User talk:JoeM/Archive 1

Personal essay removed - Wikipedia is not a soapbox

Conservatism isn't about preventing people from having their own beliefs. You're not even advocating the conservatists, you're making them look arrogant and authoritarian. You, in your super-conservatist ranting, are setting yourself up as a fascist, insisting that you are correct and that there is no other possible way of looking at the subject. You say 'liberal' as if it were an insult. People like you, people who confuse conservatism with Nazi-like forced obedience and absolutism, do not deserve a place in society. You are exactly what you seem to think you're rallying against: An authoritarian fascist who believes that anyone who doesn't share his beliefs is a piece of scum. You're nothing but a fanatic, an ignorant fool spreading anti-leftist propaganda. You, sir, are no better than the Nazis. -- CHEESEFACE3

Read Neutral point of view again. "Distilled essence of evil" does not fit the bill, let alone the rest of it. If you continue this behavior you will be banned from this system. - Hephaestos 10:57, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It sounds like a lot of liberal leftist pseudointellectuals dominate this site, ensuring that the articles appease evil rhetorically. Everything in my article is FACT. [From JoeM]


 * Hi. Ironically, you display the same kind of parochial fanaticalness as your Islamofascist opponents. Why don't you grow up and help us write a high-quality encyclopedia, instead of a propaganda piece. No matter how worthy your views are, this isn't the place for them. -- AdamRaizen 11:44, 2003 Aug 10 (UTC)

--- Excuse me? Are you saying that there is a moral equivalency between Americans, like our troops in Iraq and the firefighters who died on 9/11, and the Islamofascists who dug all those mass graves in Iraq and flew those planes into the twin towers? That is a very twisted POV. It does not belong in encyclopedia articles. Facts, like the ones presented in my article, do. JoeM


 * No, I was commenting on your style, not on the substance of your views. -- AdamRaizen

If you cannot follow Neutral point of view, then please leave. Understand that just because you believe something to be so doesn't mean that everybody believes that - we have to attribute opinions to those who hold them, and &quot;Saddam Hussein is an evil tyrant&quot; is an opinion. --Camembert

Hello, Joe. I'm currently editing Islamofascism, trying to fairly represent your opinions within in the NPOV framework. Please let me know how I'm doing. -- The Anome 15:20, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

From http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-August/005787.html

This sounds like an only 10% milder counterpart to the Palestinian activist from last week. Well, if he keeps it up, I approve that we should put him on auto-revert unless and until he gets the message.

(by Jimbo Wales)

Your additions contain loaded language. That's what's wrong. Can you prove that the CPC intentionally committed genocide? Or did people die of unintentional miscalculations? --Jiang 17:38, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You know that with your stated opinion on the countries as above (from invading Syria and Brasil to destabilzing France) it is highly inprobable that you will be able to make NPOV edits on relevante country entries? -- till we *) 18:29, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * Re the answer on my talk page: yes, I'm a pacifist, mostly, and for invading countries (off-list or on-list), at least there should exist an UN mandate (as it was the case with Afghanistan, and as it wasn't the case with Iraq). To think the USA should do unilateraly in world politics what it think it's right is an big mistake, in my opinion. World peace and global human development won't come to existance with unilateral self-nominated world police officers like Bush, only with multilateral international and transnational organizations. Oh, and re Neville Chamberlain -- yes, Wikipedia told me a lot about him, and especially about his politics re Nazi germany. Maybe you should read the Chamberlain entry, too, because maybe, just maybe, it won't fit in your opinions. (Nice from me to give you lot's of hints what you should try to edit, too, isn't it?). -- till we *) 18:42, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * Just one more point -- isn't it contradicting to say that one wants every country invaded that democratically elects someone more left than a Republican (e.g. Brazil), on the one hand, and to express anger and sadness about the loss of democratic rights in countries like China, on the other hand? I'm a bit confused about your political point -- is it freedom and democracy for everybody, with the help of a strong US military, or is it a mild dictatorship by the US military, unless they democratically elect whom the US likes? -- till we *) 18:59, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * Ooooh, logic. Stop it before my brain explodes. -- AdamRaizen

Does the M in joeM stand for 'moron'? Mintguy 18:34, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

So you want the US to invade China? Which US city do you want nuked first? -- AdamRaizen


 * Of course not! He just wants weaken the communist rebels!


