User talk:Josh3580/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

References on biography.

Josh a list of published books of this author were cited in the article. Each of these books have been published in hard copy by international and nationally recognised publishers. Each of these books on their hard covers have potted biography of the author. Noel Shaw in Bird and natural history circles is a recognised expert. I wrote it today , because he died today. — Precedingunsigned comment added by Rowe street (talk • contribs) 06:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

My source

Please search Karter Fury on facebook and add me as a friend. Then you can have a look at my friends list and you'll see exactly who my source is. I would like to add that you are posting undocumented rumors, that my friend is called slander and libel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarterFury (talk •contribs) 12:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not exactly how it works, please see WP:Verifiability. Facebook pages or personal knowledge are not consideredverifiable, reliable sources for the purpose of an encyclopedia. I'm sure you are acting in good-faith, but please familiarize yourself with the policies. This article may be of help: Help:Referencing for beginners. Hope this explains things, —Josh3580_talk/hist 16:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Yo

I happened to go to that school, and jono honey happens to be my close friend and local celebrity of the area, considering you are from Texas, please return what I wrote. — Preceding unsigned comment added byDunnagesupervisor27 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not exactly how it works, as this is an encyclopedia. You must cite a verifiable, reliable sourcefor any contributions. Personal knowledge is not a verifiable, reliable source, and all article content must be written from a neutral point of view. Hope this clears things up. —Josh3580_talk/hist 19:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Yo...again

That's ridiculous, if personal knowledge is not "viable" in your eyes, then this whole Encyclopedia is bull. It's created by people on here, by they're on knowledge, to add to it. Just because you think they are wrong doesn't make it so. Who made you the boss of this website?!?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnagesupervisor27(talk • contribs) 20:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I said "verifiable", not "viable". Secondly, no one has made me the boss of anything. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and all of its governing policies are approved by all of us through WP:CONSENSUS. I am a recent changes patroller, who watches the changes to Wikipedia, and tries to make sure that everyone follows the established policies, in the interest of correctness. As for your specific issue, I will again refer you to the established policy WP:No original research. —Josh3580_talk/hist 20:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Brainiacal

You may want to reconsider the warning you left on his talk page. If you look at the section above, you'll see that User:Huon already warned him. Your warning makes it look like he did it twice, which he didn't.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Bbb23 (talk). I completely missed that. I hit "rollback" on my edit. That was entirely my fault. Again, thanks for watching my back! —Josh3580_talk/hist 00:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries. As long as I'm here, I don't think in this instance I would have removed the attack from DMacks's talk page. I understand why you did it, but generally I would remove only vandalism or something really egregious. I can't speak for DMacks, but I prefer to see those kinds of comments and decide for myself whether I want to leave them, remove them, respond to them, whatever. I think that particularly applies to administrator talk pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23 (talk) - I see exactly where you are coming from, I'll keep that in mind in the future. Honestly, I have been on the receiving end of several personal attacks and legal threats during the vandalism uptick over the last few days, and I guess it made me a bit overzealous. I'll be more deliberate in the future. Thank you again, your input is always, always appreciated. —Josh3580_talk/hist 02:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess I'm a talk-page-stalker-stalker here, but I appreciate everyone's actions and comments about this situation. I tend to leave those sorts of messages (it goes away soon anyway via autoarchiving, and I don't want to look like I'm either trying to intentionally hide it or hide from it, and its visibility often speaks loudly to those dealing with the poster), but I don't object to others removing them either as part of their handing of the poster's behavior. Happy editing, all! DMacks (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hillshire Brands

Hello Josh3580, why did you remove the brands link on Hillshire's wiki page? I fine many many similar examples on wikipedia where a companies products are posted in their brands subject heading. Sincerely, Ksenyak — Precedingunsigned comment added by Ksenyak (talk •contribs) 17:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

That is very possible, and such articles would probably need to be cleaned up as well. Please see WP:ELNO, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTLINK. A list of the products may be appropriate, with links to the products' Wikipedia articles, but an exhaustive list of external links to product pages is not. Many of your other edits to the article were helpful, however. Please don't take this as a disincentive to contribute to the article. It was just that one edit (that I noticed) which had issues. I hope this helps explain my reasoning. —Josh3580_talk/hist 17:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Understand and thanks for the guidance and instruction. Appreciate the help! Sincerely, Ksenyak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksenyak (talk •contribs) 17:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Luis Miguel Tour

