User talk:Oshwah: Difference between revisions

Click here to message me. I will try to reply as soon as possible. All replies will be made on your talk page.
Please create a subject with the message and sign with four tildes (~) on the bottom.

If you are writing me a message in response to an article rollback, please keep an open mind. I usually focus on IP addresses, red flagged users, obvious vandalism, or names that are being watched or that I've warned before. If you believe that your edit was legitimate and I reverted it, please feel free to challenge it in a professional and positive manner. Flaming, using foul language, or using any conduct against Wikipedia's policies (See Wikipedia: Assume Good Faith, and Wikipedia: Civility) will lead to further action by myself, or an administrator.

Archives
Year 2007

Re: Bend High School: I restored the material, and included that citations were needed in the section. If you still do not like the material,...

*shrug* Whether I like the material or not isn't relevant; as long as it's backed up by reliable sources, fine and dandy.

I've started to get involved with removing vandalism with hopes of being accepted for adminship. Would you eventually reccomend me?

When looking to Support an RfA, most people look for a candidate with a wide variety of experience in several different areas and at least a few thousand good edits. I've seen some people actually Oppose adminship for somebody who concentrates on anti-vandalism efforts. Different people have their own ideas of what makes a good candidate. Many very good editors fail an RfA. Have a look at User:NoSeptember/List of failed RfAs (Chronological) to get a feel of why RfAs fail. I would certainly support you in a few months time, if you're an appropiate candidate at that time. --Geniac 12:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I agree that your recent deletion of added material to the Randy Couture article was appropriate, as it was an unreferenced statement, but I disagree in your calling it vandalism: the statement was true. Sancho (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Job!
Chitrapa 00:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up. I am working with different techniques and styles. Trial and error. Better in the Sandbox, then in the live Wikipedia. Thanks again. Bluestripe 01:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BeanoJosh, There is nothing inappropriate about the word I used on my own talk page. It describes the situation most appropriately (connotation vs. denotation). Thanks for the concern, though! I can understand how a well intentioned person could make such a mistake. ---Good night, Grover —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.96.212.147 (talk) 07:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

When you do, please have a look at the history page for the article, to you make sure you revert all vandalism, like for Danish language. Vandals often make a number of edits in a row. Thanks! Egil 09:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

jimfbleak 09:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to see your answers here. You've probably been contributing for long enough now for it to be worth a try, although other admins may take a different view. It's important to show that you are interested in a wide range of admin activities, and that you intend to be constructive as well as utilising the powers of deletion and blocking, for example in resolving conflicts.

I've got to go out fairly soon, but I'll have a look at you contribs later, and get back to you. jimfbleak 10:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I do notice is that nearly all of your recent revisions have been reverting vandalism. I think it would be helpful if you spent a bit of time improving/creating articles, or giving advice to people who make errors or don't understand the policies. When I became an admin it was so long ago that all you had to do was to have a good contribution record and be on the side of the angels, but these days, you are expected to show that you have a more rounded track record. jimfbleak 10:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before adding a speedy deletion tag to a page, please check to see if there's a good version in the history. In this case there was one (so it wasn't only vandalism). We don't want to delete everything that gets vandalized, that would be giving the vandals their way. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I spotted your note at User talk:Jimfbleak. I recommend you start by participating in XfD discussions, spending a few months contributing to articles and join in at Peer Review. That will begin to teach you the basics of policy, which you'll need if you want a chance of adminship. Next step from that would be editor review and perhaps admin coaching. Hope that helps. --Dweller 14:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, BeanoJosh. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that: you don't have at least 250 mainspace edits. As a sidenote, putting your application on the top instead of following what's clearly written (new applications must go to the bottom of the list) won't get you any priority in getting it approved, as the moderators check this sort of things. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, copy and paste error. I just forgot to change the username after pasting. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than revert again, please read the above page, thanks. Katr67 14:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Here's the page diff, look carefully at the changes I made. Thanks. Katr67 14:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have edit my website about extreme temperatures and the changes had been reverted by others because identified as vandalism. What changes did you make ? As i wrote above in the page, don t make any change to the page, just contact me through Talk if you find something you would like to add or correct.

It appears you removed the January 1911 date in teh Mossul -17.6C temp. Accorinf to original observatrion books I have the date is correct, so if you dont agree contact me.

Thank you for your support.