 * There is only one China in the world and the mainland is part of China. The government of the Republic of China is the sole legitimate government of China. The Communist rebellion must be immediately put to an end and the mainland must be reunited with Taiwan under the national government. The reunification of the motherland is the common aspiration of the Chinese people. The patriotic compatriots do not wish to see reunification delayed indefinitely. The great revolutionary forerunner of the Chinese nation Dr. Sun Yatsen once said: "Reunification is the hope of entire nationals in China. If reunification can be achieved, the people of the whole country will enjoy a happy life; if it cannot be achieved, the people will suffer."


 * Therefore, for the sake of humanity and fairness, the United States (and most of the world) must immediately withdraw its "diplomatic recognition" of that Communist entity and re-establish full diplomatic relations with China. The US should also supply China with enough arms to crush the rebellion and liberate the mainland. China must also re-establish its nuclear program and develop at least a couple dozen nuclear tipped ICBMs so the world, conspiring with the Communist rebels, cannot blackmail her. The world must stand up to oppose Communist imperialism. The Republic of China must stand for ages to come!


 * Uhm, so yeah. Communist bad...


 * --Your comrade, Jiang

Hey Joe! I'd just like to ask you: which of the armed forces are you a member of? Or if not, which are you signing up with? -- The Anome 21:43, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC) - --"Saddam Hussein is an evil tyrant" is an opinion-- The 'evil' part is fairly unnecessary since the act of being a tyrant is inherently evil. But the idea that Saddam Hussein being a tyrant is just an opinion with equal weight as the opinion that he is not is a bit of a reach. Too many bodies buried in the sand for that. There are certain objective measures of tyranny and Saddam meets them easily. One would be hard pressed to find evidence that Saddam was not evil using the standards of about any culture on earth, even though that word carries additional baggage and is unnecessary in this instance. Neutral point of view is the way to go, but to say that there can be no moral judgments is going a bit far isn't it? "Some people view Hitler as an evil dictator whereas some think he was the greatest thing since sliced bread." That is a neutral statement also, but its not better. Probably the best thing to do is list his crimes and any reader with any sense will see for themselves that he was indeed evil and a tyrant. Use an Amnesty International report or something to satisfy those on the left. --anon


 * That's exactly right. List his crimes, give cites for proof, and we're with you all the way. You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" -- we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, cite your sources. -- Karada 23:15, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * The article probably needs a section to highlight his crimes. The article has a lot of good stuff on the politics but not much on the human cost of his reign.  For instance, his genocide (both literally and environmentally) against the Marsh Arabs and the "Arabization" of northern cities are not covered thoroughly.  Amnesty International probably would be a good source. --anon


 * Indeed. It isn't "going a bit too far" to avoid moral judgement - that's just the thing that we should avoid. We're not here to pass judgement on people's actions, no matter how repulsive we might find them. State what was done, give sources for claims of what was done where these are disputed, and let readers draw their own conclusions. --Camembert


 * There are some moral judgments that are so universal that refusing to acknowledge them is just crazy. There is nobody in the world that can seriously argue that murdering tens of thousands of your own people, ordering environmental and actual genocide against the Marsh Arabs, starting a war with Iran and using chemical weapons, etc. do not an 'evil tyrant' make.   The simple solution is to put information from the Amnesty International reports in the article to stop the controversy.  But the word tyrant has an objective definition spelled out in the dictionary and Saddam meets that definition easily.  Its not an opinion. --anon


 * I'm not saying it is. I'm saying that to say he is evil is an opinion (do all his supporters think he is evil? I suspect not). Just say what he did, with sources for the claims if needed, and that'll do. This is a silly discussion - if you want to edit Saddam Hussein, you're free to do so. --Camembert


 * I'm all for just putting in Amnesty International info (particularly on the Marsh Arabs) and letting it go at that. That should satisfy everyone who is reasonable.  My point was that there is a point where taking into account the opinion of those who are so obviously wrong to avoid offending them seems a bit much.  Some folks have the opinion that the earth is flat, refusing to say its not "to be fair" is not a realistic option.  Words have definitions and if someone meets those objective definitions, then thats what they are even if its something not nice.


