User talk:JoeSperrazza/Archive 2014

Quark (cryptocurrency) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Quark (cryptocurrency). Since you had some involvement with the Quark (cryptocurrency) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). --Surfer43_¿qué pasa? 19:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks, I've replied there JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Randy from Boise listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Randy from Boise. Since you had some involvement with the Randy from Boise redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg (chat) 11:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've replied there . JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Cowhen1966 (talk)
Joesperazza I think someone has already answered for me so I'm not going to get into war with you thanks! If you can't apply good faith and you question my sources that's up to you! I welcome constructive criticism. Regards!Cowhen1966 (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What? I think you are confusing someone else's comments to you. I've been trying to clean up the references on Cecil Jay Roberts. Please see Talk:Cecil_Jay_Roberts and respond there. Thanks. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Joe, Shall we start again? Humble pie? I can now see how my actions may have been interpreted. Let's just say I've been a bit of an eager beaver! Can you help me? Sorry for everything I know now that you were all trying to help me prove my sources all in good faith. Can we now do some work? Regards!Cowhen1966 (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Oh by the way, Panda has been in touch. Can you help to restore the article to its former glory and have it reviewed just like you suggested? As for the talk page all the nastiness from me is probably a bit embarrassing. Do you think Panda can clean up the discussion? Just asking? RegardsCowhen1966 (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Joe, I have gone back to the mediation board and requested that I no longer need mediation so scrap that! I think you said something about IP address and users pace can you enlighten?Cowhen1966 (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I have asked been asked by the administrators notice board to inform you that I have lodged a formal complaint. ThanksCowhen1966 (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a clever game some of you have been playing. It almost reminds me of children in a playground who bully a child to the point where they think they are the problem. You almost had me there. I really tried here Joe, God knows how much I tried. Here I was on my page, with someone telling me how much my actions are preventing me from becoming part of the "community". So like a little child at school who wants everyone to like them they try and get themselves accepted. Even if it means making a fool of themselves. But the last few days have taught me that it doesn't matter what I do, I came in as a single-editor and will probably leave as one. I am asking you nicely not to repeat that stunt you pulled today. You cannot deny it because you provided an explanation for reverting my work. This is the first step towards some kind of resolution although I don't know what it is we're conflicting about. I have not edited your work. In fact, I wouldn't know how. However, I do have up to seven days to respond to statements that have been left on the articles for deletions page. If you carry on reverting my work, I will have no choice but to paste copies of my response on my page which I hope for my own sake is relatively safe. RegardsCowhen1966 (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Joe. You reverted this edit from Cowhen1966 saying in the edit summary: "Rv - do not edit others entries. Add your own at the end of the talk page." Well, he edited his own comment. Regards, MrScorch6200  (talk &#124; ctrb) 02:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Follow up: I think you meant to revert this edit; Cowhen added his signature in the middle of a comment from me. MrScorch6200 (talk &#124; ctrb) 02:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I'm dumb; they're the same edit. MrScorch6200  (talk &#124; ctrb) 03:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Everyone involved here needs to take their discussions to the appropriate talk pages (See Articles_for_deletion/Cecil_Jay_Roberts and Reliable_sources/Noticeboard). Thanks JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a note to myself (and whatever few talk page stalkers I may have) regarding the above, after much Sturm und Drang the editor in question disappeared into the ether after he was blocked. Although, to me, it was quite obvious there was some connection between that editor and the article he created and advocated (hint: look at the scan of the photo taken at the castle, for just one of many things), I was willing to help improve the article, and in fact tried to do so. However: The sad truth is a lot of time was wasted on this issue that could have been spent improving WP. I firmly believe (AGF is not a suicide pact) that the editor was hoping to "huff and puff" his way into the article being kept, as both the facts (verifiable information) and the rules were against him. Sadly, some other editors got pulled into this drama fest and even seemed to agree (in some cases) that the editor in question was being "bullied". Sigh. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The article, even as originally written, simply did not assert notability sufficient to meet any of the notability guidelines that might apply,
 * No additional references could be found that elevated the notability of the subject.

Speedy deletion nomination of KLOS C
Hello JoeSperrazza,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged KLOS C for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Zeke Sonxx ( Whine ) 02:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC) =

Status and Advice
As reviewing administrator, I didnt delete it--speedy deletion does not apply to this type of subject. However, expansion of the article and better referencing is needed.  DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI, I only created it as a redirect. I see that others expanded it (albeit inadequately) as an article. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

MedStar Health News Release Tag
Courtesy memo for JoeSperrazza, talk page agreeing with the original News Release tag for the article which also seems appropriate for many of the related entities. --BoboLink81 (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
--k6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 16:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hospital
Hi. I think these are old instructions that now not needed anymore. There were placed in 2010 but I think infobox standardisation had done a lot of progress since then. It is not only Visual Editor that makes instructions via comments obsolete but also the fact that most of the infoboxes use almost the same convention. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

