User talk:Josh3580/Archive 5

{{talk archive}

29 December 2013

The category Liberal Parties in the United States is remining not yet deleted. About Real Politics Union i say you clearly that's a libertarian, conservative and eurosceptic party or libertarian conservative and eurosceptic party not conservative liberal party there is a difference, i hope you understand. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adn1990 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I do understand. But libertarianism has both liberal and conservative traits. You don't seem to get the fact that I agree with you, but you need to start a discussion on the talk page, original research is not a reason to change content. —Josh3580_talk/hist 04:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You say that libertarianism has both liberal and conservative traits, but your meaning it's an american sense which primarly promotes both fiscally conservative and socially liberal. For normal meaning especially european that conservative liberalism is a variant of liberalism (not Modern American liberalism) combining liberal values and policies with conservative (not American conservative) stances. So that's all i hope you enjoying my message, Thanks. - User:Adn1990_talk/hist 06:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You still don't get it. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU. But you have to cite a verifiable, reliable source to make that kind of change. You are preaching to the choir with your point of view, but we have to follow the policies established by consensus. Josh3580_talk/hist 06:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Jacqueline Vaissière

Hello Josh3580. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jacqueline Vaissière, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 10:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Royal College Horana - how can this be vandalism

Can you explain as to why you have reverted my edits saying it is vandalism. The most common name used is ROYAL COLLEGE HORANA for my school. Are you just deleting pages to show that what ever you do is right and a new comer like me does is wrong ?. Do a google search and see what comes up for ROYAL COLLEGE HORANA. The most common name for the school is the most appropriate name to be used. (Niroshvthanaw (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)).

I absolutely can, but I'm not sure how much it will help, as you have since been blocked for using Sockpuppet accounts. You removed all of the information on the page, and replaced it with a redirect. You left no explanation in your edit summary, nor did you discuss removing the content on the article's talk page. Removing content without an explanation or discussion does appear to be vandalism, and the way to get around that if it is a good-faith edit is by simply giving an explanation or participating in a discussion. Hope this helps. —Josh3580_talk/hist 00:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Olly Cunningham

Hello Josh3580. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Olly Cunningham, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not made up. It's about a character on Hollyoaks. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I ran across the page while fixing typos with AWB. Because the article said, "References Toms long lost brother who know one really knows," I assumed it was made up. Thank you for being on your toes, and covering my butt! —Josh3580_talk/hist 19:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a garbage article, but it's not made up. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Dads

Hi josh, I am a film maker, have worked at 20 th century for years. Sorry I disagree with critics. I deserve to have freedom of speech. Really the critics must be outta their minds. It is an awesome show, I don't work for the show, however fox needs to keep the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.236.243.79 (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me for jumping in, but I noticed your response to Josh for reverting your edit to Dads. Understand, please, that this is not a free speech issue. You replaced well-cited information concerning the critical reception of the show, which was poor, with your own conflicting opinion. In so doing, you removed factual information and violated the core Wikipedia principle of neutral point of view (as well as several others). Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for personal opinions. You are entitled to your opinions, but not to change or remove well-cited information from articles. I have seen Josh to be a restrained and thoughtful editor in his efforts to prevent misuse and abuse of Wikipedia, and am sure he intended nothing more or less in removing your edit. If you can find other citations that support a more positive view of the subject than the ones there now, please feel free to add them to the article. Thanks. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you Dwpaul ^Talk . Your explanation is concise and specific. And I sincerely appreciate the fact that you are familiar with my history, and what I am constantly working to accomplish. To 67.236.243.79 (talk), no one is denying your right to freedom of speech. However, an encyclopedia is not the proper venue to express your opinions. Please see WP:NPOV WP:NOR, and (thanks to Dwpaul, as I was unaware of the policy), WP:FREESPEECH. Perhaps your issue could be properly expressed on the talk page of the article, not in the article itself. —Josh3580_talk/hist 00:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Ju-Chin Chu

Hello Josh3580. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ju-Chin Chu, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Academia Sinica member. Passes WP:A7 on that count. Please feel free to take this to WP:AfD. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 10:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit warrior keeping POV fork reverts User:Norden1990 regarding Harghita County#Demographics. Thank you.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for reverting the eloquent attack on my talk. :-) I appreciate it. Nightenbelle (talk)

No problemo. We've got to watch each other's back! —Josh3580_talk/hist 18:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Tom King

Hello, I am new to all of this, so don't know if I am leaving this in the right place....?