 * I half-agree with you, but believing that Saddam is not evil doesn't seem to me to be comparable with believing the earth is flat: the latter can be scientifically disproved, while the former can't (if for no other reason that "evil" is badly defined and presupposes a set of moral codes and norms). Anyhow, we agree on the best approach to the Saddam article, that's the main thing. --Camembert

We must face the truth that an invasion against Red China would be immensely unpopular and costly. We should instead put pressure on the UN to readmit the ROC and reestablish diplomatic relations with the ROC. Our government is filled with pink wimps afraid of pissing off the commies. There is no more USSR left to necessitate befriending the Communist Chinese.

Please be careful with the language you use. You failed to qualify "China" on your userpage with "red", "bandit-controlled", "communist", or "People's Republic of". Thus, you equate China with PRC and label the Republic of China a renegade entity. You imply that the PRC has replaced the ROC as the sole legitimate government of China. Please be more careful next time.

--Jiang 00:57, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Hey, what if killing humans is good, since they're dirty and shit where they live, and killing humans who are self-righteous and think they "own stuff", like the world, is even better? Just another possibility. The kind of thing that becomes more credible, when one reads a list of dozens of nations to invade.

Nice program and a real sense of democracy. This is Political Science according to Randy Newman ? Ericd 00:53, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

JoeM stated in an already-deleted discussion in his ban page that Americans voted for George W Bush. Isn't that inconsistent with the following 2000 results? George W. Bush (W) 271 Electoral Votes - 50,456,002 Popular Votes - 47.87% Al Gore 266 Electoral Votes - 50,999,897 Popular Votes - 48.38% Probably, he should have said: "George W. Bush received more electoral votes". Please, note that I agree with the legitimacy of George W. Bush election: in fact he was elected in all fairness, since that is the system America uses to elect the President, a system with as many qualities and faults as any other democratic system. It was only a reminder to JoeM that sometimes we do not own truth and some facts can be seen in a different light without making us worse people. Cheers to all, including JoeM, of course! Marco NevesMarco Neves

Don't discuus this is democracy. Democracy is a system where people are free to vote for any candidate they want except communists like Gore ;-) Ericd 01:37, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

- Moved from the Ban page of this user

- You people are cowards. You know that one common sense conservative can topple down the delicate house of cards made up users who are at least 90% far left. That's why you want me banned. Well, you might be able to ban me when you control the machinery, but my views are those of the majority of Americans and we now have an all-GOP government now. :America voted for Bush. Bush's approval rating are high. We have a GOP House and Senate. Americans supported the war in Iraq. Americans prefer Republican governors. We prefer the free market, tough on crime stances, a strong foreign policy guided by moral clarity, freedom, and national security, smaller government, lower taxes, and more freedom. Americans love Reagan and W and we defeated Communism and socialism. However, a bunch of leftists are censoring me because they control this site and not America. JoeM


 * What does any of this have to do with Neutral point of view? RickK 01:31, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * He's trying to justify not getting banned.Vancouverguy 01:32, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[irrelevant discussion of politics removed]

Thank you. I should have removed that that. Vancouverguy 01:25, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Can we please keep the discussion relevant? It must be noted that JoeM would not be banned for his political opinions, but for repeated NPOV violations. Evercat 01:18, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * FALSE!!! Can you people be banned for your NPOV violations? Right now, the conservative viewpoint isn't represented in the homelessness article. What about the view that the freer the market the less unemployment and homelessness? What about personal responsibility? We can have NPOV if you let me write the conservative view and you can write the liberal views. However, you insist on solely writing from the left and censoring the right. If you worked with me and cooperated, we'd have NPOV. However, you chose to censor me and impose your POV through banning users and protecting pages. JoeM

You can include the conservative viewpoint. But, firstly you should stop using loaded language. Secondly, if you are going to claim, for example, that Saddam Hussein is evil, then say something like that explains why some people feel that way about him, not in the intoduction, but, in a section that explains public opinion about him. PS: Don't use this as an excuse to go off topic and rant about Saddam.Vancouverguy 01:42, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * What? You don't want me to remind you that if you had your way Saddam would still be digging all those mass graves? JoeM

Yes, let's stay on topic.Vancouverguy 01:19, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

JoeM is NPOV all the other aren't because they're brainwashed by communists. Ericd 01:33, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I have not been brainwashed by communists. Besides, how is saying that going to help JoeM or you? Vancouverguy 01:36, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Can't you tell a joke when you see it? -- Miguel


