia:Citing sources guideline if you need to know exactly how to properly cite your source. Any time you add information with no source, it may be reverted by another editor under the content guidelines. I hope this helps clarify things. Good luck! —Josh3580talk/hist 00:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Josh3580, I'm not too familiar with the ways of Wikipedia. I am a Naval historian that served on USS MITSCHER (DDG-35) and have done years of research on this class of ships. The MITSCHERS (and the USS NORTHAMPTON (CLC-1) were the only ships in the US Navy to use the MK 67 NFCS instead of the MK 68. Thanks, Rod Joye Mantua, OH, USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
A little help about sandbox[edit]
Hi, sorry to disturb you again. But I had few questions in my mind and it needs to be answered. So here I go. As I am new here. I wanted to ask you about the sandbox. Like:
- Is it accessible to only me or other users can get to that too ?;
- What are the limitation to my experiments that I am supposed to perform in there ?;
- If the sandbox is only accessible to me then how come other editors know the contents in there if I choose not to reveal them ?;
There are many questions like these, but the above mentioned ones were on the top of my mind !! DtwipzBTalk 14:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hello User:Dibyendutwipzbiswas, User:Dibyendutwipzbiswas/sandbox is accessible to other users, you may experiment as much as you wish, but why would you not wish to reveal the contents in your sandbox? Lotje (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
HOPE probation[edit]
My last contribution to the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii's_Opportunity_Probation_with_Enforcement was immediately deleted by you. In the past this contribution was deleted based on the fact that I did not give proofs to support the allegations (although some were argued but still deleted). This time a proof is given but the contribution was still deleted without even the time to check that proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- In your edit, other than a YouTube link, it wasn't an issue of sourcing. As I stated in my message to you, Wikipedia has very carefully laid out Neutral point of view policies. In your edit, you did not simply state facts from your sources, you included quite a bit of your own opinion as well. Words such as "outrageous", "biased", "illegal prison terms", giving your own "conclusion", and accusing other editors of "destroying" the article are all inappropriate. Please familiarize yourself with the WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policies. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. —Josh3580talk/hist 07:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear Josh: On December 24 2014, I modified the addition I contributed to following the Wikipedia policies and mainly quoting a recent publication. As such my comments have become neutral as simply reporting others' findings. User FreeRangeFrog still deleted all my contribution without justification. It is likely this user is the contributor of this page in which he/she reports his/her own findings. These findings have been challenged in the article I can now use as reference and therefore their reporting have become valid and neutral contributions I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
You stated that wikipedia is not a Soapbox: I agree totally but it should not be either a personal webpage, that is a self-promotion tool used to promote one own's works that have been critized elsewhere (in particular in well established publication by arguably more knowledgeable people with more credentials than the authors) and delete such critics when added to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what would give the impression that §FreeRangeFrogcroak is publishing their own results. §FreeRangeFrog is an Administrator on Wikipedia. By definition, an Administrator is very familiar with the rules on original research, undue weight, and self-published sources, and I doubt this person would risk their administrative rights by flagrantly violating the WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE, WP:SPS, and WP:NPOV policies in the way that is being accused. §FreeRangeFrog seemed to feel that there has been a history of Disruptive editing on this article by several users, which is why the page was protected. Page protection is one tool that Administrators can use to force discussion on content disputes. According to the BOLD, Revert, Discuss policy, the next step for you to take would be to gain a consensus with other editors for your change, by having a discussion on the article's talk page. Check out the WP:CONACHIEVE policy for an explanation and tips on how to build a consensus. Consensus can be a difficult goal, but it seems to be the best model for good content on the project. Hope this helps, —Josh3580talk/hist 14:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- The IPs edit used primary sources and was written in an inappropriate argumentative tone that seems to indicate they are attempting to prove something rather than simply repeat what the sources say (but since they're using primary sources, that will be difficult, see how that works?). What they need are reliable secondary sources (YouTube videos are not in that category) that back up their written claims. I have no problem with anyone adding any type of criticism to this article (or any other) as long as it's done correctly. We don't care what your opinion of the topic is, we care what can be verified through sourcing. When the protection expires then everyone is welcome to edit the article again. But repeated insertion of inappropriately worded or sourced material will continue to result in reverts and extended protection. Seriously, it's not that hard. Find an article in the media, paraphrase it, cite it. That's how this encyclopedia is written. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
If I agree your criticism applies to previous editings, I strongly disagree it does to my last posting. That posting was directly copied (as recommended) from a 2014 article that appeared in "Federal Probation" (vol. 78, n 2) and available at: http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FederalCourts/PPS/Fedprob/2014-09/hope.html. This was properly stated and referenced. Then additional materials about 4 points made by the authors of that article are provided. For the first point, references to 2 newspaper articles are given, which meets wikipedia guidelines. The second point is a non personal common sense addition suggesting the same as the authors' intent. The third point further emphasizes the authors' comment with neutral references to the credibility of the contributors of the original article without any personal inputs. The fourth and last point is a youtube recording but it should be emphasized it is the recording of a neutral third party with no involvement in this discussion.