American politics arbitration evidence
Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [•] 14:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
…for your attention at the Admin page, to the question of edit warring, of Leprof_7272. Had more like you taken an interest, there might have been a fair discussion. At the core of it was an article content and policy issue—is it ever permissible to leave unreferenced material in a BLP article, to give other editors a chance to place sources they did not take the time to place, when first working? Esp., is it ever permissible to leave the material in, if it is innocuous (neutral, not a libel concern)? I am not strongly opinionated on this, generally desiring strong referencing everywhere, but being driven to be more patient and open with others that are more lax with WP:Verifiable (because in my broad editing experience, such editors are so numerous here). Hence, I was on an odd side of this argument—arguing patience when I normally would have been arguing my opponent's position. So, this particular article issue could have gone either way for me, had there been a discussion. In this case, I posted lengthy Talk before making any changes, and they were reverted by a Huggle-user, responding to what they thought was vandalism (later apologising for this misperception). But this initial mistake regarding the nature of my edits did not stop the reversion from beginning, and I was clueless about how to respond to it. Clearly, if there were only two editors involved, and I the first to edit, the other the first to revert, it would have ended quickly (and my patient approach would have prevailed). But the other editor rounded up a supporter. With two reverting, there was no way I could prevail, and I should have punted. The bigger issue for me is the way in which editors solicit friends when issues occur, and I have now seen this break two opposite ways: on one earlier occasion I was blocked for fighting another discussion-less reversion, except on that occasion it was completely the other direction. (Then, I was asking for unreferenced material removal.) In this case, you and others caught on to aspects of the matter vis-a-vis fairness, but were too late to stem the tide. Bottom line for me: as a science content matter expert, I have other venues to contribute for my univ public service, and so I will move on. But I wanted you (and Liz, and The Bushranger, et al) to know that this is not a game I am going to continue to play, and so after some significant tidying this month, I will be leaving. This last conflict made clear to me the folly of the current system of edit monitoring, reversion counting, and conflict resolution, and understanding the folly of this overarching battle is good news for me. Being content-focused, and unwilling to build networks, this is a losing system for me to be involved with. Just wanted you to be encouraged in your pattern of questioning, and fair-mindedness, for the sake of others here. Cheers, and best wishes. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Personel attack
There is not just edit warring. It's about personel attack! Did you saw his comments talk page of kyrgyz people!? Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Read WP:3RR. There are very limited exemptions for edit warring. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * For your benefit, I am quoting the section of policy regarding edit-warring exemptions below. None of your edits meet those exemptions. In particular, also refer to WP:NOTVAND. Even if the edits you refer to are considered by you to be personal attacks (and it is not clear that they are - see WP:NPA), they are not WP:VANDALISM per se and are thus not exempt from the restrictions on edit warring. Any more such and you will be blocked - and you still may be.

3RR exemptions
The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR:


 * 1) Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
 * 2)  Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.
 * 3) Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets  of banned and blocked users.
 * 4) Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
 * 5) Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Non-free content review noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
 * 6) Removal of other content that is clearly illegal under US law, such as child pornography and links to pirated software.
 * 7) Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

Considerable leeway is also given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page.

If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert. Instead, engage in dispute resolution, and in particular ask for help at relevant noticeboards such as the Edit war/3RR noticeboard.
 * Illegitimate removal of other people's comments is considered vandalism, as noted here. Yag's reversions were not edit warring, considering the IP repeatedly removed his comments. I would further recommend that you remove the warning from his talk page as it appears to be counterproductive. &mdash;Dark 14:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments striken and apology issued . Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk)

RD & K
I'm not sure that the RevDel policy really rules out this use of it in as quite a clear-cut manner as you suggest. After all, there's no doubt about the disruptiveness of his comments, and the edits of banned editors can be removed on sight. That combination would appear to be within a creative interpretation of the policy. Or, perhaps we'll get the Kukioko amendment to it. Best, BMK (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I like that last suggestion! WP:NPA inhibits me from stating my thoughts about that editor - but there's no doubt his edits have negative value these days. - JoeSperrazza

MdeBohun
Thank you for your help and support. I won't be continuing with Wiki, there not enough Joe's and too many of the others out there.MdeBohun (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Good luck to you! JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also I mentioned you on my main page, if that is not ok with you tell me and I will take it down https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mosfetfaser Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Uncool
You taking on the role of caretaker of JimboTalk? - 2001:558:1400:10:C2:2B3:2D1A:CB69 (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Very cool. Though I don't have much time lately, I have been reverting Mr. 2001 on-sight at Jimbo's talk page. There have been several personal attacks/outing on my talk page and elsewhere, so I know my reverts hit home. So please continue reverting Mr 2001 and Spotting ToU. I wonder if you've considered JMP EAX? I nearly reverted him last week on UT:Jimbo in the IBM discussion, but he was just slightly subtler. Same results though as in the usual "Jimbo is a hypocrite" conclusion.  JMP EAX acually edits however.  How strange is that for Mr. 2001?  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2014/Candidates/JoeSperrazza
I removed your nomination from the candidate list, as you created your statement past the deadline due date, and thus is ineligible to run for this election. Sorry about that. Secret account 00:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. Best regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Centuria (unit)
Sorry, but I can't understand these template things you added to the redirect at all. Centuria is basically a Latin form of 100, but this particular usage in Mouton's unit proposal appears to be unique to Mouton (and died with him). I can't honestly see any point in this particular redirect, since just no-one will type it, but arguably a dab page for 'centuria' might have a link into Mouton's page. Have I missed something? Imaginatorium (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I see you edited that redirect. See WP:CATREDIRECT:
 * There are, however, maintenance categories specifically for redirects, and most should be in one of those
 * If the redirect is worth keeping (some of the original authors redirects are not worth keeping, e.g., Cubic statute mile), it is worth categorizing. Based on your comment, above, perhaps you should have nominated this redirect for deletion at WP:RFD instead of merely copyediting it. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI
Thanks for notifying me about the ANI. I have responded there. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)