 * Yes.Vancouverguy 01:42, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm hoping that's what it is. RickK 01:43, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Vancouverguy you've been brainwashed by communists. In real democracy people like you will be reeducated ;-). Ericd 01:44, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * In Guantanamo. -- Miguel
 * No, by watching FOX News. Get Hannitized. JoeM


 * BTW Canada wasn't very active in supporting the liberation of Iraq. Are there all communists ?
 * Ericd 01:48, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Did you know that the Canadian capital was the only site of looting during rhe power outages. THat's liberalism run amock. And BTW, Canadians, especially that stupid French prime minister, are all ungreatful. We defend them with our military and this is how they repay us. We need to punish Canada for that. JoeM
 * Did you know that you're wrong -- 20 arrests were made in Brooklyn over one incident of shoe store looting alone. It does seem that there was more looting in Canada, and that is too Canada's shame, but don't go throwing too many rocks in your glass house.  It shouldn't be any surprise that looting happened in both countries; both countries have elements of lawlessness and those elements will naturally be revealed in times of crisis like the blackout.  As will tendentious nationalists. -- Tlotoxl 23:26, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I prefer the Vancouver Sun newspaper. BTW: British Columbia is run by a right-wing government. This is really off topic.Vancouverguy 01:51, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Can we PLEASE stay on topic and talk about this somewhere else???Vancouverguy 01:56, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)\


 * Too much common sense from JoeM on a single page, right? JoeM
 * Too much common sense from JoeM on the wrong page.Vancouverguy 02:12, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I propose the copy of this part of this page to the JoeM Talkpage, where it belongs. Marco Neves
 * Copy it now before it gets really out of hand.Vancouverguy 02:00, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

-- I've had enough for tonight. However, I'll be back soon writing some good content on the liberal media. Your liberal POV and censorship is safe for now that I go offline. JoeM

Read: User:JoeM/on homelessness
I suggest putting those articles on your main user page, so they are easier to access.Vancouverguy 02:15, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Hey, why not both. JoeM


 * Good idea.Vancouverguy 02:17, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If you want to attribute conservative views, give your sources in the text. Socialist Europe - what planet are we on? jimfbleak 17:54, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

French Army knife? lol! I think you should know better. --Jiang

The french army knife picture is racist and offensive. I will shortly be lsiting it for deletion -- Tarquin 20:14, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Neither being racist nor being offensive is grounds for deleting an image from the userspace. However, the image in question is clearly protected by copyright, which is sufficient to cause deletion without listing it first.

may I ask you what you have against Communism? Or is it that you hate the Soviet form of Communism which IMO is very bad. IMO Communism is very ideal but IMO can only work if everyone can live with each other and not just lay about letting others do the work for them. - fonzy

Users should consider avoiding engaging in political debate with JoeM. This was pretty much agreed to in when his banning was put in the parking lot.Ark30inf 22:21, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I know but I am doing it to try and undersatnd him better, but I doubt it will get anywhere. -fonzy
 * He's easy to understand. He is wanting to provoke those here to engage in petty political flamewars with him.  Thats why, I think, it was agreed last night not to do so.Ark30inf 23:06, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

There was a talk about not talking about "politics"? I did not know that :-s, o well done know. I thought you were just suggetsing not to talk to him about it, I can tell that his views are as about to hard to change as getting an elephant into spandex. - fonzy
 * Someone created a ban page for him. It was decided that rather than ban users would revert any NPOV entries by him and refrain from interacting with him until he started posting worthy material.  This was however just an agreed on method of dealing with the situation and anybody is free to ignore it.Ark30inf 23:14, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

having carefully read your political/military project and considering the lack of success of the USA in Vietnam and their present problems in Iraq, I think it will be difficult and expansive to occupy so many countries. May I suggest you that it will be more efficient and more realistic to fire some big nukes on them to get rid of all these troublemakers ? Ericd 22:55, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 I suggest America, let weapon inspectors in to look at all their Weapons of Mass Distruction (for they have many) and that President Bush (who I would not trust with a blunt pencil) stand down and levae so that a better more sane president can stand in. - fonzy 


 * Out of respect for user JoeM, I ask that you spell American style. The British system of spelling requires a greater number of letters with more time needed to type or write words, thus leading to major loss of time and ineffectiveness. I think you wasted some time typing in that extra "u". --Jiang 23:19, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sadly we have to deal with limited bandwith IMO the tag is more efficient. Ericd 23:27, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi JoeM,

I think it's safe to say that you got off to a rocky start here at Wikipedia, and I hope that I can give you some advice without offending you.