As I explained to the other user, no template or content was removed from this article. IF you chose to look at the diffs, you'll see any information that I changed or added had a source attached to it. I don't get you editors who choose to act high and mighty and blindly revert edits. 50.152.18.168 (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, please keep your comments limited to the content, as opposed to the contributors (e.g.:"high and mighty"). Also, you DID remove several templates, replacing them with single lines. You left no edit summary to explain why you believed that those templates should not be included. This is why your edits were reversed. —Josh3580_talk/hist 18:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

new page

Hello Josh,

I am new to wikipedia. I observed that I had created the page 5 months ago, but it was still not online and searchable.

I though something is wrong with my account. So I have created a new wiki account and has posted the same post with many chnages on a new account. You can check it now on

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mag_drill

Let me know, if I have done all correct or not?

regards Rohan

Kona Lanes

This article is "finished" from my standpoint, so I've listed it for peer review, hoping to get feedback from others who may find the subject of interest. Feel free to add your opinions if you so desire, with my thanks. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 06:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Aryana Sayeed

Sorry Josh, im new to wikipedia. I see I made some mistakes here and there. Here is my article with references The reason why there are some facebook pages is because afghan artists are still very new and dont have official websites where they communicate. They all use facebook pages as their official pages. I workes really hard on the article please review it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lailasamadi (talk •contribs) 00:05, 21 January 2014‎

You need to familiarize yourself with the following policies: WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources, WP:No original research. Any contributions you add must be supported by a verifiable, reliable source. If you do not have such a source, you should not add the content. This is an encyclopedia, and must be based on external sources, like news articles. "Personal knowledge" or Facebook pages do not meet the community-set standard. Hope this helps. —Josh3580_talk/hist 00:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Aryana Sayeefd Again

ok I copletely undestand your point. No one writes about afghan artists in the news. How am I supposed to find news articles. It's a war torn country and I feel the Artists that contrubute positively should get a mention in the encyclopaedia. These are not random pages, i have included video proof and the facebook pages are official. They are not simple user pages, so I comply with the rules here. Thanks for your quick response. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lailasamadi (talk • contribs) 00:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Just make sure you read those policies I referred you to. Your response indicates that you still don't understand completely. YouTube is a questionable source at best, and Facebook pages are never considered verifiable, reliable sources, even if they are official Facebook pages. I'm sorry you are having trouble finding news articles about the artists, but this suggests they may not meet thenotability guidelines. I'm glad you are so eager to contribute, but please familiarize yourself with the rules first. —Josh3580_talk/hist 00:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Editing the last topics

Hello Josh, The information that I edited (actually deleted) is not relevant to Dr. Mannan's biographical information. If you read that portion you will be able to understand. It was added intentionally to direct other people in wrong direction. Moreover, the information that I edited was wrong previously. The reference that was given at the end is not correct for these information. I had a huge respect and dependence on wikipedia. But after seeing these misguiding things on webpage I am disappointed and lost my faith on wiki. Moreover, I would like to request wiki to add information, especially history and life story, to check through proper reference.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by174.48.152.33 (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should start a discussion on the article's talk page if you are unable to cite a source for your edit. —Josh3580_talk/hist 00:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Aryana Sayeed

Please take a look again: [1] Thanks --Frze ^{> talk} 12:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

/* Substitute hosts */

The reason why I changed it because it was a duplicate. — Precedingunsigned comment added by 24.63.116.184 (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Fooda

