User talk:Bigjoe5216

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:


 * Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try How to edit a page.
 * To sign your posts (for eg. on talk pages) use 	 ~  (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type (3 tildes).
 * You can experiment in the Sandbox.
 * For help, see Where to ask a question.
 * Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Five pillars, Neutral point of view, Civility, What Wikipedia is not
 * You can contribute in many ways: write a great article, fight vandalism, upload pictures, perform maintainance tasks, contribute to existing projects...

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at New user log.

-- utcursch | talk 09:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit to Frankford - April 09, 2103
Removed from Demographics as it hogwash:

"Northwood has a higher white/ethnic European population (many happen to be multi-generational Anglo, Irish and German locals) and "East of the El" has one of the highest urban concentrations of Native Americans, a small movement to rename the area "Little Oklahoma" has begun in the late 2000s. " Bigjoe5216 (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

My Edits to Tom Corbett Conflict of Interest on natural gas policy
My additions are not tenuous political arguments but fact and contain the source documents. Since he is a politician, making many decisions that effect the lives of millions, one would think that some of his decisions would be able to be cited on Wikipedia - especially ones that affect the drinking water for New York & Philadelphia. I do not appreciate their being vandalized. Bigjoe5216 (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody is trying to whitewash Corbett's article. You can't post long, tangential, biased, political rants within a biography of a living person.  The stuff in a BLP needs to be directly related to the biography of that person, and it needs to be well sourced, which your additions are not.  Please do not persist in adding them unless you can strip them down to only the material that is directly related to Corbett's biography and that you can source well.  Continuing this sort of editing may lead to you getting blocked, as we take BLP issues very seriously. Gigs (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Reports of Vandalism to Tom Corbett
Apparently there are 40 watchers of Tom Corbett. They specialize in removal & erasure of any information that is critical of Tom Corbett or his policies however controversial to the citizenry of Pennsylvania. This is especially true concerning his policies on Gas Drilling, energy exploration, conservation & water pollution. Entries containing this information are always just completely removed. This is done repeatedly by a small cast of the same characters. This is wholesale vandalism.

I am curious if these edits - which are more than censures - are being preformed by his staff members while on duty of the State Payroll under his direction? That would open a really good Federal investigation. Just because one can erase the words - it does not erase the truth or his actions, which is sometimes good & bad & ugly.

If there is some part of this posting that is not germane to Tom Corbett's office and his actions in that office, or overly critical, I would gladly revise & re-edit this myself.

This has been constantly removed:

Conflict of Interest & Controversy over Natural gas policy
Governor Tom Corbett is also a member of the Delaware River Basin Commission. Because of the million plus dollars donated by the natural gas lobby for the purpose of having Corbett elected, his acceptance of that money has been called a "payoff."

The DRBC is a federal-interstate compact government agency that was formed by concurrent legislation enacted in 1961 by the United States and the four basin states (Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and Delaware). Its five members include the basin state governors and the Division Engineer, North Atlantic Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who serves as the federal representative. The commission has legal authority over both water quality and water quantity-related issues throughout the basin, and are therefore responsible for allowing or approving the drilling of exploratory gas wells & Hydrofracking that may cause environmental damage.

According to the Delaware River Basin Commission, between 15,000 and 18,000 wells could be drilled in as many as 2,200 locations within the basin. Each well requires between 3 and 5 million gallons of water for gas extraction. Some of the water has gone for treatment to municipal sewage treatment plants that some experts say are not capable of removing the radioactive isotopes, nor the chemicals and dissolved solids found in the fluid.

The Delaware River Basin Commission, until recently operating far below the radar screen of public notice, got a big jolt of attention when 18 environmental and citizens organizations descended upon its Trenton offices to deliver boxes containing 35,000 public comments urging it to continue its moratorium on gas drilling until it is proven safe. It was the day before the DRBC’s deadline for public comments on its draft regulations for drilling in the basin.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman threatened a lawsuit against several federal oversight agencies if they do not commit to an in-depth environmental review — one he argues is required under the National Environmental Policy Act — of regulations in the Delaware River Basin that could allow high-volume fracking in the environmentally sensitive region. The Delaware River Basin Commission anticipates up to 18,000 (Natural Gas) wells could be established in an area that serves as a water source to many New Yorkers.