Regarding the neutrality of the text, I believe the last two sentences of the current wikipedia articles are far from meeting your requirements. Reference-6 as given can be found no-where and was used to erase previous properly referred journal articles about HOPE I had given. Similarly no trace of reference-7 as given can be found and a search of this title returns: http://www.correct.state.ak.us/blog/docs/alm_hope_sept-oct_p28-201.pdf, an article written by ... Steven Alm in person! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Please read here. Also, I am curious to know why you reverted my edit. Ubuntuuser13 (talk) 07:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- I reverted because your redirection pointed to a now non-extant section in the Platonic love article. You were not simply linking it to that article because it was a more appropriate article, you were linking to a section that you previously created which has since been removed according to the WP:NEOLOGISM policy. The Queer article has a section, titled Inclusivity and scope which covers this use of the term. Hope this helps clear things up. —Josh3580talk/hist 07:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, I was linking to the section, but then it would have been more appropriate to remove the section name. Change from Platonic love#Queerplatonic relationship to Platonic love. I believe platonic love is the more appropriate article to redirect to, as it has all about this term. Please tell me how queer is the better article. Ubuntuuser13 (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- In regards to Queer#Inclusivity and scope, you are also saying that it covers this term. But I find nothing about or relating to "queerplatonic" in Queer#Inclusivity and scope. Thanks Ubuntuuser13 (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- As far as "queerplatonic" not being listed in the "queer" article, it would be impossible to list all possible terms that include the word "queer" in its article. That article would become ridiculously long very quickly, just by naming the terms. That is the purpose of the WP:NEOLOGISM and WP:NOTEVERYTHING policies - by requiring well-documented secondary sources for any relatively recently coined phrase, the encyclopedia continues to be manageable and readable. The queer article makes the point quite well that the addition of this term to a word connotes the opposite of the following "normative" word. It could be argued that both articles are equally appropriate, since the term "queerplatonic" simply puts both "queer" and "platonic" together. I am not in any way claiming that you are wrong or incorrect, just that the guidelines are specific about how the process works. Re-reverting once another editor has disputed your edit is not the way to move forward, however. What I would recommend, is that you use the next step of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, and begin a discussion on either article's talk page, gaining a consensus with other editors for the best way to include an explanation of this term. I fear that it will be an uphill battle without secondary sources, however, because of how the guidelines are laid out. —Josh3580talk/hist 08:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear Josh[edit]
The changes that I made regarding the Kurds are completley correct. I am acutally glad that you noticed the changes I made and asked me why I made those changes because I have been constantly trying to contact Wikipedia over this issue. This issue is that the page says that Kurds are Iranian and that they were "nomads" in the past, which is completley false. I am taking a minor in history and I am a Kurd myself so I know the information I am using is correct. If you want I could also try to find sources. The problem, however, is that there are constantly people trying to change information about the Kurds on Wikipedia. I do not know how much background you have on history or politics but the Kurds are an ethnic group that have had their country divided into four parts, after WW1. Ever since that time,the countries that occupied Kurdish land, have always denied Kurdish history,languge, and culture. Now what you see on Wikipedia is an exact replica of that.
