User talk:Josh3580/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Arizona Page

The Judaism addition was not vandelism but taken directly from the same source as the the other compiled information. It is accurate to the reference provided that all the other data was also obtained from and should be included to support a non-christian neutral pov. The Arizona Jewish community is the fastest growing in N. America, and while I feel the stats were way too low I did not dispute the numbers that were provided in the reference provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vchapman (talk • contribs) 04:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Stern warning

Do not sign your edits with another user's name - especially when that user is a bot which ceased operation in July. Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry bout that guys, got the link from the Vandalism tools site. I will cease using that tool. Thanks for the tips!!

Josh3580 07:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about that vandalism in the Winter Greetings Page. It won't happen again. 24.34.109.34 08:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Holy of Holies (LDS)

Hi. On Holy of Holies (LDS), you stated that you were changing the links because:

Del link to the Holy of Holies in Judaism. This page is the article for the LDS Holy of Holies (subj. of sentence), so a link to the Jewish subject is not appropriate.

&

Corrected other links to Holy of Holies, when it doesn't match the sentence subj matter. Added a Holy of Holies link where it would apply.

I'd like to point out that links to Holy of Holies is appropriate because the Holy of Holies article encompasses all religious traditions, including both Judaism and LDS.

For example, please see the intro to the article where it states: A Holy of Holies is the most sacred place within a sacred building. In Judaism, it refers to the inner sanctuary of the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem which could be entered by the High Priest only on Yom Kippur. Holy of Holies are also found within Egyptian Architecture, as well as within temples and churches of other faiths and traditions, to include the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the Latter-day Saints, and Hinduism.

The one link you left/created is misleading because it simply refers to "inner sanctuary" which could or could not be taken to mean a Holy of Holies. Because of this, I am reverting your changes. Best, --Rojerts 21:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries on that article. Regards, --Rojerts 03:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What was this about?

[1]? A Huggle bug, or what? I'm trying to WP:AGF here. Philip Trueman (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that. Probably an ID10T error. I just installed Huggle, so I imagine I clicked the wrong thing. I was trying to remove that vandalism, and ended up putting it back in! It'll just take some getting used to, I'm used to Lupin's tool. Thanks for checking with me, quite an embarrassment! Josh3580 (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

OK - no harm done. Philip Trueman (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Summaries

[2] Actually you reverted edits by 98.196.191.191 to last version by Simonxag. Which is correct (but not what you wrote). --Simon Speed (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

And here's another [3] - the revert is right but the edit summary is wrong. Philip Trueman (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I had the incorrect variables in my template, there may be a few more lurking out there. I feel like a freakin newbie again! Josh3580 (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• I just noticed this one on Homer, Alaska: " (Reverted unexplained removal of content by $2 to last version by $1 (HG))" I thought it was a joke I just wasn't getting till I saw the above message. Beeblbrox (talk) 05:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Cyndi links

Your putting links to Reviews of Bring Ya To The Brink on the main page - they should go on the specific Bring Ya To The Brink Page. As for the article - if every article was linked to we would have hundreds of links. Does not make any sense. 70.153.171.200 (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ebay reversion

Are you working for ebay? Or perhaps a sympathizer?

I added that information because to date there is absolutely NO evidence of any kind that they captured THE vladuz, not to mention there has been no additional information regarding capture, trial, conviction, etc.

FIRST, ebay did it's damnest to stifle the incident when it was happening, using outright lies to explain what was happening. THEN, they claim "Vladuz" was caught, yet other than the arrest there is nothing further ANYWHERE (and yes, I've checked with a number of Romanian sources - who've told me the guy they claimed is Vladuz is not even in jail!).

I would ask you to leave it up this time.

75.8.38.39 (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to this edit[4]. I'll leave it up, simply because it is not worth an argument. I have no opinion on this topic. If you were to look at my contributions, you would see that I am a recent changes patroller. As I was patrolling, you added what appeared to be a unreferenced statement in an extremely biased tone, which I removed. In time, all of the data will become clear and documented, and the Wikipedia community will keep the article updated.Josh3580 (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ursula Caberta

Hi I'm not sure why you reverted my recent edit [5] as there doesn't appear to be any sources for the comments that I removed as the source quoted only refers to the charges being dropped and the fine. Felixmeister (talk) 03:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies on that revert, I didn't look closely enough. I have undone my reversion. Thanks for letting me know! Josh3580 (talk) 04:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You Sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. A credit to wikipedia. Felixmeister (talk) 04:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Bot

Once it's approved for testing, it will be unblocked by a BAG member, yes. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, can you just clarify if you do want to withdraw your request? Thanks, ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 03:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've closed and withdrawn your request. Take care, ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 04:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Shook, Hardy, & Bacon

You tagged this page for speedy deletion (as I was still writing it). Then you removed the tag, but still left the boilerplate template message on my talk page.