Josh, did you read this: http://www.builtinchicago.org/blog/startup-month-fooda

We're a viable startup in Groupon founder Eric Lefkofskys Lightbank space. Please feel free to help me with hyperlinks on the page I created, but I believe it to be a legitimate entry as I work here and we are growing rapidly. Thanks. — Precedingunsigned comment added by Strandyfranch (talk •contribs) 17:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The question isn't whether the company is viable, but whether it meets the WP:CORP standard. Also, please see the following policy:Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. These standards have been adopted by community consensus. Hope this explains things. —Josh3580_talk/hist 17:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I will read the standards. I just figured that if 'Black Twitter' could have its own page as a 'cultural phenomenon', tour group of hard-working individuals turning more of a profit than Twitter as a company ever has, could allow our clients and partners access to our history via the web's best source for information. Just saying Josh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strandyfranch (talk • contribs) 14:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The difference is in the establishment of WP:NOTE with multiple, verifiable sources. It may seem like a silly article to both of us, but it has met the guidelines to establish notability and verifiability. Just saying. —Josh3580_talk/hist 14:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok sounds good. Sorry for not following SOP, I was simply providing the third party sourcing that WP:NOTE referenced. It doesn't seem silly to me, I understand it. But if I follow the new route you've suggested, provide the sourcing, and elaborate more in depth on the organization and am still turned down; I'm coming back to your talk page. Have a good one and thanks for your help. — Precedingunsigned comment added by Strandyfranch (talk •contribs) 21:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed the links you posed on my page, the article was the place for those, not my talk page. I see that the article has since been deleted, so an Administrator agreed with my recommendation. Try starting an article at WP:Articles for Creation. Here, you can work on the article, and then submit it to the community for revising and approval. You would have a better chance taking that route, as other editors can help you meet the requirements needed if the company indeed is notable enough to warrant its own article. —Josh3580_talk/hist 20:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Song Quach

Hello Josh3580,

I realize that your goal here is to promote credibility and accuracy. I also realize that my page regarding Song Quach probably seems antagonistic to this goal, but I implore you to let the page survive. A lack of sources makes it seem like a no-brainer "speedy deletion," but Song Quach's name deserves recognition on this database.

Thank you, Amienieto00 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amienieto00(talk • contribs) 01:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you answered yourself here. The lack of sources and notability are what qualifies it for deletion under the community-adopted guidelines. To clarify, I will not make the final decision on deletion, I only recommend it. An Administrator will review the recommendation, and delete it only if appropriate. —Josh3580_talk/hist 01:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Pretty sure it's a hoax--"Imma Cutchu, Bitch"? Drmies (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you as always for reviewing my request, Drmies (talk), and agreed. I felt silly searching for that string in Google, and found nothing, as expected. —Josh3580_talk/hist 02:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Noooo now no one will know the Song Quach story... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amienieto00 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Lion vs Tiger

So you reverted to a less reliable and constructive vision?

State your reasons for reverting a unreliable revert, for in the lion vs tiger section I gave mine for removing it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tiger_versus_lion

Whats yours? oh yeah, you have none, so change it back. — Preceding unsignedcomment added by Golden Prime (talk • contribs) 03:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Normally I would invite you to start a discussion on the article's talk page, and inform you of the WP:3rr policy, but your block history tells me that you are already aware of these things. Don't know what else to suggest at this point, you don't seem very receptive to the idea ofWP:CONSENSUS. —Josh3580_talk/hist 03:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Chris19231 and "his" images

Chris19231 is a liar and forger. File:Open Europe's London Office.jpg is not his own as he wrote but File:FaithHouseTuftonStreet.jpeg. File:William Hague Open Europe.jpg and File:George Osborne Open Europe speech.jpg are not his own but copyright violation. I added the source of this images in commons and requested speedy deletion. This images were always deleted see [2] [3]. It seems to me me that Chris19231 should be warned and / or blocked. Thanks --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frze (talk •contribs) 15:01, 22 January 2014‎

Frze, you may want to make a report at WP:AN/I, if you feel that an administrator needs to intervene. I am not an administrator, just a rollbacker like yourself. I agree that the user seems to be inclined to make unconstructive/misrepresentative contributions, but there really is no action that I can take myself. Again, a submission to WP:AN/I would probably be your best bet. Be careful with the name-calling, though. While your comments are not incorrect, they could be construed as personal attacks, and I would hate for theWP:BOOMERANG to get you, as I know you are trying to do the right thing. —Josh3580_talk/hist 15:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - I need to calm down. Best wishes to you --Frze ^{> talk} 15:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Marc Morano

Josh, Thank you for your interest in my comments. I would ask that you please specify what was not referenced. Everything I added was referenced appropriately. I would add that you please actually investigate before making comments so this would not have been a waste of your time.Jvaughters (talk)

