User talk:Josh3580/Archive 3

User talk:99.192.59.98

So what is the process (if there is one) to be allowed to remove a baseless accusation that one is a sock puppet from a talk page? Put another way, If some vandal decided to just go around and accuse people on their talk pages of being socks, what does an editor have to do before they are allowed to just remove the accusation? It is mystifying to me that any old accusation could just be added to a talk page and an editor has no ability to remove it. 99.192.90.239 (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.59.98)[reply]

Re: this question

When you blanked the page in this edit, you blanked the talk page of a different user than yourself. While blanking your own talk pageis not a problem, blanking other users' talk pages is unusual. You may have just logged in with a different IP address, in which case, either signing in or creating a new account will avoid the confusion, since all edits will be logged under the same name, regardless of your IP address.Josh3580_talk/hist 01:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer. The comments I deleted were indeed written to me. It's just that ny ISP assigned me a new IP number between when they were made and when I saw them. Thanks for the answer.

I'm going to make another attempt to remove the harassment and will try to explain it in the edit summary, but I won't be surprised if another editor checks it out and is confused about it. 99.192.55.106 (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.90.239 & 99.192.59.98)[reply]

One of the editors who was posted harassing comments has returned to revert my removal of his harassment. he claims in the edit summary that since my I address has changed that I no longer have a right to edit the talk page, even though the comments were directed to me at a time when it was my IP address. This seems absurd. Ordinarily I would not worry about nonsense comments left on an old talk page like this, but recently I had an experience where an unfounded accusation was made and later another editor assumed it was true, and so it caused further trouble. Could you please intervene so I can avoid further conflict with this editor. Thanks. 99.192.90.228 (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.55.106)[reply]

Hobart

I'm afraid you got this edit wrong, but I've reverted you.St Anselm (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Story is a tale or narrative: storey relates to several floors of a building. I made the change to be consistent with the next sentence of the article concerning the casino. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storey. We tend to use British English in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by59.167.207.200 (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I didn't realise it was a British vs. American English thing. Anyway, the edit was clearly justified and should not have been reverted.St Anselm (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are both absolutely correct, I had just thought it was a spelling error. Thanks for having my back! Josh3580_talk/hist 03:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article editing

--Johnny714 (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Johnny714 Nonconstructive edit is a matter of opinion. There are many bullet points listed in the popular culture section. I don't know how many people have to have heard of something before it's not considered vandalism.I meant no harm. What are the criteria for it to be considered constructive?[reply]

Electric.company.pics

Hello, Mr. Schlesinger has made a few revisions to the previous version of his Bio. His version corrects a few inaccuracies, and also reflects the achievements for which Mr. Schlesinger is most proud, and the life details he would most like to share with the public. If you would like more detail in this matter, please contact me again. In the meantime, please allow me to complete the changes Mr. Schlesinger has requested to his Bio, before contesting them. In all probability, you will find the new version agreeable.

Thank you, Maia Levene — Preceding unsigned comment added byElectric.company.pics (talk •contribs) 18:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You state that you are editing the article at the subject's request, which is in itself a violation of WP:COI and WP:AUTO. Wikipedia is to be an objective source of information, and articles written/edited by or at the request of their subjects are by their very nature biased.Josh3580_talk/hist 18:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking User

Hi, i see you've repeatedly had to reverse vandalism by user samsafc, i think with the amount of times they've vandalised that certain page a move to block them is now required. Thanks --The Mercenary 73 (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Just now noticed you reverted blanking on my userpage - thanks!

It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 19:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(It's a cat-fox?!)

Orz... Easy man.Super Wang 13:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

thank you when i saw it, it didn't make sense to me either — Precedingunsigned comment added by 72.92.25.54 (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

would you just stop your not cool — Preceding unsigned comment added byColin4156 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

I first corrected a statement pretending the GNR had concluded to abduction, which is totally erroneous as shown in the GNR report to the PJ. But you or ? insists in pretending this. Why ? See BBC Panorama broadcast on the 19 of November 2007 (Richard Bilton speaks, there's a transcript on line) : "I have spoken to someone who was staying very close to flat 5A on the night of May 3rd. She says the first that she was aware of a missing child was 10.30 and she's sure of that because she says the BBC 10 o'clock news had just finished. She says that she heard Kate McCann sobbing, repeating over and over again: "We've let her down." She also says that she heard the first Portuguese policeman arrive and he said: "She must have walked out because there's no sign of a break in." It is documented in the PJ Files that Madeleine's parents were convinced she had been abducted. They said (on the phone to friends and family) they found shutters and window jemmied. To the police they stated only those were open. But no sign of passage was found and the only fingerprints on the window were Kate McCann's ones (as established by forensic analysis). Can you tell me whether you're interested in true facts or don't bother ? — Precedingunsigned comment added by Anne Guedes (talk • contribs) 19:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anne Guedes,

