User talk:Detroit Joseph

Recent edits to Old Main (Wayne State University)
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to the Old Main (Wayne State University) article. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I'm new, still figuring it out. (Detroit Joseph (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)).

Accusations of paid editing
Hello Detroit Joseph,

I have looked at the edit history of the editor who created Greening of Detroit, and see nothing in their pattern of editing that supports that theory. Though relatively inexperienced, they've made edits to a variety of topics, none of which anyone would pay them for. So, do you have any evidence for this claim?

I noticed that you nominated the article for deletion very shortly after it was created. How did this article come to your attention?

You claim that the organization is unimportant. The current version of the article shows that is notable by Wikipedia's standards, and has a multi-million dollar budget. How does the existence of this article interfere with you writing other articles about other notable Detroit organizations? That doesn't seem logical.

I am a Detroit native, by the way, though I now live in California. Please let me know if you need any advice about writing new articles.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  00:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Farshad Fotouhi
Let's start with. The facts there can be re-added, but only if they are in a neutral tone. Please start a draft at User:Detroit Joseph/Sandbox. John Reaves 22:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Replied at your talk page.

December 2013
Your recent editing history at Farshad Fotouhi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC).


 * Detroit Joe is simply trying to maintain reference to recently published news events in an article where constant effort to delete credible published newspaper, and other articles, is being launched against him. Please consider the fact that  Readers sincerely want a complete picture of the topic before you block an editor who (albeit passionately) is attempting to maintain reference to factual and relevant material!  (Perhaps the other, party, Shobeir) who continually deletes these references to news articles should be blocked instead.  Thank you  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Concerned Reader seeking Facts (talk • contribs) 03:02, 20 February 2014‎ (UTC)

Formal request
This is a formal request for you to stay off my talk page, except for required administrative notices.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  21:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Topic ban
By the consensus of the Wikipedia community, you have been topic banned from editing Farshad Fotouhi. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright. By the way, notice anything weird about the topic ban discussion? Anything at all? Detroit Joseph (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Aside from your choosing to WP:SOAPBOX at the end? No. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what the photo of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad was? Okay, alright. Detroit Joseph (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing weird at all about it. You repeatedly violated our WP:BLP policy, refused to stop despite being repeatedly warned by several experienced editors, and got topic banned. This is what happens routinely to policy violating editors who refuse to comply.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  21:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:TBAN, specifically: "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic." Do not mention Fotouhi at all on Wikipedia, as you just did at WP:BLPN. -- Neil N  talk to me  21:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, you would love that, me begging to be let back into this glorious community. Please. The only reason I bothered at all with this third-rate reference work is that so many people treat it like it's the Bible.
 * Just in case anyone's listening, I wonder if the socks were created by Shobeir f for the express purpose of discrediting me. It's kind of like how in prison if you want a certain prisoner killed, you hang a pedophile jacket on them. Detroit Joseph (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, they were created by you (or at least someone editing from the same computer/IP address as you). That's what checkuser actually checks for. Black Kite (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to assume you honestly believe that. Have you seen the IP address data? There's no need to falsify it because they feel they don't need to show it to you or to anyone. Detroit Joseph (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, now you idiots are just getting greedy. At least promise me that if you're going to pin more socks on me, name them creatively like you did with Facepalm Notifications. That's hilarious on so many different levels, most of which you dumbasses probably missed. Detroit Joseph (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)