I don't see any inline citations to your additions. If it is already covered by a cited source, you need to add an inline citation after your sentence which references said source, or at least explain so in your edit summary. Also, you are also adding external links into the body of the article, which is not appropriate; external links belong in the "External links" section. I would suggest that you actually familiarize yourself with the policies before criticizing other editors. —Josh3580_talk/hist 16:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough Josh, I admit I am new to the editing concerning the links in the body. Concerning the reference, I merely added to the already referenced source. I find too often that one sided views are referenced to a source and merely add more accurate comments. I find it a bit hypocritical that you asked me to use the talk page when I have edited it now 3 times with no response including you. I am not sure how you can claim the previous statement to the one I edited is of higher quality. I am waiting for the argument and I will not back down on my addition. It is accurate, sourced and I removed an author's personal opinion, which is indisputable as a no no! So by all means please bring this argument to the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvaughters(talk • contribs) 17:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Josh, Again thank you for informing me of some of the policies concerning edit wars. I am new to the editing, but I have to admit, I have done what you said in the past about working on the talk page first and have gotten no where, because the article is not big enough for many to care, so if you do not change the article you will not get a response. In this case I was getting reverted with no discussion on talk page. I hope to be a valid contributor and I will be a little more patient on waiting for responses, but I would hope that others will engage without just a flip of the switch and poor excuse and not even defend their arguments on the talk page. Jvaughters (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If your information was already covered by an existing source, you need to put that in your edit summary when you make changes. You should also give the discussion time for others to contribute; unfortunately, WP:CONSENSUS can be a slow process, but the outcome is usually the most correct. As for me being hypocritical, (besides the fact that you are commenting on me personally instead of the content, notice that I have not done the same), I am not familiar with the subject, which is why I haven't contributed to the discussion - I don't have "a dog in the fight". The burden of proof regarding edits belongs to the editor adding content, not the editor reverting it. I am a recent changes patroller, which means I watch the feed of recent changes to ALL pages, regardless of topic, and I am trying to be sure no one is vandalising pages, advertising, adding unsourced content, or violating any number of Wikipedia's community-developed policies. My only interest is in correctness, fairness, and reliability. Again, please make sure that you explain things very clearly in your edit summary, because we RC patrollers can see that as we are checking through the recent changes, and if you had said something like "added additional information from the following listed source", you probably would not have been reverted in the first place. I honestly value your desire to contribute - it takes people like that to continue improving the content - but please familiarize yourself with the policies, and do your best to work with the community to improve things byWP:CONSENSUS. Don't take this kind of thing so personally, Wikipedia is not about winning. Thanks again, —Josh3580_talk/hist 20:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Josh, Thanks for the advice, I will improve going forward on my community efforts. — Precedingunsigned comment added by Jvaughters (talk •contribs) 20:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Spencer Luckey

Hi Josh, I've already added content to the talk page of Spencer Luckey that discusses the charges made by Randor1980. We've already had discussions on his talk page after he deleted and redirected the page. I've addressed his concerns and he has not responded, but continues to impose his opinion on the page with the template. Engaging in discussion about the article is one thing, but (effectively) vandalizing it with the template is another. I intend to take the template down but will give you and Randor some time to respond before I do.Hillbillyhoboken (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I reviewed it, and removed all but the WP:N template. Once you have satisfied WP:CREATIVE, that one can be removed as well. Keep in mind that these tags are not criticisms of the article, only requests to improve it. Please don't see them as some sort of "mark of shame." There are many very good articles that still have tags, as there is still room for improvement. Thanks for taking the time to discuss it, a lot of editors in your situation decide to edit war, and find themselves blocked. You did the right thing. —Josh3580_talk/hist 21:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Edits

My edits are correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added byMohsmmed123456 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Mine too! Which article? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the giggle, Demiurge1000 (talk). To Mohsmmed123456, the accuracy of your edit to Raunds is not the problem. The problem is that you did not cite a verifiable, reliable[[WP:CS|source] for your contribution. —Josh3580_talk/hist 22:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Markus Raetz