Many people come to Wikipedia with passionately held views, and are enthusiastic about the opportunity to write about the things that interest them. What they may not realize at first is that editing Wikipedia requires both passion and dispassion about the subjects they care about. (The first article I ever created was described as "doctrinaire".)

More specifically, I doubt that you are the only person on Wikipedia with strongly conservative views; but I believe you are the only person who insists that those views receive an airing in the encyclopedia. I'm sure you're aware that this is causing quite a bit of friction.

I believe you have a serious desire to add value to Wikipedia, and are not merely fishing for liberals to castigate (or just fishing). With that in mind, I offer you these specific pieces of advice:


 * Have another good read through Neutral point of view; then go back through other users' comments to you and try to read them through the lens of NPOV. Why did they say what they did? Can you see a rationale for their comments with reference to the NPOV policy?


 * Take a break from editing these contentious articles for a week. I don't think the world with suffer unduly if those articles lack conservative contributions for that amount of time. (Any content you want to preserve can be saved as a personal subpage.) Use the time to have a look at the theory and practice of disputation on Wikipedia.


 * People have insulted you, and will likely do so again. Try not to respond in kind. It is a virtue to disregard comments written specifically to piss you off.


 * With regards to Conservative views on American homelessness: the reason this was listed on VfD is that there is no balance within the article. It is up to you to provide that balance. This means reading primary sources on the liberal point of view, and reporting on those views faithfully. I doubt that will be pleasant for you, but if you do so, you will garner the respect of every Wikipedian (or at least my respect, for what it's worth). Check out in particular Neutral point of view and Neutral point of view.

Or, if you like, you can consign my advice to the rubbish pile and form your own views. ;-)

If it is the responsibity of the first author to write a balance page on a topic, than a lot topics are going to need to be look at (both on the left and the right)


 * It's the responsibility of every author to do their best. -- Cyan 04:45, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

(If you are just a troll, I hope you didn't cackle too loudly while reading this.)

Cheers, Cyan 00:23, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

What's with the Old Yeller? It doesn't matter if it's copyright or not, really -- I don't see how you could use it in an article unless the article was on anti-French sentiment (/bigotry as the case may be). -- Tlotoxl 05:58, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * for starters it's racist and sexist. Next question? - Tarquin 09:20, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Again, there is nothing wrong with politically incorrect content in the *user* space. However, copyright violations are *not* allowed.  This image is protected by copyright and should be deleted without further discussion or vote.  If a similar, GPL, image were posted here, it could stand.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or homepage provider

 * User:JoeM Would appreciate advice here, and the talk page appears to have become stagnent. This page appears to clearly be against What Wikipedia is not #15, and clearly a page like this, regardless of it being a personal page, has no place in an encylopadia of any kind. Tompagenet 23:49, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Don't delete. My user page isn't encyclopedic either, and I don't think that anyone would think that a page prefixed by "User:" would be.  Moreover, I don't want Wikipedia to give any credence to JoeM's claim that he is being censored.  If he leaves or is banned, it probably should be deleted. Paullusmagnus 23:56, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response - I'm not suggesting that user pages should be encylopaedic in the same sense as articles, but What Wikipedia is not clearly states that you should not use User pages for personal homepages. I personally feel that everything at the wikipedia.org domain should meet some basic, agreed standards, and if "What Wikipedia is not" is this set of standards, then JoeM is breaking these standards. Tompagenet 00:13, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not exactly a classic homepage either ("Hi, I'm Fred and here are my favourite web sites and pictures of my kids"). You've got a better case with the "minimum standards", but since this is a User: page, I think you have to allow a lot more leeway. I'd say let it be, it's clearly a personal rant, but in a personal page. Not that we have to give space for that end, but until we start seeing lots of these, and it is becoming a problem, why create a dustup when it's not going to be productive? Noel 00:22, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[page originally listed on VfD] Uh... if you want the content removed, then just blank the page. this really isn't a VfD matter. Martin 00:17, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply, Martin. I suspected that if I were to just blank the page this would be at the expense of a good discussion, and rather rash. I listed it on VfD for want of a better place to discuss the removal of a whole page of poor (IMO) content. Thanks for telling me [VfD] isn't the place to discuss it, and accordingly I de-nominate the page for deletion, although of course I shall leave this text here for others to discuss and for historical record. Tompagenet 00:54, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I agree with you - Wikipedia isn't a homepage provider - and user pages should be focused on building an encyclopedia. Martin 10:09, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Environmentalism (Critique of George W. Bush's politics) A double standard ? vs conserv's veiws on homelessiness.
 * There are mainly facts not opinions in this article.
 * Ericd 14:55, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

So if JoeM made his conserv view on homelessiness Manly facts and not opinions would we have a problem with him putting his article in the pedia?