Firstly, I want to offer a heartfelt thank you for contributing, it takes a village to maintain Wikipedia. As far as the revert I did on your edit - I am not debating your facts in any way, (I actually know absolutely nothing about the case) however, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (which must be based in hard factual information), you must provide a referenced source for information like this. All content needs to be verifiable at some sort of reliable source. I am simply patrolling for vandalism on Wikipedia, and un-sourced or unexplained addition of content shows up in the tool that I use. If you have a reliable source where you got this information, you can simply cite that information followingWP:Citing sources, and everything will be copacetic. Thank you again for contributing - I really didn't mean to bite! —Josh3580_talk/hist 19:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good ! I don't know how to insert a note number with a source and eventually a link. Anyhow how can I insert a statement that contradicts totally what has been written by someone else ? Example : In this house all cats were black. This is wrong : all cats were grey. How shall I put the true (quoted) statement ? — Preceding unsigned comment added byAnne Guedes (talk • contribs) 20:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Guedes,

To make a footnote, you enter the following:

<ref> ENTER THE REFERENCE DETAILS HERE </ref>

As for what details you need to enter between the <ref> and the </ref> tags, it depends on what type of source you are using - again, read WP:Citing sources. If you are correcting incorrect information in the article, make sure you cite the source, and put in the summary that you are correcting erroneous information with information from a reliable source. Hope this helps! —Josh3580_talk/hist20:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

Josh3580, many thanks for your help ! Anne Guedes (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for this, and any/all vandalism reversions you make, in advance. Best, M∧Ŝc²ħε И_τlk 21:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1937–38 Maltese Premier League

Hello,

That edit was not vandalism, please take another look. 188.129.110.177 (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ivo Sanader

Sorry, would you mind explaining to me why did you revert one my edit? The fact I wrote is proven by external link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by213.103.160.17 (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! Firstly, the link was broken. Here was your original link:[[1]]

I did some research, and was able to find the actual page that you meant to link to [[2]]. This page was a forum post, not a reliable source. That is why your edit was reverted. I appreciate your contributions, but this is an encyclopedia, and reliable sources are so very important to maintainWP:Verifiability.

Josh3580_talk/hist 21:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dunston Federation FC

Hi why cant the redirect be deleted Dunston Federation FC are now known as Dunston UTS FC our sponsors want to see our new name not our old name when it is googled, if you keep puttting the redirect back it is not doing any good to knowone. Cheers Ken — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.215.68 (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you understand redirects... The purpose of this redirect is to take people to the correct article if they enter the old company name. I would understand if the entire article was under the incorrect name, but the redirect simply points people to the correct article. If there are any links anywhere on the internet to the old page, they would be permanently broken without a redirect. I hope this helps.Josh3580_talk/hist 22:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the thing is when someone googles "Dunston UTS FC " our old name "Dunston Federation Brewery FC" is shown as the header on the wiki small section to right of the google results page, people are not clicking on it as we are not called "Dunston Federation FC" or "Dunston Federation Brewery FC" anymore, if its not gonna be changed we would rather our inclusion pages be deleted altoghter from wiki, how do i go about that ? cheers Ken — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clash01 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no control over the information that Google displays. In fact, any change that is made to Wikipedia can take weeks to update in the Google search results. Your issue is with Google's fact-finder, not with Wikipedia. Wikipedia is functioning as designed.Josh3580_talk/hist 22:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, google only shows up results what it finds on websites, have a look here i took a screen shot of what i mean... http://www.flickr.com/photos/kenfitzpatrick/8457164269/sizes/l/in/photostream/ When i google Dunston UTS FC a wikipedia insert is shown on the right hand side of the google page which is indicated in the red circle of my picture that is wikipedia its says so were the red arrow is pointing, in that red cirlcle in big letters is our old name (Dunston Federation Brewery FC)from years ago, now that old name (Dunston Federation Brewery FC) is coming from somewhere within wikipedia not google, all im trying to do is get rid of that old name (Dunston Federation Brewery FC)so our new name "Dunston UTS FC" shows up in the red circle and i know it could take weeks for any changes to show up in google results.