It's not an article for speedy deletion. Please consider this. He has got really important sculptures. Major Wikis have it. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikis are not verifiable, reliable sources for establishing WP:Notability, as anyone can create any article, just like you did here. The fact that someone has created an article doesn't make the subject notable, per the community adopted standards. Please see the WP:ARTIST policy - it explains exactly what standards must be met. If the article explained how the artist meets those criteria, supported by verifiable, reliable sources, then it would not be eligible for speedy deletion. I would recommend submitting the article to WP:Articles for creation, where other editors can assist you in getting the article ready before it is posted into the main space. As far as the deletion of the current article, it will be up to a Wikipedia Administrator to review it, and decide if it qualifies for speedy deletion. Hope this helps, —Josh3580_talk/hist 02:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I added some .edu links. There are plenty more about the artist. He's not a pop star. Understanding the notability lies in searching deep. Try .edu sites and major art platforms. Thanks.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Porto

Thank you for being polite with me.

The city of Porto is called "cidade invicta" because it has never been conquered, the word "invicta" means unconquered or undefeated.

I hope there are more modders like yourself out there, not like Derth, he clearly doesn't care if the information contained here is correct or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by80.120.96.150 (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. I hope you understand why your comment, "The information contained in this page is all wrong," was inappropriate. If there is incorrect information in an article, then be WP:BOLD, and fix it, as long as you cite a verifiable, reliable[[WP:CS|source] for your contribution. —Josh3580_talk/hist 02:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Possible BLP violation

Hi Josh3580 I do think it is worth looking at the placement of the second paragraph of lead at the Denham article, since allegations were never proven. What do you think? Flat Out let's discuss it 04:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You are probably right, per WP:BLPCRIME. I don't think that editor understood the whole concept of WP:CONSENSUS. But gaining consensus is tricky, as I would hate to "collude" with another editor. ;-)  —Josh3580_talk/hist 04:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I have boldly moved the paragraph into a new section, even though Ceekay215 was going about things the wrong way they did have a point re: placement of the paragraph. Cheers Flat Out let's discuss it 04:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Declined speedy

Hey, just a heads up to let you know that I declined the speedy at Markus Raetz. I do think that notability is still in question, but the exhibitions are enough to just squeak by a speedy deletion. I do see where he has an article on other WP sites where there is more sourcing, such as here. In any case, there's enough notability to where this would probably have to be a speedy deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not vandalism.

It's not vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by71.96.69.249 (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about this edit. Blanking pages without discussion or explanation is always vandalism. —Josh3580_talk/hist 16:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Holy Mountain (band)

I declined the speedy deletion of the article as they meet criteria number 5 of WP:BAND. While their second full album is yet to be released, they do have a single released by the label along with their first album. I also think that being signed with a known label and having released an album with them gives the band some notability. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review it. Much appreciated. —Josh3580_talk/hist 17:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Haworth Pottery edits

Thanks. I wasn't so much "editing" as trying to upload onto the page a photo image. Easy enough to move it from my pc to Commons but even following instructions failed to get it onto the page. Suggestions?S2308rasc (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Pink Moon

Hi - although it's not me making the edits adding the Pitchfork review of Pink Moon, technically speaking the people doing it are correct that the link gives the album 10/10. The overall score of 8.5 is for the Tuck Box box set as a whole, but if you look underneath the album cover they also give individual scores for each of the five albums included in the box set, which give the overall average of 8.5 (8.6 actually, but I'm not going to argue with Pitchfork's maths). Whether a score taken from part of a box set rather than the individual album should be included in the reviews is another matter... Richard3120 (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Teide National Park

Josh,

Thanks for the tips. I noticed that the wiki article on TNP was not only inaccurate regarding its status as the second most visited national park in the world, but that this was easily verifiable based on park service stats. It actually led me to create a user account on wikipedia. Before I created my account I put the NPS and UK Parks links on the Teide NP Talk page as verifiable statistics for all to see. I will try to explain what I'm doing a little more clearly going forward!

Everytime I remove the incorrect language, someone from the Canary Islands (usually the island of Tenerife) tries to put the language back in. It's a little frustrating, to say the least...