On May 31, 2011, Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman did in fact file a lawsuit against the federal government for its failure to commit to a full environmental review of proposed regulations that would allow natural gas drilling – including the potentially harmful "fracking" technique – in the Delaware River Basin. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -x
 * STATE OF NEW YORK,
 * Plaintiff,
 * v.
 * UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS;
 * BRIGADIER GENERAL PETER A. DELUCA, in his official
 * capacity as Division Engineer, North Atlantic Division of the
 * United States Army Corps of Engineers;
 * UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE;
 * ROWAN W. GOULD, in his official capacity as Acting Director
 * of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; UNITED STATES
 * NATIONAL PARK SERVICE; JONATHAN B. JARVIS,
 * in his official capacity as Director of the United States National Park
 * Service; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR;
 * KENNETH SALAZAR, in his official capacity as Secretary of the
 * United States Department of the Interior; UNITED STATES
 * ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY;
 * and LISA JACKSON, in her official capacity as Administrator of the
 * United States Environmental Protection Agency,


 * Defendants, . ..

Because Tom Corbett is a voting member of the DRBC; many opponents to water pollution fear he will always vote in favor of the natural gas industry; akin to the fox watching the hen house. Many citizens of Pennsylvania believe there may exist a conflict of interest reminiscent of the Teapot Dome Scandal, but the aforementioned allegations of cronyism have not yet led to any federal investigation into corruption or an Infraction of the public trust.

New York State's federal lawsuit filed by Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman appears to be the first federal action of this century protecting the Delaware River; the Public's source for clean potable water.

Tom Corbett and the DRBC were not named as defendants in this action because the federal approval statute exempts the Commission from the Administrative Procedure Act.

Bigjoe5216 (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Your edits to Benjamin Rush
Hello, I reviewed the changes you made and seem to be your personal own view please provide a link for your claims (see WP:RS). Take a moment to also read these WP:COI and WP:OR.

The reversion was valid not vandalism, next time please do not overwrite on cited material.-- Zer0~Gravity (Roger - Out) 09:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I will look up the various symbols & etc., but I did provide Citations to all the materials I posted.

Does it make any sense to quote other writers opinions, as opposed to quoting and Citing Benjamin Rush himself?

J.M.

Post Script:

When find obsolete news articles or obscure published letters and post them on Wikipedia, it is done for the purpose of and the intention to increase the body of knowledge surrounding the Subject, and not to introduce any Bias. I always believed that was the purpose of having an enclycopedia.Bigjoe5216 (talk) 08:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

To BillFilis, EtAl & Etc:

Upon reviewing the guidelines: personal own view, WP:RS, WP:COI and WP:OR, Wikipedia:No original research, neutral, verifiable, no original thought. I must agree that my additions and changes conflict with those guidelines. Personally I don’t agree that quoting an author who has presented his opinion is a very accurate way of obtaining the truth, but I did not make the rules. My additions (many were ever published in this context) advanced and provoked thought, and therefore must be removed. I regret that I must remove what I contributed, but I am confined and commanded buy the "rules of Wiki." I suppose when I author a publication, then my work may be quoted here.Bigjoe5216 (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Greenwood Cemetery, Philadelphia
Your recent edits (and the YouTube video that you evidently made yourself and tried to introduce as a reference) sound like you have an axe to grind over some legal issues concerning the recent management of the cemetery. You should refrain from editing wikiarticles in which you are an interested party, because of the danger of introducing even unintentional bias. I suspect that you are one of the "infuriated neighbors", maybe even a party in the legal proceedings, because you seem to know so much about it, am I correct? If so, you have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a blog for anyone's personal opinions or personal research. I see that you have done much the same thing to the Benjamin Rush article. I have removed your edits from the cemetery article, as they merely duplicate material found under Rush.--BillFlis (talk) 11:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

To BillFilis:

