User talk:JoeSperrazza

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:4wajzkd02)
Jump to: navigation, search
This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JoeSperrazza.

Committed identity: d05d44cb032776bb6362b62a42705e680cb6e37eb4f43efd32feeb0852f82d84fb8526677408c1ce423972bae05d6b4565118c5ede0e4e35f770e1e3f1aec5b1 is a SHA-1 commitment to this user's real-life identity.

Quark (cryptocurrency) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Randy from Boise listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Cowhen1966 (talk)[edit]

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 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.

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)

Speedy deletion nomination of KLOS C[edit]

MedStar Health News Release Tag[edit]

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[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, JoeSperrazza. You have new messages at K6ka's talk page.
Message added 16:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--k6ka (talk | contribs) 16:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hospital[edit]

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[edit]

Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Wikipedia: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[edit]

…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[edit]

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[edit]

Shortcuts:

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 Wikipedia: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. —Dark 14:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Comments striken and apology issued [3]. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk)

RD & K[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

A barnstar for you![edit]

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
Thank you for your support of me during a recent situation regarding another editor. I really appreciate it, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 00:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)