09.42 9th February 2013, cheers Ken — Preceding unsigned comment added byClash01 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clash01, I totally understand what your complaint is, and if I were you, I would sure want that fixed as well. However, it is the Google result that is appearing incorrectly, not the Wikipedia redirect. To explain what I mean, looking at the image you linked to, the title is incorrect, but the rest of the info is correct. You click the Wikipedia link in that info-box, and it takes you to the correct article - which has a different title from the Google result. At the same time, the redirect page you wish to delete does not contain any of the details that appear in the Google result. There is no page on Wikipedia that contains both the incorrect title, and the correct summary. This is Google displaying their result incorrectly (or showing old information for the title), it simply cannot be the one line of redirect code that is causing the fallacious result - they aren't related. I really do understand why you want that Google result to display correctly, but simply deleting the redirect code from that page will not fix the issue. It would just create an orphaned page on Wikipedia. The best suggestions I could find in my research are: 1) searching Google again, and on the info-box that is incorrect, click "Feedback/More Information." That gives you the option of reporting that the title as incorrect. I have already reported it once, but the more times it is reported, the more likely it is that they will fix it. 2) On the same results page, scroll down to the bottom, and click "Give us feedback." That gives you a form where you can leave detailed information about the incorrect title. I have also filled this out once for you. Unfortunately, this is something that has to be resolved through Google - it is probably just cached information on Google's servers that needs to be purged. I hope I am being helpful... —Josh3580_talk/hist 19:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thx for the reply your right, i just thought google was reading the Dunston Federation Brewery FC wiki page first as that was set up first ( i think) then i thought google followed the link to grab more info, i was just trying to delete the link between the two pages thinking this would fix it, cheers and thx for ya time and replies, Ken. — Precedingunsigned comment added by 92.237.215.68 (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk

SorrY with the edits :( I was joking around I won't do it again. :) — Precedingunsigned comment added by 208.87.67.61 (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk

SorrY with the edits :( I was joking around I won't do it again. :) Is this how I talk to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by208.87.67.61 (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CSD A7 at Switch 16

Hi Josh3580, I've removed the CSD tag you placed at Switch 16 because I don't think it meets CSD criteria. I hope that's okay! Criteria A7 only applies to organisations, events, people, animals or web content. See WP:CSD. —Noiratsi (talk)00:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what?

Hey, I deleted the sentence: "Marilyn collapsed on stage in 1960. After eating too much ice cream and ridin around in a tricycle for too long, he still decided to perform on stage. After his collapse, he disappeared. It is said he went back in time in his futuristic bicycle. Just so he could play Call of DUty Modern warfare, because he says all the new ones are super lame and there are too losers on it." from the Marilyn Manson page because it seemed like vandalism to me. Now I'm stuck here trying to understand why you would consider that edit unnecessary... — Preceding unsigned comment added by68.144.45.146 (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for that revert, completely my fault. I have performed a rollback on my revert, and am deleting the warning from this talk page. Sorry again, and thank you for trying to watch out for vandalism.--Josh3580_talk/hist 01:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

12 Feb 2013

do not revert Heterophobia, there is a discussion taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboardthank you kindly3abos 3abos (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is more with the content of the article. While the referenced sources outline events which could be construed asHeterophobia, only the blog posts seem to make that assertion. To me, making this leap constitutesOriginal Research, WP:NPOV, or at least WP:PRIMARY. In addition, blog posts are generally unacceptable for WP:Verifiability.Josh3580_talk/hist 00:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There does not seem to be any "blog posts". Everything is sourced from actual, registered organisations.3abos (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[[3]] is definitely a blog post. I could not find anything about the "Degradation of Religious Liberty" in the article[[4]] you referenced for that. You defined heterosexuality as people who support the traditional definition of marriage. While I support that, I'm afraid that isn't what makes me a heterosexual. Also, the first sentence in the history says that "Heterophobia began during the sexual revolution in the 1960s and takes many forms." Where does that information come from? Again, the events are documented, but not the opinions. That is the problem. This is an encyclopedia, not an opinion site.Josh3580_talk/hist 01:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thank you kindly for your feedback. In terms of[[5]] i have specifically stated that "Many people within the homosexual community", so I have explicitly stated that it is the opinion of others, that is why i have referenced that blog post. In terms of religious liberty i have added other more scholarly references. I will also fixed up the definition of "heterosexual" this may have been my poor writing due to me being afraid that my hard work will be reverted. Thanks Again. 3abos (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NB I am getting confused whether to discuss this issue here or on this talk page.3abos (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Noticeboard would be better, but I would put a link to the noticeboard on the article's[[Talk:Heterophobia|talk page] to be safe. Thank you for understanding where I am coming from. I wasn't debating that Heterophobia does exist, we just have to be careful when writing material that others will use for reference.Josh3580_talk/hist 01:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise i think you for engaging me in this matter. I will put a link on the talk page ASAP. 3abos (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for looking out for my user page. I've shot down a link spammer, and he's not happy about it. Rklawton (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please be fair