Thank you for the info on Tom King page.....I shall leave a link for proof, will it then be left there as I have done it before but it doesn't stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.94.50 (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey there. Thank you for contributing, and for striving to do things the correct way. Check out WP:Citing sources and Help:Referencing for beginners. If you add content that is properly sourced, yes it can most definitely remain. Good luck, and always feel free to ask for help. You can request help by going to your talk page, click edit, and add {{helpme}} followed by your question. Someone will get in touch with you as soon as they are able. —Josh3580_talk/hist 18:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Stamicarbon article

Dear Josh

You recently edited my article about Stamicarbon - thank you for your contribution it is much appreciated. According to an e-mail I have received, the Stamicarbon article has been created. Has this article been approved yet? If yes, why can I not find the article when I type it in the Wikipedia search box? Looking forward to your feedback. Kind regards, Chantal Cspies (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The article is definitely there. Here is the link: Stamicarbon

Simply typing the word Stamicarbon in the Wikipedia search box and hitting enter takes you directly to the article. It may have just taken a moment for everything to point to the right place. Hope this helps. —Josh3580_talk/hist 06:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

List of soap opera villains

I explained it in the Talk page TWICE. Just letting you know that, perhaps you'd like to read it.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You can't just say, "that's crap" and remove it without gaining a consensus. You already know this, based on your block history. —Josh3580_talk/hist 03:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No Josh, I can. What is on the Wikipedia page is completely untrue of characters - it is a lie. It is as if someone wrote, David Cameron is a fascist on Wikipedia and used a dishonest website to describe it as a 'reliable source'. It is completely and utterly untrue. As an editor, I would not doing my duty by entertaining such nonsense. As for my edit history, yours clearly show that you have not really edited on EastEnders which suggests to me that you are doing this deliberately to bully me. YOU are reverting the page back and you are using your role as editor. In order to continue your bullying. I don't think that is acceptable and I won't entertain it.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 04:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If what you say about the sources is true, you will find it very easy to gain WP:CONSENSUS.-Josh3580_talk/hist 04:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

That is a very weak answer and you know it. Have you watched EastEnders before and have you edited before on the show? Just answer that. Secondly, if you are a viewer can you explain to me very clearly how Roxy Mitchell is a villain? Also, if you haven't watched the show or edited, why did you (knowingly) revert it back to its original content without any knowledge. Did you deliberately want to cause trouble? I have looked at the sources and some of them have not used the word 'villain' but have put there by the very people who take control of the site. Think again.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The fact remains Josh3580, is that you are biased and you don't watch the show. Therefore, you are suited to make any judgement.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 05:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Poor Josh3580 does not deserve this ranting. EastEnders viewer or not. The obvious is that you are trying to game the system - in regards to what editors have already decided on the very talk page you seem insistent on making unstable by removing mass sourced content. You already broke the policy on edit warring. This user needs taking to the blockhouse one last time. Please do not target an editor with such good intentions as Josh3580 so clearly has.Rain the 1 04:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You are a bully who is clearly not hung at all. I am not trying to game the system, I am merely trying to show that there are lies on a Wikipedia page. If editors decide to write that Margaret Thatcher is a bully with a source that has made a mistake (or they use the wrong source) does that constitute as the truth? You are a bully and a fool (you don't know what the word 'villain' means) and perhaps, seeing as you vandalised a page and bullied an editor, you should be blocked. Never make false edits again.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 05:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

A strong accusation. As Josh3580 has already pointed out, please avoid making personal attacks and keep discussion based on appropriate article.Rain the 1 05:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You are a bully and I being honest is not a personal attack. You need to realise that you are completely wrong and any EastEnders viewer will tell you that. Unfortunately, your attitude (which I believe to be completely obnoxious) and your pride, makes you unable to work constructively. It is a great shame which is why I have reported you.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You could not report the weather. No one will fall for your wikigaming games. Funniest case for 3xR, SPI, AVI, this, that, etc ever...Rain the 1 05:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Under My Skin (Avril Lavigne album)