You can look at any scholarly book or source that has information about the Kurds, and nowhere will you see it regarding Kurds as "Iranian." An Iranian is someone who lives or is form Iran. It is not a vast group of people that stretches all the way from Kurdistan to Central Asia, which most Iranian nationalists like to think. But even if it was, the Kurds have never been regarded as Iranian people, besides in this Wikipedia article. Another key point that is incorrect is that the article states that the Kurds are 30 million people. I have, however, seen it also state 30-35 million people, but that is still incorrect. The Kurdish population is actually 40 million, because the Kurds that live in Turkey are only 21 million, Kurds in Syria are 2.7 million, Kurds in Iraq are 6 million, Kurds in Iran are 8.2 million. There is also about 2.3 million Kurds that live outside of the Kurdistan region.
In the past, I have also seen the article state that Kurds are European or even sometimes Arab. These statements, agian, are made by Persian, Arabic, and Turkish nationalists who do not want the Kurdish identity to be known. I think that is very important that Wikipedia does not allow anybody to just change the information on an aricle that is discussing the identity of a nation, especially that of 40 million people.
Josh, I invite you to look at any scholarly source and compare it with this article about the Kurds. You will be astonished. You will then realize how much false information is on this article.
I think that Wikipedia should make a rule that only allows qualified unbiased people to write about historical articles on Wikiepdia. I know that Wikpedia is a non-profit ad free organization that allows people to change any information they would like, but there should be a limit to this rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- There actually is a limit to this rule, which you yourself have inadvertently run into in this instance: Editors cannot and change information to match their point of view, without the change being based on a specific source. Verifiable, reliable sources are required to make changes to assertions of fact. I didn't intend to give you the impression that your were incorrect. However, you did not explain your change with an edit summary when you made it, nor did you cite a source for your change. The content that you deleted actually did cite a source, so the assumption is that the former statement was correct, since you removed properly sourced comment without explanation or citation. If you feel that this information is completely incorrect, you should discuss the discrepancy on the article's talk page, and gain a consensus of other editors to remove the content that you feel is inaccurate. Have your verifiable, reliable sources at the ready to back up your claim. Hope this helps. —Josh3580talk/hist 03:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Repeatedly removing the information with no discussion is considered disruptive editing. Again, please gain a WP:CONSENSUS on the article's talk page if you feel this information is incorrect and needs to be removed. —Josh3580talk/hist 15:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Help with vandalism[edit]
Hello, I was wondering since you're a pretty experienced Wikipedian if you could help with an editor who is vandalising this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Moore_(actor)
Some editor named Hemi.pwr keeps deleting parts of the article. Parts of the article that have reliable sources:
The subject of this article did go to prison for manslaughter as is described in The Guardian reference in the article. Yet this editor keeps blanking this information out. If you know an administrator who could help I'd appreciate it, thanks. Neptune's Trident (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- I reverted his change once again, and warned them as to the WP:3RR policy. If the user continues, they can be reported for violating the policy. Also, while your actions are obviously warranted, please be careful that an admin doesn't feel that you are violating the policy as well. I'll try and keep an eye on the article for a bit. —Josh3580talk/hist 00:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks a bunch! Happy Holidays. Neptune's Trident (talk) 03:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Just to be clear, neptunes trident created the page for David oren ward, and for Nate Moore. It is clear both by the intense interest taken in editing both pages, and in the obvious violation of the wikipedia NPOV policy, both the spirit and language of these edits seem to be vindictive. The subject is a marginal person of no interest to the public and is not a public person. Neptune tridents repeated edits seem to be based in malicious intent and should be removed from the neutral sphere of Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not need to earn a reputation for being a vehicle or Instrument of personal attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemi.pwr (talk • contribs) 04:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Punjab, Pakistan. Badshahi Mosque during Sikh Empire.[edit]
According to the book titled Ranjit Singh by Khuswant Singh, who is an academic historian and lawyer, there is no credible evidence that Ranjit Singh prohibited Muslims from praying at that Badshahi Mosque and his first public act was that he actually paid homage to the mosque. This is also supported by Yasser Latif Hamdani, who is also a practising lawyer and author. Considering this and the fact that the Sikh Empire during 1799-1850 had a vast majority population of Muslims followed by Hindus and then Sikhs which can be verified also, it is not reasonable to assume that despite the confirmed historical religious tolerance of the Sikh Empire during Ranjit Singh's time that he for some random reason choose to contradict one of the foundational principles of the Sikh Empire during its time. The reason I removed it was because it was a misleading statement that contradicted numerous academic sources that confirmed the Sikh Empire's religious tolerance(i.e. no forced conversations). Lastly, Sikh holy temple Harmindir Sahib was built decades before Ranjit Singh's rule.