You took off what did you think it's attack to the user " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rklawton " from my IP. Great, But he is using his power as auto-confirmed user and took of external link in the page "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquaponics#External_links " and this link was there for so long time.

The link was for specialist website in aquaponics systems, brand of Aquaponics Systems, URL of www.aquaponicssystems.net and rank number 4 all the time in Google in aquaponics systems!! When i returned it back, he took it off again and protected the page!!! In the other side he is putting so weak web sites there and they are not any authority in the filed!!!

As you took off my talking to him can you fix the wrong situation he made? — Precedingunsigned comment added by 41.236.168.76 (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is removing linkspam. The link this user is adding is to a commercial website selling Aquaponics equipment. I semi-protected the page since this user was using multiple IPs to re-add the link. It's pretty cut and dried. Rklawton (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why this website exactly? and where is the problem if the website has store but provides informational unique media !! If that is against the policy of Wikipedia, can you describe to me why you left commercial links in the reference likehttp://www.backyardaquaponics.com/information/45-fish.html EVEN it's COMMERCIAL website and DIED Link, Or your eyes see only www.aquaponicssystems.net !— Preceding unsigned comment added by41.236.168.76 (talk • contribs)

41.236.168.76: I'm confused. You think it was wrong of me to revert your edit [[6]] stating of User:Rklawton, "he is just son of a btch", Simply because he made a revert you disagree with? Perhaps you should have started a conversation on the article's talk page before resorting to Personal attacks. You engaged in VANDALISM, pure and simple, and have no leg to stand on.Josh3580_talk/hist 04:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman Hemsley Misconceptions

The entry for Sherman Hemsley has numerous mistakes throughout. I keep trying to change them, but my corrections keep getting deleted. You ask for a reliable source? Well I am a reliable source. My father Ken Johnston was Sherman's manager from 1979 until his death. Sherman never lived at Flora Enchintons house because she is my fathers girlfriend. I could go on and on. As a matter of fact, the supposed signature of Sherman on the page is actually my hand doing it. If your site doesn't want the truth from someone who actually knows what was going on, then your site is a bigger farce than what most people think.

Steven Johnston — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skjohnston59(talk • contribs) 05:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you can't use yourself as a reliable source. See WP:Verifiability and WP:NOR. All information must be independently verifiable.Josh3580_talk/hist 05:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

user talk pages

Thanks for your hard work patrolling pages, but do please remember to notify article creators of CSD nominations. Dloh cierekim 04:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Ronald Sitepu

Hi Josh, thanks for spotting Christian Ronald Sitepu, however I've changed your tag from A7 to BLPprod. The biggest problem with that article is that it is an utterly unsourced biography of a living person. If it had been sourced then it doesn't meet the A7 criteria because being in the squad of a team like that is an assertion of importance, if he's actually appeared for them then I suspect that an wp:AFD would conclude that he was notable enough for an article. But A7 is for articles that are much clearer deletion cases than that - try looking for "he's a big fan of xxxx" rather than "he's signed to xxxx". Cheers. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TAKE IT EASY!!

Hi guy I have read your message. I'm shocked about Hao123 is tagged to CSD. I mean, I'm busy these days, and I wanna break the big project into small pieces which I can edit at a few times. I'm NOT asking for CSD. Please take it easy and I have acknowledged that I may edit in my sandbox next time till it comes to a shape. Thank you for informing me and believe me, I will create the same article next time with the best attempts. Super Wang 13:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]