Would you please take care of Under My Skin (Avril Lavigne album)? Better check those unreliable genre tags and others. If those who change "pop rock, alternative rock" (which same order as it's typed in source) to "alternative rock, pop rock" in the infobox, then undo it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.177.226 (talk) 11:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Fred McDarrah

We would like to add Fred McDarrah's biography to his wikipedia page, which is historically accurate and was authored by his estate. All information is verifiable. Can you tell me why you are removing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenkasher (talk • contribs) 22:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Please cite a verifiable, reliable source if you wish to make such significant additions. See WP:CITING SOURCES if you are not sure how.—Josh3580_talk/hist 22:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

MC vandal

Josh if you did not know, per WP:NOT3RR point 4, you can continue reverting obvious vandalisms like the one by the other user in the Mariah Carey page. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 22:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I was afraid I was giving off the odor of edit-warring myself, but it is obvious vandalism in this case. —Josh3580_talk/hist 22:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Brackett House

Please be more careful about issuing warnings about edits that are not obvious vandalism. No entries were removed, and an edit summary was used, so it wasn't "unexplained". Please familiarize yourself with MOS:DAB if you haven't already, and if you really think this is better than what I did, feel free to revert. But in any case, please don't threaten blocks so easily. Some innocent people might believe you. Dabdo (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't threaten you, I issued the standard warning template for removal of content. You got a Level 3 warning automatically, based on the previous warnings by ClueBot NG. The warning level is maintained by Wikipedia, even if you remove the warning from your talk page. ClueBot NG's algorithm felt like it was vandalism as well, 6 times just today, so it wasn't exactly a one-off mistake on my part. Your edits may very well have been in good faith, but on the surface it appeared that you were stripping content out of lists. Maybe add something like "Adjusting style to meet MOS:DAB" to your edit summaries in the future, just to make things clearer? —Josh3580_talk/hist 22:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

modifications

Hi Josh3580: I need to mix you text and mine to enrich without promoting: therefore I need to reload the old version, except if you can advise me how to mix 2 different version? Thx  ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergioR (talk • contribs) 17:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that École hôtelière de Lausanne needs a fundamental rewrite to have an encyclopedic tone. It currently reads like a recruitment pamphlet. It's not going to be easy, you will need to find verifiable, reliable sources for any changes you make. You may want to consider starting from scratch, if you are willing to do the research. It would be a very good idea to start a discussion on the article's talk page, asking other editors for assistance. I warned you earlier, because you were removing content without discussion, which is against the policy with very few exceptions (see WP:Vandalism). However, I do want to thank you for contributing, and for wanting to improve the content of Wikipedia. It takes people like you to keep this project going. But you might want to poke around the policies to familiarize yourself with them. Much of the vital stuff can be found in the welcome message I just posted to your talk page. Hope this helps! —Josh3580_talk/hist 18:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hogan's Heroes Black vs. black

I don't know why you insist that Black (when referring to race) should be lower case black or why you would have a problem with it being capitalized. But I'll change it to Afro-American or do you have a problem with that too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim Gruber (talk • contribs) 12:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't insist anything. I just informed you that you must cite some sort of verifiable, reliable source for such a stylistic change. For example, The University of Texas at Austin recommends the exact opposite of the change you wished to make. See UT's writer style guide, which recommends that proper names for races, such as "Caucasian" or "African-American" should always be capitalized, while "white" or "black" should never be capitalized when referring to race. Hope this clarifies things. I am not promoting some sort of agenda here, as you can see by my edit history. I'm just promoting consistency across articles. —Josh3580_talk/hist 16:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Moldova/Moldovan vs Moldavia/Moldavian

Josh3580,

Current correct English name is Moldova and the adjective is of course Moldovan. "Moldavia/Moldavian" was used before 1991 in English language as it was simply transliterated from the Russian "Молдавия" (Moldavia). Before 1991 Moldova was part of Russia/Russian Empire and all provincies carried the Russian names translisterated directly into English. Moldavia/Moldavian is no longer used in English language after the adoption of Moldova/Moldovan names after 1991 (break of Soviet Union and Moldovan Independence). Here is a link for the U.S. Embassy in Moldova showing the correct name Moldova/Moldovan on all pages: http://moldova.usembassy.gov/. Here is a recent NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/nyregion/a-restaurant-in-brooklyn-offers-the-food-and-feeling-of-moldova.html?_r=0.