I'm asking now, does he qualify for auto-revert yet?Ark30inf 17:28, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Never mind that, why is this clown still around? We should have canned him days ago... I really don't want to fight edit wars every day with this idiot over such stupid things. Graft 17:31, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

BTW it's spelled "apologist". M123 17:30, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Reduce the size of picture to something that fits with the encyclopedic nature of the article. If you do that I'll leave alone the Al-Qaeda and Osama ones. But not the Islam one.Ark30inf 17:32, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * And place it in a logical location with some kind of caption or reference to it, for goodness' sake. Just slapping it on the page shows it for the vandalism it is intended to be: actually integrating it into the article would at least be a step in a positive direction, and one I would not automatically revert. Jwrosenzweig 17:38, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Still highly POV. Shall we put pictures of human skeletons from Auschwitz on Adolf Hitler? Graft 17:44, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Graft, good point. I was trying to offer one last olive branch, but perhaps I was stretching too far.  Then we could add photos of the dead on the beach at Gallipoli to Winston Churchill, etc., etc.  Best to not have the picture at all. Jwrosenzweig 17:50, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * I think pictures of the deadt at Auschwitz would be fine and helpful. This photo probably belongs on Osama and Al-Qaeda since they did it.  But not gigantic and not without an appropriate caption.  But it sure as hell doesn't belong on Islam and JoeM put it there also.Ark30inf 17:54, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi JoeM. Although the country I live in is not mentioned on your user page I must say I feel offended browsing it. How on earth can an educated person like yourself state that France, Germany and Canada (and of course all the other countries you mention) are "countries we should destabilize, but not necessarily pursue regime change through military means"? I'm not siding with anybody here, but Wikipedia is a world-wide collaborative effort. It is not a U.S. institution, let alone part of the Bush administration or any nationalist group. Please think about it, and stop that shouting!

All the best, --KF 17:41, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Where is it... I should have it somewhere... Ah, here it is:

--                      /|  /|  |                          |                       ||__||  |       Please don't       | /  O O\__           feed           | /         \       the trolls        | /     \     \                        |                   /   _    \     \ --                  /    |\____\     \     ||                 /     | | | |\____/     ||                /       \|_|_|/   |    __||               /  /  \            |____| ||              /   |   | /|        |      --|              |   |   |//         |____  --|       * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/    *-- _--\ _ \     //           |      /  _     \\ _ //   |        /    *  /   \_ /- | -     |       |      *      ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________ nice, isn't it :-)  At18 18:20, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * See improved version User:EntmootsOfTrolls/sign. "heed", "seed", "read", "be" would also work. EofT 17:45, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Considering the insistance of JoeM in inserting French knife pic I doubt he is educated. Ericd 18:23, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Explaining the removal of JoeM's edit he entitled "(Reverting far-leftwing POV censorship)". At the time of making this edit, the page [Problem users] lists him as on auto-revert. As I understand it, this means that his edit should be automatically reverted. He delteted this fact from User:JoeM in performing the edit, so I have reverted the page and left Jimbo's text in place. Tompagenet 01:42, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Lest Jimbo's important message, which all of wiki should be able to see, be removed again, I have protected the page. So the full details of this user's status is now clear for everyone to see. FearÉIREANN 22:40, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

JoeM, your totally biased revisions and asshole behaviour is a disgrace. I am glad you're on auto-revert and I hope you never come back to wikipedia. I think it's a disgrace to our community that you would put such incredibly one-sided comments into an article.

That said, those of you who want to see an example of what you absolutely should not do should check out some of JoeM's revisions. It's sad and pathetic, yet somehow vaguely amusing that he would have the nerve to post his extremely biased and frankly pigheaded revisions in an encyclopedia. -- Tjdw

JoeM's 911 pictures finally get good use
I put JoeM's pic of the collapse of 2 World Trade center RIGHT where it belongs... on the September 11, 2001 article.