Max —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.10.36.214 (talk) 08:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My source for Greta Schroeder's death date is the Wikipedia article on her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.166.161.61 (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I think you unintentionally reverted to a vandalize version, you reverted to an article about Wu Tang Clan by accident (a previous vandalism). 141.150.246.106 07:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, I'm very sorry, initially I miss took your edit as vandalism (which didnt make any sense since you are a respected editor). What happened was you reverted to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ken_Hoang&oldid=162766511

which is a vandalized version from ip editor 71.175.117.69 (two edits before yours http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ken_Hoang&oldid=162723990). He or she replaced the article Ken Hoang with wu tang clan. Then I checked the previous version before your edit which was this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ken_Hoang&oldid=162766436

which seemed like an edit error, so in haste without checking the version you rved to, i assumed you vandalized which was an error on my part. Deepest apologizes about that mistake. Anyways I reverted to the last good version by Riana.

Once again I apologize for accusing your edit, it was a mistake, sorry and Happy Editing! :)141.150.246.106 05:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - your nomination for the above article was entirely for the right reasons, but in future, for any article about a non-notable subject, could you please try nominating for Speedy deletion or proposed deletion first, and only use AfD as a last resort? It will most likely achieve the same result but a lot quicker and with a lot less legwork from the community. Thanks! Qwghlm 09:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already speedied it, as it did not assert the importance of the subject (thus failing WP:CSD A7), and it didn't have a snowball's chance of surviving AfD anyway. Nomination on speedy deletion can be done for any patently non-notable person or organisation - it might be worth your while casting an eye over the speedy deletion templates which give a good explanation of when is appropriate. Qwghlm 09:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BeanoJosh, thanks for the note. I deleted the user page in question. As for what you need to do to get adminship, I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Note that nomination standards change, but there is a link to the nomination standards of people (including me) at the time that they wrote in that page. Generally, I'd suggest that you take a look at some of the successful and unsuccessful candidates and see if you match up with them. If you have any other questions, just let me know, I'll be happy to help you any way I can. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck, whatever you do! --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jews do not use the term "Jewish Bible." We already have an article, Hebrew bible, which is the term jews do use. I merged the contents with that article. I see no point in having two articles on the same thing. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for keeping you eye on the above article. However, I just thought you should know that you left a message on Searchfortruths (talk · contribs) talk page warning him not to delete speedy deletion templates. Except he didn't delete a speedy template, he deleted a {{prod}}, which he is entitled to do. I've reverted your edit to the article and listed it for AfD instead, I haven't edited your warning to him, though. I'm guessing that this was just an oversight rather that a lack of appreciation for the difference between the two templates, but if not have a read of WP:PROD#Contesting a proposed deletion. Don't worry too much about it, though, as Searchfortruths is a sock anyway. Rockpocket 01:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I talk my reason already in information block "Undid revision 165036470 by Onikiri (talk) use{{Saint Seiya Characters}}) " Can you see it?--58.8.101.247 06:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts you will see the discussion as well as the link Randy Cotoure is still the championAladdin Zane 03:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its ok I just reverted itAladdin Zane 03:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BeanoJosh,

Sorry, but fair use images are not allowed in the userspace, due to copyright concerns. Wikipedia has fairly rigorous rules about copyrighted images. Take a look at Wikipedia:Non-free content to see what's allowed, and why fair use images are not allowed on userspace. As before, if you have any other questions, please let me know. Cheers, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, BeanoJosh! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. β^_command 05:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you added a message to Lmk1442's talk page regarding their creation of a page on David Wong and it's nomination for speedy deletion (which it subsequently was); Lmk1442 has recreated this page as David K. Wong if you want to check it out and see if it still qualifies for speedy deletion under the criteria of the first speedy deletion, or the possibly the recreation of deleted material criteria.Number36 05:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yep, I fell for it, very funny :) Number36 05:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, I also talked to Jayron32 who put the current tag on the page about it. It wasn't so much that I was trying to get the page deleted or anything, but more interested in what exactly the correct course of action would be in the situation where an article which has been speedily deleted has been recreated, Jayron32 filled me in on this. Cheers.Number36 06:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, BeanoJosh! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. β^_command 05:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was correcting several elements of vandalism and reinserting the section on "Indian Wars" that was deleted by the person you reverted to. That section stays. I am not a vandal. I wrote the section on art, so buzz off —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.55.239 (talk) 05:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I been at Wiki since forever. My ID is amerindianarts. I corrected the article to where it was before the great influx of juvenile crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.55.239 (talk) 05:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finished. If you look at the history e.g. "last", I think you'll find you undid what I was fixing, e.g correcting categories, pic duplication, etc. Thanks