Drytortugas19 (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary deletion of Article about musician Maral Salmassi (23rd of January 2014)

Cheers Josh3580,

Yesterday, I wrote a small article about a high profile singer, performer, DJ, label manager (of several label imprints) and overall very well respected german / iranian music scene protagonist named Maral Salmassi. I tried to keep the text as clear and factful as possible. There is no promotional talk, I tried to stay true to the facts. The image I used is free for use in wikipedia etc.

I cannot reach this article anymore and you or your bot deleted it. The problem is, I cannot see any reason why this should be not legitimate. She is a very busy, very influencal musician and she worked with many, many well-established and respected producers known in the german and even international club and music scene. One example being the work with DEICHKIND who are absolute pop stars here in germany, which on the other hand is still the second largest music market in the world!

She is in this business and art for almost 20 years!

Here's some copy to proove me right:

(Redacted by User:Josh3580)

Can you plese revert the deletion?

Thank you in advance,

Robert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsbaird (talk • contribs) 17:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

An administrator deleted the page, as it did not meet the guidelines for an article. I would suggest submitting an article to WP:AfC, this will allow the community to help you get the page up to snuff before posting it in the Article namespace. —Josh3580_talk/hist 18:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, you may contact the deleting administrator, User:Anthony Bradbury (talk), to retrieve the deleted content. —Josh3580_talk/hist 18:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hi The user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jsqqq777 is engaged in vandalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lie_Metchnikoff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fyodor_Pirotsky — Preceding unsignedcomment added by 193.169.80.41 (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

And you are engaged in an edit war. Please see WP:3RR. —Josh3580_talk/hist 18:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

message

What is this? I am not asking/apologizing you. I am apologizing this user Jim, not you. I am apologizing him, not rebuke, Understand.103.9.114.58 (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I was just trying to answer your question about citing sources. I hope it was helpful to you, I definitely meant no offense by responding to you on Jim1138's talk page. Just trying to help you out, and guide you to the answer to your question. —Josh3580_talk/hist 05:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not need you help, understand. No need for your helpful. Very busy with Jim. 103.9.114.58 (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, I was trying to help. —Josh3580_talk/hist 05:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Help

It looks like a blowup occured. Not sure what to recommend here. Probably a lot of work and I'm about to go to bed. He does seem eager. "I know Jim's work here"? If you thought me a hack & slash kind of editor, you would likely be close to the truth! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Thanks, Jim1138 (talk).

Yeah, I know your work (in simplified English), since I see your edits so often. I don't know what's up here, but the guy has taken a left turn into aggressiveness. I'm about to hit the sack myself, tho. Thank goodness for WP:CONSENSUS. Cheers to you as well, man. —Josh3580_talk/hist 06:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Trinity School at Greenlawn

Would you be so kind as to explain exactly what content you believe was removed? 24.225.67.106 (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of an explanation I feel justified in reverting your revert of my edit. 24.225.67.106(talk) 07:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, 24.225.67.106 (talk). I'm sorry I didn't respond, I had gone to bed when you wrote me. I see now that you simply moved content around, instead of removing it - my mistake. However, you left no explanation for your changes in the edit summary. In the future, be sure you explain your changes clearly in the edit summary, so other editors understand why you made the changes you did. —Josh3580_talk/hist 15:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Fremont High School (Indiana)

Please refrain from reverting constructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Fremont High School (Indiana). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. — Precedingunsigned comment added by 24.225.67.106 (talk) 06:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

24.225.67.106 (talk), I am aware of the WP:V policy, and that was not vandalism. You didn't explain your change in your edit summary. If you had done so, it wouldn't have been reverted. Please make sure you clearly explain your changes in the edit summary field when you make significant changes to an article. —Josh3580_talk/hist 15:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

SD of GBE

Hey Josh! I was just contacting you to ask for help on the article that I wrote for SD of Chief Keef's Glory Boyz Entertainment. — Preceding unsigned comment added byMalcolmrevere (talk • contribs) 06:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "JetsterPack"

Hi, Josh3580

I noticed that my page "JetsterPack" has been deleted permanently from Wikipedia for "advertising or promotional material". Anyway, if I may ask can I create another page with the same title "jetsterpack" in Wikipedia and of course different content will be put?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efrizzz (talk • contribs) 07:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Wikipedia doesn't exist so that you can promote your blog. Flat Out let's discuss it 08:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