Gurbir Singh
Please reply: email@example.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- It would have been helpful if you had used an edit summary to explain your actions, rather than simply removing the content. —Josh3580talk/hist 18:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I am not vandalising. I found a different information elsewhere and I am not sure how to put it in correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Let's see what we can do here... The "Cite" link at the top of the edit window is the easiest way to do this. Check out the WP:INTREF help page, that should give you an overview of what is needed, and how to add it. The WP:REFBEGIN page goes into much more detail. Also, check out the Wikipedia:CONSENSUS page. That idea is the foundation of how Wikpedia operates. While I find the the consensus model can be confusing and frustrating, it tends to produce the best results. Hope this helps. —Josh3580talk/hist 16:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I took down the theory because it is not true. There is no such thing as a Fall a dungh in Spanish history whatsoever. The theory was posted by an Afrocentric trying to mark all Spanish related articles in Wikipedia with Black Moors. You need to keep tabs on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texarus (talk • contribs) 18:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- It is difficult to "keep tabs" on things, or to know why you removed the information you did, if you don't use an edit summary when you make your changes. Please explain things clearly using the edit summary when you remove content in the future. —Josh3580talk/hist 18:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Regarding Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences[edit]
Hello Josh. I have been editing this page because it states (or make the appearance of) that the "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" is a Nobel Price and/or a Nobel Prize category, which it is not. No official source (I can find at least) claims this prize to be a Nobel prize. It was founded by the Swedish Central Bank 1968. Inventor Alfred Nobel who is the founder of the Nobel Prizes mentioned only 5 categories in his will, which of none is economy. The Swedish Wikipedia page agrees with me. //Olle Wedin 2014-12-26 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 07:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- At first blush, it appeared that the citation supporting the other point of view was removed simply because you didn't agree with it. I now see that I was looking at the wrong citation. Still, the version of the article that I reverted to seems to make it quite clear that this isn't a "Nobel Prize", as defined by Alfred Nobel's will. This cited page however, seems to indicate that the Nobel Foundation does at least consider it as among the prizes. To me, it seems perfectly reasonable to include both ways of looking at it, in order to maintain a neutral point of view. Here is the important bit from the citation (emphasis added):
Who selects the Nobel Laureates?
The process of selecting the Nobel Laureates is exclusively handled by the Nobel Prize awarding institutions. In his last will and testament, Alfred Nobel specifically designated the institutions responsible for the prizes he wished to be established:
- The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences for the Nobel Prize in Physics and Chemistry.
- The Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet for the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.
- The Swedish Academy for the Nobel Prize in Literature.
- A committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Parliament (Storting) for the Nobel Peace Prize.
In 1968, the Sveriges Riksbank established the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences was given the task to select the Economics Prize Laureates starting in 1969.The institutions above each elect Nobel Committees of five members to carry out the preparatory work related to each category of the Nobel Prize.— Who selects the Nobel Laureates?, http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_organizations/org_structure.html
- It just seems appropriate to explain both that it was not a prize created by Nobel himself, but that it is still sanctioned by the Nobel Foundation. I hope this explains my reversion. Thank you, both for your contributions, and for your desire to make the article as accurate as possible. —Josh3580talk/hist 18:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Josh, I will do as you asked. Although, it does not seemed that you did the things I asked of you on my last message. If you just made one small search, you would have found out that the information that is on their is wrong, and you would have not asked me to reach into any consensus. By the way, facts are not reached by a random consensus. How can you approve of false information that is written on the page? Is it because it was reached by a consensus? Does this mean that anybody can just create false information as long as they create a group of people that agree with them. The only issue I have with the article is that it states that Kurds are Iranian, which they are not. Saying Kurds are Iranian does not even make any sense. It takes common sense to look to realize the problem. May you please link me to the discussion page for the Kurds so I can create a "consensus." I will do whatever it takes to get the right information on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Dear Josh[edit]
Hey Josh, I just gave a link to the edit I made a few minutes ago, regarding Kurds. The link is in the edit summary.