Upon reviewing the guidelines: personal own view, WP:RS, WP:COI and WP:OR, Wikipedia:No original research, neutral, verifiable, no original thought. I must agree that my additions and changes conflict with those guidelines. Personally I don’t agree that quoting an author who has presented his opinion is a very accurate way of obtaining the truth, but I did not make the rules. My additions (many were ever published in this context) advanced and provoked thought, and therefore must be removed. I suppose when I author a publication, then my work will be quoted here.Bigjoe5216 (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Oswald Eve
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Oswald Eve, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Oswald Eve seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Oswald Eve, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oswald Eve is a work in progress. Although there is not much known about him, he was a major figure in Philadelphia before and during the American Revolution, which I will attempt document over time in accordance to Wiki Standards.Bigjoe5216 (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion
Please do not take it personally; if it wasn't me, it would have been another admin. It doesn't matter if you assert it as your own or not - if it's copyrighted content, it may be deleted on sight: presumeably why someone else tagged it on that basis, since it was word for word to this. I would suggest discerning to see if what you wish to write about satisfies the inclusion criteria, and then write it in your own words. Thanks. WilliamH (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear WilliamH, No Harm, No Foul.Bigjoe5216 (talk) 01:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:McLaren to Maas0001.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:McLaren to Maas0001.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. dave pape (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also Image:McLaren to Maas0002.jpg.

Dear Dave,

I fail to see how the copyright is disputed, as I am the owner of the original letters of McLaren to Maas. Additionally I am the creator of the digital images. These letters have never been published anywhere and are in my possession and are in fact my personal property.

Picture one, I believe is licenced as:

'''I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible, I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.'''

While picture two I believe is the Wikipedia standard GFDL Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts.

Anyway you look at it, I have provided these pictures FREE! So I do not understand what your "bitch" is all about?

I can only believe that there are some people out there, when they start to see the truth with their own eyes, refuse to accept it. They will therefore try anything to suppress it. Just another form of sabotage.

I hope this cleared things up for you.

Now will you please remove the tags from the scans, as other people would like to copy them and study them.Bigjoe5216 (talk) 02:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for Image:Maas Bruxelles 19580001.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Maas Bruxelles 19580001.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 18:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Maas Bruxelles 19580001.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Maas Bruxelles 19580001.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sdrtirs (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC) --Sdrtirs (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sdrtirs,

I several times added (or thought I added) the proper copyright tag, eg: CC-by-sa-3.0 to Image:Maas Bruxelles 19580001.jpg.

I sincerely do not know what else to do to satisfy you. I own the actual bronze tokens as well as created the digital (image) file and I will not be copying the images again - ever! If that is not good enough, then erase the image. I don't give a damn, as it is a loss to the world's body of knowledge and no sweat off my conscience. Bigjoe5216 (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S.

I fail to see how the copyright is disputed, as I am the owner of most of the Menken/Maas materials that were either gifts or given to my family members for safe keeping. These materials lay in basements, attics, storage lockers since before the year 1969. They have since passed into my hands. Additionally I am the creator of the digital images. These images have never been published anywhere and the source materials from which they were copied are in my possession and are in fact my personal property. If anyone has a problem with that, have their lawyer contact me, but I highly doubt that will ever happen. Instead of getting a little thanks for not selling this stuff on ebay long ago, or receiving a little help with all the complications posed by Wikipedia, all I get around here is a hard time. I fail to see any gratitude or self satisfaction for my philanthropy, as I have been trying my best to hang the proper copyright licensing & etc. to satisfy the criterion.Bigjoe5216 (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. ''Please see for discussion. If you don't want the file deleted, please provide explanatory information about the copyright status of this image. Please do not remove this notice while the question is being considered.'' Sdrtirs (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are the copyright holder of those medals
If you are really the copyright holder of those medals, the creator artist of those medals, not of the photo, then you can release them in a license you want. Medals can be copyrighted for the artist creativity, so even by having a medal with you, it doesn't mean that you have the copyright of it, but if the creator transfer his rights to you, then you are the copyright holder. Some people don't know it and this image is only for discussion, not for deletion, and you can discuss and you should make your point at. Regards, Sdrtirs (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30
Hi. When you recently edited Helen Smith Shoemaker, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Princeton and Episcopal Church (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lydia Darrah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Agents (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Lardner Gibbon


A tag has been placed on Lardner Gibbon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. VQuakr (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)