Aerobuz (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Aerobuz

Thank you for explaining, that makes perfect sense. In the future, include a short explanation in your edit summary. If you had used the first sentence in your above comment as an edit summary, the reasoning for your change would have already been clear. When someone leaves the edit summary blank, it becomes difficult for a recent changes patroller to divine the editor's intentions. Thank you for contributing to the project, and for your quick and clear response. —Josh3580_talk/hist 17:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Guadalajara bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics

Hi not sure how this works. I deleted Guadalajara 2024 bid page because it says Guadalajara was one of the bids for 2024 when the 2024 olympic bidding process hasn't started. It also lies and says the games were to be held in Guadalajara which is not at all true as no city has won the rights to the 2024 games yet. Generally because the olympic bidding process for 2024 hasn't started therefore these pages shouldn't exist. Therefore it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.18.16 (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. Thank you for wanting to be sure that only correct information is included in the article. You are probably correct that this article should not be here, and that is why it has been nominated for deletion here. Keep in mind that only administrators can actually delete entire pages, and unilaterally blanking pages without discussion is considered WP:VANDALISM, even if your intentions were good. Let me be clear, your heart is definitely in the right place here. What I would do if I were you, would be to go to this page, and add your opinion as to whether it should be deleted and why. I intend to do the same thing myself, as the more comments there are, the easier it is to find a consensus. Once the discussion is complete, an administrator will delete the page if a deletion is appropriate per WP:DELETE (and I have a feeling it will be deleted). Thanks again for helping out, this is a great opportunity for you to get the hang of WP:CONSENSUS! Hope this helps you out. —Josh3580_talk/hist 22:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jidi(Illustrator） may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | NAME = Jidi(Illustrator）

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Yamaha Star Bolt may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{issues|

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Great catch!—Josh3580_talk/hist 22:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The Voice UK

I am not using unreliable sources and making up names. All I did was replaced the names of the old coaches of the voice UK with the two new coaches of the voice UK, i.e. Ricky Wilson and Kylie Minogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikime32 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to keep the information correct. However, you left your edit summary blank, and failed to cite a verifiable, reliable source for your changes. You need to cite a source if you are changing factual information in an article, "common knowledge" is not a valid source. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Thank you again for contributing, hope this helps. —Josh3580_talk/hist 18:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Potential Superpowers was edited without talk January 1 to 4

I placed a dicussion on talk here[1] I reverted because there was no discussion[[2]] since January 1, it was only on population. One editor moved content out and never used talk, sources were deleted and taken out without making a discussion about that content removed. Sources were removed without talk, that should be discussed first.

If you look, there was two editors, one changed this much with talk here[3]. Why isn't this person being questioned? There was no discussion what that person did? I placed a discussion on talk, I am doing the right thing by questioning and asking to use talk first.--185.35.164.107 (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You have a problem with a previous user making changes without gaining WP:CONSENSUS, and your solution is to make changes without gaining WP:CONSENSUS? Give the discussion on the talk page some time. Putting a note in the talk page is not the same as gaining consensus. —Josh3580_talk/hist 21:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

STiki Edit

Sorry, I thought it was vandalism. I just started using STiki and I need to get the hang of it. I thought you were the one that did it. I just changed it back. Leoesb1032 (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem, I know how that goes. Thank you for fixing it, and for responding so quickly. —Josh3580_talk/hist 01:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies

I'm sorry if you thought I was vandalizing while adding information to ICS, but I simply forgot my cites, also the website glitched so thank you for reverting my mistakes. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgansoliswiki (talk • contribs) 01:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Just so you know, with very few exceptions, Facebook links are against the external links policy, and certainly don't qualify as verifiable, reliable sources. —Josh3580_talk/hist 01:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgansoliswiki (talk • contribs) 02:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Jackson High School (Jackson, Michigan)