I'm trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of law firms for WP:LAW. You mind explaining what you are trying to do here? --Eastlaw (talk) 06:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I was on RP patrol, and should have gone the discussion route. I had already reverted the edit, but forgot to revert your talk page. Consider that done. I sincerely appreciate anything you do to contribute and improve Wikipedia, and honestly apologize for being a stumbling block.Josh3580^HG_{u / t / c} 06:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem dude, we all make mistakes. It's just that I get a bit crabby because too many folks around here have an itchy trigger finger about speedy deletion whenever they see an article about a business. I got so ticked off about it a couple of weeks ago that I actually wrote an essay on it.

Cheers! --Eastlaw (talk) 07:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

trixbox

I am completely lost as to why my page was tagged as advertisement when it is not. It is almost identical to the Elastix page that I used as a template to make sure I adhered to the rules. I would appreciate a comment as to why this project gets flagged so quickly when similar projects do not. Thanks. Kerrygarrison (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

First, thank you for contributing the article in the first place! I tagged the page, because it DOES read like an advertisement. There is no information listed, other than product features and product naming. There are also no external references, other than the company's websites. See WP:Verifiability. I did not tag the article as Speedy Deletion-G11, as I have personally worked with trixbox (from the user end), and I would love to see the article continue to develop. You have done nothing wrong, I am honestly stoked that you began the article, but the current content is still lacking. Keep working on it when you can, and hopefully the tag will draw other editors to work their magic as well. --Josh3580_{user / talk / hist} 22:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of trixbox

I really need some help here. I added citations, external links, and it still got deleted although our competitor Elastix was virtually identical it has never been flagged and deleted as fast. trixbox is an open source project of significant size and deserves to have a page about it but I apparently need some additional guidance as to why trixbox gets deleted and projects like Elastix do not. Thanks. Kerrygarrison (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

Hey there, I see the article did get deleted. I do have a suggestion, however. I found a good source for a starting point, from which you could glean some information to rewrite the article. review of trixbox If you would like to get the info back from the article that was deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Also, while you are working on the page, you might want to put in the {{inuse}} template at the top. This might discourage hasty deletions. Hope this helps! --Josh3580_talk/hist 19:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Lincoln Theatre Guild

I do beleive that we meet the notability issues as we have been extenesevly covered by local media and have been considered for state and regional awards. Thank you Streetdoc270 (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Live Action (non-profit) page

Hi Josh,

I think you were the administrator who first marked the "Live Action (non-profit)" page I created as a candidate for speedy deletion. I wanted to get some more details from you as to the reasoning behind this, and run a few thoughts of my own by you.

From what I can tell, the big criterion for maintaining a Wikipedia page on any organization versus deleting it is "notability," which the Wikipedia:Notability page defines as being "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources."

The student investigations into Planned Parenthood concerning statutory rape non-reporting and acceptance of racist donations both gathered significant media coverage at the time the stories broke. The racism project especially was widely reported on in newspapers in Idaho (where recordings for the main video took place), and inspired two rallies of African-American pastors that also received significant media coverage. The investigations were also featured on several FOX News segments. You can find links to the videos at www.youtube.com/LiveActionFilms.

Do you contest that these qualify as "notable"? These investigations are apparently notable enough to be mentioned in the "Controversy and criticism" section of Planned Parenthood's article.

However, I recognize that the name of the group behind all of these, "Live Action," was not mentioned in reporting nearly as extensively as the name of the UCLA student magazine, The Advocate, that first reported the investigations, or the name of the woman who created and executed all of them, Lila Rose. Would it be more justified, then, to create a Wikipedia entry for "The Advocate (student magazine)" or "Lila Rose (student activist)"? It seemed to me to make more sense to combine all of this into one article on the meta organization responsible for performing the investigations and first publicizing them.

What are your thoughts? You are a much more experienced Wikipedia user than I am.