Here are other sources that support my statement about Kurds. Try to find even one of these sources that say Kurds are "Iranian."
http://www.krg.org/p/p.aspx?l=12&s=020000&r=306&p=216 <-- This is actually the website of the KRG (Kurdistan Regional Government)
It is true that the Kurdish lanugage is a bit simimlar to Eastern lanugaes of the Middle East such as Persian, but to say that Kurds are an Iranian people is completely false and does not even make any sense in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Making an argument to me is the wrong path to take. As I explained to you before, I don't doubt your correctness. I think you are most likely correct in your views. However, correctness is not what is at issue here. The issue is simply a lack of consensus. As aggravating as it is, (trust me, I know how aggravating it can be), a consensus is exactly how things are decided in the Wikipedia project. From article content, to deleting articles, to selecting admins, and even laying out the guidelines and policies. All are decided by consensus. It's not a matter of finding "a group" of friends, it is a matter of finding agreement amongst all of the editors who care enough to comment. It is quite difficult to gain a consensus; I know that - all too well. Nonetheless, that is the only way to change content to match your views - you have to get other editors to agree with you. You haven't even tried to discuss or gain a consensus on the article's talk page. I didn't revert you because I thought you were wrong, I reverted you because you didn't have a consensus. We need people, like you, who want Wikipedia to be as correct as possible. However, this is an open project, and it's not just your knowledge that counts. It's your knowledge and views, taken into account with everyone else's knowledge and views. I honestly hope this helps. —Josh3580talk/hist 07:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Kurds are not Iranian[edit]
Kurdish people are not "Iranians." Just because there is a possiblity that the Medians were ancestors of the Kurds does not in any way make the Kurds "Iranian." Just because Kurdish is a bit similar to languages like Persian, does not make Kurds "Iranian." Kurdish people are descendants of many different people that inhabitated Kurdistan such as Hurrians, Gutians, Mittani, Cordune, and much more. Kurds are not "Iranian people." I have many many reliable scholarly sources on the Kurds, and it does not mention anything about being "Iranian." Kurds have their own histroy, and are a distinct people. The term Iranian, in itself is wrong to describe. Today, the term is used to describe a person who lives or is from Iran. Therefore, many people will be heavily confused when they see this term. Not only that, but like I said, Kurds are not Iranian in the first place. I have many sources to back it up and I don't know why Wikipedia allowed such false information to be posted up.
I am not denying that the Kurdish lanugage can be described as a lanugage that is part of the Indo -European family of Northwestern Iraninan languages, but to say that the Kurds themselves are Iranian is completley false. Kurds have a long history in the Middle East and were even mentioned by the Sumerians. Kurds are descendants of many different people and there is not only historical evidence to back that up, but genetic evidence as well. Dont think so? Then go search for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- You apparently have simply ignored everything I have said to you. Let me make it very clear: YOU NEED A CONSENSUS. Stop trying to convince me. I have already said that your position seems reasonable, and most likely correct. But this is apparently a long-standing debate on this article, and the consensus is of the opposite view. Do your convincing on the article's talk page. That is where you can have an impact. Explain your position, and try to get other editors to agree with your point of view. Again, I AM NOT REVERTING THESE EDITS BECAUSE I DISAGREE. I AM REVERTING BECAUSE YOU HAVE A LACK OF CONSENSUS. It doesn't appear that you have even tried to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. You won't get anywhere if you don't engage in discussion. —Josh3580talk/hist 05:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Josh, I perfectly understood you. I have added a new topic on the Kurds talk page showing my viewponts about 2 days ago, but I cant see it anymore. Therefore, I have created another today. I do not, however, see where the consensus was made that the Kurds are "Iranian." Can you please link me to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Bawer1: - Thank you for starting the discussion there. I'm sorry for the bold and caps earlier, but I felt like I was repeating myself ad infinitum. I'm not sure why your earlier post would have disappeared, I can't seem to find it either. I do see where DeCausa explained the current consensus on the Kurds talk page, and has made a proposal for a compromise in the language of the lead. Discussion - now we are getting somewhere! —Josh3580talk/hist 18:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Regarding removal of edits in GIET Gunupur[edit]
Hello sir, my recent edits to GIET Gunupur was aimed to update about the recent developments in the institution.It maintains a neutral point of view undoubtedly. Energeticasish (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Energeticasish: In your edit, your use of the words "enviable" and "massive" with no reliable source was the issue. Those terms definitely sound like peacock language, which is the reason I reverted your edit. I hope this explains things. —Josh3580talk/hist 07:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
RE: December 2014[edit]
I see you recently reverted my content removal on the page for Power Matters Alliance. The edit I made was intentional, but I made a rookie mistake by not explaining my edit before I clicked "Save". I will revert back to my, this time properly explaining my reasoning.