70.27.194.189

I don't see anything wrong with the "content" that could be called vandalism - however, I have blocked them for edit-warring. Please recognize that vandalism has a strict definition. Edit-warring should be reporting to WP:AN/3RR DP 11:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, DP, I wasn't exactly sure which noticeboard was most appropriate. I know it wasn't exactly vandalism, but when I went to fill out another 3RR report, I found myself leaving a lot of fields blank, so I went to AI/V. Sorry for reporting it in the wrong place. Thank you for the guidance, much appreciated, I know what to do in the future. —Josh3580_talk/hist 15:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Government

I completely agree with your reverts but please watch WP:3RR. If the IP reverts again, I will report them to WP:3RRNB. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN ^{talk to me} for the caution, I am at 3 reverts now. I also started a discussion on the article's talk page, if you do report the user, you may include it in your report. —Josh3580_talk/hist 16:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Reported and included. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I amended in good spirit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abid masood malik (talk • contribs) 17:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

puzzled by speedy deletion

regarding Joseph S. Fichera.... I'd like to hear a bit more about why this article was found to be obvious advertising or promotion. It was a first-time submission, so I'd appreciate any guidance. Of course, I read the various wiki pages of guidance before submitting. I can easily shorten the article, ( especially wonder about all the early life and education stuff -- it was in other biographic entries but I wonder if it was too much for someobody whose worthiness of an article is based on the business career. I thought there was an obvious neutral tone, with no statements beyond those verifiable through various outside sources, including NYT, Wall Street Journal, Institutional Investor... An article of mine, written while I was at Bloomberg News, is also cited. I made certain to include criticism and failures of Mr. Fichera, both to demonstrate neutrality, but also because he has raised the hackles of other bankers, even if he's not a household name. I recently retired from 30 years of financial journalism. I wanted to try my hand at this, and thought Fichera was worthy. Michael QuintMichael Quint (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

First, the page will be reviewed by an Administrator before it is deleted, this is simply a notification of my opinion of the article. You did a great job of citing sources, but your tone read more like a résumé than an encyclopedia article. What I would recommend (if an Administrator actually deletes the article), is to go to Articles for Creation, and submit your article there. That will give the community a chance to assist you with the tone, and get it up to snuff. I value your contribution, but Wikipedia has very strict rules on promotion. Again, WP:AfC would be your best path. —Josh3580_talk/hist 05:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

aecb

I just edited the aecb page and you deleted it!! please put it back Simon Kember AECB webmaster — Preceding unsigned comment added by82.36.190.248 (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Please cite a verifiable, reliable source for your contribution. —Josh3580_talk/hist 16:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Attention

Where would you consider to be a better article for a quote about grits and the nature of the consumption of grits by those who live in the south?Hella New Thing (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Your movie quote might belong in the My Cousin Vinny article, but a quote from a film is not a verifiable, reliablesource for information about the food. —Josh3580_talk/hist 17:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Even a film that is baaed on a true story? Hella New Thing (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, even then. The film was not exactly a documentary about grits. —Josh3580_talk/hist 17:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I would be inclined to argue that the entire plot hinges on the consumption of grits. Two innocent men would have gone to the chair if the witness in question had eaten Instant Grits that morning for breakfast. Hella New Thing (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hah, I completely agree with you on that. I'm quite familiar with the plot, it's actually one of my favorite films. But again, it is not averifiable, reliable source for the purpose of making assertions in the article about grits. If you really think it should be included, I would start a discussion on the article's talk page, and if you gain WP:CONSENSUS with other editors, it can be included. —Josh3580_talk/hist 17:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

hey

Im so sorry, I was copying it then pressed backspace by accident, im SO sorry — Precedingunsigned comment added by 81.157.236.155 (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

If you accidentally backspaced, why did you click Save? —Josh3580_talk/hist 21:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

sand painting...

New content on sand painting is all sourced and linked

It seems to be some of the only in-line references on the page. Many references at the bottom of the page are deleted or bad links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasunitu (talk • contribs) 20:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Unconditionally

Stop messing with unconditionally. — Preceding unsigned comment added byEtrata93 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6