Thanks!

TextMaker3 (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)TextMaker3

Hi there. I'm not really a topic expert, just basically on the "clean-up crew" for Wikipedia. However, in response to your question, if it has been mentioned more often, you might have better luck creating an article about "The Advocate," I'm honestly not sure. The main catch is that you find some sort of reliable reference to put in your article; a news story, etc. As long as there is something reliable as a reference, it should meet the inclusion guidelines. Again, a great article to check out is here: guide to writing your first article. Find some sort of media report on the event, and be sure to include it in your article. Let me know if I can help any more!
--Josh3580^HG_{user / talk / hist} 19:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Kentucky paté

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kentucky paté, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kentucky paté. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Movingboxes (talk) 04:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Toilet-claw deletion

What exactly was wrong with the toilet-claw article you deleted? I was careful to model that page after the toothcomb primate stub so that the Ring-tailed lemur page that was referencing it would have something explaining this anatomical feature. I even referenced a journal article for the basic information. I don't see how it could've been considered gibberish. I was even planning to add much more detailed information to the page at a later date, and then removing its stub status. If there's a proper procedure for creating a new page that I've somehow overlooked, please point it out. But the information was not redundant, nor was it gibberish. Visionholder (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Why was this article deleted? The article was deleted before I had a chance to see it, but based on my interactions with Visionholder it's hard to believe that he would have written an article on an important lemur topic that was "nonsense and gibberish". Were there copvios or BLP issues that warranted speedy deletion? And if so, why was this not given as the reason for the deletion? And if you did not understand the article, why speedy delete it rather than give those who are familiar with the subject an opportunity to comment? Rlendog (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've asked the admin who deleted it to review that decision. --Amalthea^Talk 18:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Restored, thanks for the heads-up. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorta new to this all.

On the page I recently Made Dave Barry Turns 40 you set it as unreferenced. What would I reference? The book it' s self? Ow? EvangelionTesttype (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

First, thanks for contributing! Starting your own article is a great way to Be Bold! Maybe you could find a review on the book, I'm almost positive there's one out there. You could reference the review, or maybe a press release from when the book came out. Just something out there (probably from the media) that verifies the existence and topic of the book. Just make sure that your content matches the information in your reference. Hope this helps! -- Josh3580_{user / talk / hist} 23:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Erik Mana

Hi
You tagged Erik Mana as a CSD#A7 importance/significance not asserted, although the article said that he was a TV magician, which is more than enough. I removed you speedy tag.
Cheers & happy patrolling, Amalthea^Talk 17:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

re: Deletion of "Elantech"

Thank you very much for removing my article. I'm sorry I wasted your time with it, and I'll certainly try to remember the guidelines of Wikipedia the next time I try to create an article. Although that wasn't actually my first article. Miquonranger03 (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Huggle

Could you possibly not link to Wikipedia:Huggle in your signature? It means that every talk page you edit links there, which makes it hard to find which pages are linking to it for legitimate reasons (such as mentioning a problem with it), which I need to keep an eye on. Thanks -- Gurch (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I have removed the links to both Huggle and AWB. I wasn't thinking about that situation. Thanks for the heads up! --Josh3580_{user / talk / hist} 23:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Gary Chan"

I think you have misuderstood this "Gary Chan" with the previous one. This "Gary Chan" is a Hong Kong pro-Beijing politician while the previous one was not. I suggest you may recover this paragraph to allow our editors to comment on it. Ricky@36 (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible Huggle edit summary bug?

I've just left a comment at Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback/Archive 6#Edit_summary_bug.3F after seeing your edit to Edward Elgar. Regards, JRawle (Talk) 21:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Huggle

One of the customized edit summaries in your user configuration misspells "Contributions" as "Contrubitions"; you may want to fix this. Also note that at the moment Huggle doesn't replace $1 and $2 in a manually entered summary with the appropriate values, thus those summaries come out like this, though I can make it do so if this is desired -- someone would have to ask first, though -- Gurch (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Your violation of WP policy

Deleting unsourced content is not vandalism. Making baseless accusations of vandalism is a violation of WP:AGF.Heqwm2 (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

They are sourced, Heqwm, it's at the end of the paragraph. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"Gary Chan"

Please help to recover the paragraph of "Gary Chan" as he was elected to be legislative councillor of Hong Kong. His paragraph becomes more meaningful now. Ricky@36 (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5