Thank you for the services you lend this site and for keeping me honest.
--Khifler (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Khifler: Thank you. The explanation in the edit summary is what I felt was missing. The information you removed was sourced, so another editor may quarrel with you, but the lack of an edit summary is the reason I reverted your edit. Thanks for contributing! —Josh3580talk/hist 07:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Josh3580: Yes, the information was sourced, but it also wasn't about Power Matters Alliance, it was about the market for wireless chargers, which would be better suited for a page talking about wireless chargers in general. Either way, I appreciate the feedback, and feel free to keep me accountable. Thanks again. --Khifler (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Khifler: Keep it up, my friend. You are trying to improve things; I get that, and support it. I just wanted to warn you about how tricky consensus can be, when all of the other editors are involved. Thank you for hearing me, and being receptive to my input. Again, keep it up. —Josh3580talk/hist 04:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Josh3580: Yes, the information was sourced, but it also wasn't about Power Matters Alliance, it was about the market for wireless chargers, which would be better suited for a page talking about wireless chargers in general. Either way, I appreciate the feedback, and feel free to keep me accountable. Thanks again. --Khifler (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - The first proposition includes both viewpoints in a proportional manner, and this proposal seems to be a bit vague, and moves a bit too far in the other direction. While the WP:NPOV policy does not require including all points of view, it does require proportional representation of multiple points of view, as evidenced by the sources. The current consensus is biased, as is this proposal. We should, within reason, be inclusive and representative of the sources. —Josh3580talk/hist 04:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
@Josh3580 of course you are going to oppose it because you are biased. Despite the fact that I have also provided you with evidence. Not to mention the fact that (more) people on the Kurdish talk page agree more with removing the incorrect term of "Iranian." So I don't know why I see no changes? Oh way that is right because you are a biased person who is being told what to do by someone else. That is the only reasonable explanation I can find for your decisions because I cant think of anyone who would deny factual evidence over and over again if he is not being paid by someone else to do so — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Bawer1: - Do you honestly think, that of my 18,378 edits, that I have been randomly paid to contribute to this single article? Is there some sort of pattern to my contributions that makes you think that I am some sort of paid shill, or is it simply the fact that I and @DeCausa: somewhat disagree with you in this discussion? If I were paid to contribute, would I be trying to argue that, as you quoted me, "The current consensus is biased, as is this proposal. We should, within reason, be inclusive and representative of the sources."? I really am sorry that we disagree on this subject, but accusing me of being a PAID meatpuppet is uncivil and completely out of line, especially being fresh off of a block. I am only trying to engage in discussion, and I have not accused you of anything, I have tried to only discuss the content of this article. —Josh3580talk/hist 05:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Good job[edit]
Good job Josh. You really showed your true colors. Instead of replying to my comment you decided to talk to Wikipedia Adminsttrators. After I exposed you and completely destroied your false comments, you decide to run away. That just shows your true colors really. If I ever believed that you were biased, then nowI believed your 2x Biased than last time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Bawer1: I have replied to your comments multiple times, you have simply chosen to ignore them. I am asking for an Admin to weigh in, so that both of our concerns can be taken into account. If you are correct, then I will suffer the admin's censure. —Josh3580talk/hist 02:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Josh3580: Name one time where I have ignored them. Show me right now, give me a link. I have replied to all of your accusations, and I have countered all of your false claims effectively. You are seriously embarrassing yourself. Do you seriously expect me to believe that some random individual is denying all of my claims backed up by evidence. Then this same individual tells you that instead of relying on facts, you have to get more people to agree with you on the talk page, which I did. Then when you ask this same individual why there are have been no changes to the page since they have managed to get more people to agree with them, and the individual replies with the statement of "the consensus is biased as the proposal." Now do you seriously want me to believe that after all of that you are not either
1. Biased/Prejudice 2. Taking Orders from another person 3. Being Paid to do so
If you seriously want me to believe that you do not apply to any of those categories and you are just a regular person with an ordinary life who just happenes to "disagree" with me then you are insane.