That, and the picture of he teenager with the bin laden shirt is at United States perception of Osama Bin Laden. WhisperToMe 00:15, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Please stop unilaterally making major changes to pages, Wikipedia works best when we discuss such changes beforehand. - Mark Ryan 13:29, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You are still on auto-revert, remember. No changes to articles by you will not be reverted. If you want this changed, I assume Jimbo's offer on User:JoeM is still open. Thanks, Morwen 13:31, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

I have to say that I admire your posts. Unfortunately, this is not the place to do it. Go bother these pro-communist chinamen:. Or we can meet at. --Jiang | Talk 13:45, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This website is private property. Until the owner of it, Jimbo, allows you back in, you are tresspassing by using it. Morwen 13:57, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)


 * What part of that don't you understand? Our reverts have been specifically asked for by the owner of Wikipedia.org, and therefore will continue until he asks otherwise. Morwen 14:18, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

I think your behaviour is totally counter-productive. You are just making people with your politics look like ass-holes. Secretlondon 14:21, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

If you want to be fully banned, you are going exactly the right way about it. Stop or else. Morwen 14:22, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

Speak to Jimbo, get him to post a message saying you are allowed back, then I will stop. Morwen 14:26, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

JoeM: I had a quick look at what you had been adding to the article in question. Since I know nothing about Canadian politics, I cannot say whether it is biased or not. If it is, then it would be a good thing to change it in order to make the representation of the person more neutral. However, to restore an article to a neutral point of view, it is not beneficial to simply add an equal amount of content that is negative about the person. Although this is common (see Mother Theresa for an example), I consider it bad. You have to agree that your edits seemed to make out the man's supposed ultra-conservative (or was it liberal?) attitudes were a bad thing. This is the sort of value judgment that we strive to avoid on Wikipedia, since it invokes tension on both "sides", for those who have an opinion on the issue. It is far better to say "some people have labelled him ultra-conservative (liberal?)". As for pot-smoking, I'm sure almost every politician has used drugs. The idiots.

It is distressing for me to see you blocked like this, and I encourage you to appeal to Jimbo, so that you can rejoin us and help to document the political views that I am sure a significant sector of Canadian society must hold - in a more neutral, respectful tone. - Mark Ryan 14:38, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You aren't on auto-revert just for articles, you are on full auto-revert. See User:JoeM/ban. Feel free to discuss the matter sensibly with the owner of this private website. Morwen 14:52, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

What? No bombing the Netherlands?
We provide DRUGS to the US! We're pretty close to France and Germany and our PM looks like Harry Potter! I mean, come on! Do I have to make up stuff so you guys will finally start bombing us? We harbour Bin Laden! ( Notice the Brittish spelling. ) He has sex with our queen and our PM at the same time! We sold nukes to Iraq, Syria, North Korea, the Taliban and CANADA! We hate McDonalds and American sitcoms and we love french movies and german humour. The national sport of the dutch is the 100m american-flag-burning race. Our PM is really a puppet being controlled by the revived and floating brain of Jozef Stalin! For the love of Eris, invade this damn country already!


 * JoeM has forgotten Switzerland, the USA should get rid of this stupid example of pacifism. Ericd 22:01, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is a joke.
See this.

JoeM=Joseph McCarthy.

Damn it. --NoPetrol 01:01, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dear JoeM, Can you please tell Radicalsubversive that I am not you and you are not me. I don't know why he has reached that conclusion but I hope you can set him straight. Perhaps we could use messenger or something and discuss it with him. Lagavulin 23:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Joe, I have a question
From your photos, you seem to be a young guy. You are obsessed with going to war with most of the countries of the world. So, then, why do you spend all of your time vandalizing Wikipedia, when what you should be doing is volunteering for the US Marine Corps, where you would actually have to face the consequences of war? RickK 66.60.159.190 17:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey Joe, go edit your hero
From your HIGHLY NON NEUTRAL POV, why not go edit your Hero -n- Idiot in Chief, Gee Dumbya Shrub? Please leave the BC article alone, as you have NO IDEA about what you are doing. Thanks, neocon. Remember your BAN??? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JoeM/ban Lone Odessan 08:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Jhhj.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jhhj.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by going to "Your contributions" from your user page and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --Agnte 09:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)