The following message by JacksonViking (talk • contribs) is in response to my message at this diff.Josh3580_talk/hist 03:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I was concerned you were deleting the "Controversy" and all the newly updated content on the page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacksonViking (talk • contribs) 03:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That's OK. I never had the chance to go through the edits, but please be very careful with your additions. Because of the dangers of libel or slander, you have to make sure you follow WP:BLPCRIME with contributions about persons accused of crimes.—Josh3580_talk/hist 03:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Pepa Hristova

Hello Josh3580, looking for advice to enhance quality of post. What kind of refences are needed? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photostats (talk • contribs) 10:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

ICAP

I made changes to Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan which you deleted and require a source. Anyone invloved in accountancy profession in Pakistan knows what I write was correct. You you wish to to add information what you deleted again in ICAP article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.sipra4 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, and "personal knowledge" is not a verifiable, reliable source. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:No original research. Hope this clears things up. —Josh3580_talk/hist 02:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Footballer infobox timestamps

Hello, and thank you for trying to encourage the correct updating of the timestamp in footballers' infoboxes. Perhaps you're unaware that the important thing is for the timestamp to be set to a date/time at which the stats are unambiguously correct, i.e. after the end of the player's last game and before their (or their club's) next, and not necessarily the date/time at which the update was made. As it says at the bottom of the box, "correct as of" ..., not "updated at". Although most people use the five-tildes method to generate the current date/time, that isn't a requirement.

Since the anon 86.21.101.81 returned from their short block, they have in all cases changed the timestamp to a date/time at which the stats are unambiguously correct. I'll let them know about the five tildes thing, looks like no-one has yet.

Perhaps you may want to consider removing your warning to the anon, seeing as this time, they haven't actually done anything wrong. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Mission America

That page is largely a hit piece. The SLPC labeled them a hate group because MA promotes the idea that gays are not born gay. They have never been charged with any hate crimes and it not encyclopedic content-it is an arbitrary and capricious opinion. I posted MA's response to the label and that too was editted out. It is ridiculous, they do not like so to hell with the rules. It is not neutral or unbiased in any way, shape or form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.201 (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You are missing a few key points here. First, we are not talking about "hate-crimes," we are talking about the SPLC classifying them as a "hate-group," which has nothing to do with criminality. Also, it does not violate WP:NPOV, because the article is not asserting that Mission: America is a hate-group, it is the SPLC that is making this assertion. Later in the article, it says that Harvey has asserted that "there is no proof that there’s ever anything like a gay, lesbian or bisexual or transgendered child, or teen or human." Should this also be deleted, since it is a biased point of view? No, because again, the article is not making that assertion, Harvey is, and it is backed by a citation. WP:NPOV requires reporting on ALL points of view, not ZERO points of view. I see that Mission: America's rebuttal is included in the article now, so your point of view is actually covered, and you can't remove all other (properly sourced) points of view simply because you disagree. Also, your addition earlier was your own opinion, which is why it is reverted. Personal analysis is not verifiable or relaible, and that addition WAS a violation of WP:NPOV. —Josh3580_talk/hist 17:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Major and minor

Hello Josh3580. You blanked this section. Since you are a very experienced editor, I wanted to run this by you for reason of mass blanking (esp since you did not provide any edit summary). Please give that edit a look. Thanks Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi! First, thanks for double-checking. Perhaps I shouldn't have marked it as a minor edit (strange coincidence, seeing as the article is about a different kind of "minor"). However, if you compare my version with the previous user's edit, you will see that the previous editor was simply copying the entire article and pasting it in a second time, causing the content to simply be duplicated in the article. I did revert this as vandalism, and used Huggle's "editing tests" edit summary, as that appeared to be what the previous editor was doing. I apologize if the default edit summary wasn't quite clear enough, but do you see what I was trying to fix there? Thanks again for keeping an eye out! —Josh3580_talk/hist 16:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Josh3580, Thanks for the kind words. I am fairly inexperienced and that's why I thought I should take your guidance in understanding it. Many thanks for your time. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) . Glad to help out any time! —Josh3580_talk/hist 16:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)