- Please take your comments to the discussion on WP:ANI. —Josh3580talk/hist 02:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Huggle message[edit]
Hey Josh3580! You are receiving this message because you are subscribed at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Huggle/Members#Beta_testers
I have recently launched a new downloads for beta testers that contains nightly builds of huggle, eg. versions that are built every day from our master branch and contains latest huggle. These builds are currently provided only for Windows and Ubuntu. You can find them here: http://huggle.wmflabs.org/builds/
Please keep in mind that these don't have any automatic updates and if you download and start using nightly build, you will need to update it yourself! So don't get yourself to running old version, it's possible to install both stable and nightly huggle, which is what I suggest.
Keep the bug reports coming to phabricator: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/task/create/?projects=Huggle Many thanks! Petrb (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I ment to change something and when I clicked the word to change in, the whole page highlighted. I then (without noticing I highlighted a whole section) deleted it. I did not realize what I had done until after my edit. I am So sorry about any trouble I may have caused. - Owen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
There's apparently an ANI thread about you[edit]
Bawer1 started a thread titled "Josh" at ANI. No idea what it's about, don't care either, just letting you know out of common courtesy. Have fun and good luck. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
who can I talk to about my Wikipedia account and why it keep getting changed with incorrect information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- @22.214.171.124: I don't completely understand your question. It doesn't appear that you are logged in to an account. What exactly is going on? —Josh3580talk/hist 16:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't me who put those incorrect info. I apologize. I will Make sure it doesn't happen again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Josh3580, allow me to share the same thoughts I've shared with others. The "Iranian" classification is mentioned 4 times in one paragraph in the lead. Do you really think this is necessary? Firstly, it is redundant. Secondly, this will just further agitate people who oppose this classification altogether. Why is it that no middle-ground is being met here? The Kurds are an modern ethnic group of their own whether or not the debated Iranian classification based on linguistic terms is valid or not. I've viewed the various sources cited in the RFC and other places and in every case, the scholarly sources are making that assertion based on linguistic and not any evidential basis as the ancestry of Kurds will forever be obscure. Therefore mentioning it in the first sentence is misleading without taking the linguistic element into account. Rather, mentioning it as a classification in linguistic terms in a later sentence - within the same paragraph - is far more appropriate. Let's stop with this redundancy in the lead that seems to have no purpose greater than simply trying to make this theory a central point of this page. This page is supposed to be about what the Kurds are and not about theoretical classifications. Those theories can be further elaborated on in the body of the page, not in the lead. Sharisna (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- To @Sharisna: I fully appreciate where you are coming from. In the discussions on this article, I have always said that both sides have completely valid points. As it stands, however, there was an in-depth discussion on this topic, with many people contributing, some who shared your view, but the proposed lead by that was adopted by consensus did not include the word "Iranic". Multiple sources have been cited to support the proposal which was adopted. As far as undue weight? You make a reasonable argument. But your edits must pass the consensus test. At this time, it seems that the current lead was considered the most fair, as it included both points of view being discussed. If you feel there is an issue in the lead with the WP:UNDUE policy, then by all means, make your own proposal on the article's talk page, with what you believe is correct, and once you gain a consensus of other editors which overrides the result of the RFC and current consensus, then make that replacement. —Josh3580talk/hist 06:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Kurds again, I see[edit]
Have a look at, please 188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I am Christine Ben-Ameh.
I have been trying to delete this page.
I did not authorize my personal information to be displayed and I wish for it to be removed. All of it.
I have made a complaint to google about this.
Please kindly delete this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- @126.96.36.199: I don't see any information in the article that could be considered "personal", it all looks biographical to me. Permission from the subject is not required for an article to be created. Besides, I am not authorized to delete pages, only an administrator can do that. Also, blanking pages is a violation of policy. Please see the Wikipedia:Deletion process policy if you wish to request a deletion. Leave a message here if you have any questions. —Josh3580talk/hist 17:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open![edit]
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open![edit]
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Colin Welland[edit]
I am responding to an edit I made to Colin Welland's page. I am new to this and probably why I made error(s). On the Colin Welland page, it stated that he was born in Liverpool. Colin was actually born in Milton Street, Leigh, Lancashire, before his parents moved to the Kensington area of Liverpool while he was still a toddler. This can be confirmed by the Leigh Journal website. Apologies for any problems that I may have caused. HarveyLeighBlear (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Harvey
Hi Josh,
I thought I explained my edit in the edit summary. The text on the book was essentially the publisher's blurb. Having a section on it altogether seemed excessive; it is not the norm in other wikipedia pages on mathematicians.
Other than that - the division into sections seemed a little heavy for a page of this length, and the text needed to be reorganized a little. Without any negative implication on the subject's merits - judging from the dates, this is probably a page that was created (from within the university?) when he was about to become head of the department (or was being considered for the position). 126.96.36.199 (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello Josh3580,
Regarding the edit on Edward Said's page--the section I deleted under 'criticism,' struck me at the time as an ineffective as well as non-factual criticism, which is why I removed it, but I duly note that it helps to leave a summary of changes, and I applaud your diligence.
As for why I deleted it, a simple examination of a map of the British Empire's territory from the turn of the 20th century up to WWII shows that Britain did indeed control territory between Egypt and India. While the critique I deleted points to the Persian and Ottoman empires as somehow refuting Said's claim, that's not really true. The British empire had made protectorates of several states straddling the sea route from Egypt to India, namely Aden (Yemen) and the Gulf states. At various points, the One might criticize Edward Said on several things, but not for his ignorance of the political geography of the Mid East.
Regards, anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2015
Dear Josh3680,
I'll restore the change and put on the talk page the explanation I have given here (I expect this is what I should do). Thanks for your help! To quote what another contributor said above - I applaud your diligence. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 07:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- @188.8.131.52: Thanks! I appreciate your contributions to the project. —Josh3580talk/hist 17:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to know what you have against booty? I'm very disappointed in your bootylicious booty-finding skills you big booty.
Btw, can I see a picture of you? Ideally your big booty, but I suppose your face will also suffice.
-- Anonymous MIT Student— Preceding unsigned comment added by IP 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2015
Colin Wellan[edit]
Dear Josh
I was born and bred in Leigh, Greater Manchester, England. I have lived in the town all of my life and am very knowledgeable of the town and its history. One error that I have found under the information provided for the actor Colin Welland is that it indicates he was born in Liverpool. That is factually incorrect. He was born in Milton Street, Leigh. I have attempted to rectify the error. However, it is then continually put back to Liverpool. Please could you ensure that Leigh is put in as his correct birthplace. He did move to the Kensington area of Liverpool when he was still an infant. But was, as I have mentioned, born in Milton Street, Leigh.
Kind regards
Harvey BlearHarveyLeighBlear (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Hi HarveyLeighBlear. The best place to discuss this is at Talk:Colin Welland. You will find that User:Softlavender has a keen interest. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Thiyya page is redirected to Ezhava page. Sir Thiyya are not Ezhava. We have enough proofs to prove that. Please undo thiyya page redirecting to Ezhava page Kadathanadan chekavar (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
New deal for page patrollers[edit]
Hi Josh3580,
In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.
Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.
Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]
- Breaking the back of the backlog
If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
- Second set of eyes
Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.
- Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote
With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.
Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .
BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected[edit]
New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))
- Please help reduce the New Page backlog
This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.
- Getting the tools we need
Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .
- A HUGE backlog
We now have 467 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.
The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.
- Second set of eyes
Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.
- Abuse
This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and
- this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
- this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
- This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.
Coordinator election[edit]
Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.
Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections[edit]
Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.
- Still a MASSIVE backlog
We now have 467 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.
Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Rob Griffin edit?[edit]
Hey Josh,
Got your message, but I have no idea what you are talking about. I have no idea who Rob Griffin is, and did not edit that article. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
New Page Review - Newsletter No.4[edit]
Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 467 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!
But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.
Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer Newsletter[edit]
Backlog update:
- The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
- Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.
Technology update:
- Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
- The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
- User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
- User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through
General project update:
- Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)