User talk:JoelWhy

MMR vaccine controversy

I wrote a short comment in the talk page of MMR vaccine controversy Trente7cinq (talk) 07:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Debate

Hey, I know a bunch of people on the Hugo Chavez page have been wondering about reference format and what style of citation should be used. You are invited to join in the discussion and give your input at WT:VEN. Let the debate begin ... --Schwindtd (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join a discussion on the citation style to be used for the Hugo Chavez page. I know its kind of trivial, but a unified style can make the page look classy. As you are an active editor your input is greatly appreciated. To have your voice heard please go to WT:VEN under the heading titled Citation StyleThanks!--Schwindtd (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit that you made...

When you made this edit, you commented, "You need to put this in an encyclopedic, balanced format if you want it added."

And you also commented, "I'd love to have more editors on the Hugo Chavez page who aren't overtly pro-Chavez. But, the edit warring isn't helping matters. The other editors just dismiss you as being a vandal. If you're serious about improving the page (which is heavily pro-Chavez at the moment), please join in the discussion, help provide sources, etc."

I read the articles at the sources that were cited, and the edit in question is a very, highly accurate summation of the contents of the articles in question. There is no good side to food shortages, hoarding, using the military to seize food, taking away incentives, etc. The content was as balanced as it could be.

However, if you think the material could be put back into the article in a more appropriate manner, perhaps you could be the one to do it. The sources are all first rate. All you have to do is figure out a more appropriate way to incorporate their contents into the article, in a way that you believe is more conductive to improving the encyclopedia.

72.95.234.23 (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

I Just want to thank you for your work on the Chavez article. Please ensure the POV tag stays on. Several years ago I tried to edit a completely biased article on a (relatively minor) matter relating to modern Venezuela politics and found that all my work was completely futile, as it was often deleted in block and essentially replaced with propaganda from venezeula analysis.com. I recently read the Hugo Chavez bio and was saddened to see how partisan it was in his favor, in some sections subtly and in others blatantly. Some sections, like the one on crime, were almost laughable (if the issue wasn't so serious) to anyone who has spent significant time in Venezuela over the past several decades. I plan on doing some work on the april 11 article as that is a complete joke at this point, so we'll see how that goes but anyway thanks. Uninformed and curious individuals need to be aware that the Chavez bio has serious POV issues. The quality of wikipedia needs to be defended from armies of propagandists. 173.66.128.156 (talk)Rory —Preceding undated comment added 04:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Chavez

Hi! TFD asked you a question at Talk:Hugo_Chávez#A_general_philosophical_remark_about_.27academic.27_sources WhisperToMe (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, I've been super busy at work and just haven't had a chance to get around to it! I'll try to get to it soon, thanks!!JoelWhy (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paterno Bio

Do you still participate with this page? --AVR2012 (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. Haven't been around this weekend, so I'll have to check the page to see what's going on...JoelWhy (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It goes without saying that your further input is welcome. --AVR2012 (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As many have concluded from the facts that are known

Hi,

I note that you undid a bit of my work on Paterno, which I more or less agree with. I was trying to cut this phrase

"as many have concluded from the facts that are known."

Reason, it doesn't specify who are 'many' and what they have concluded. More crucially, what exactly are the facts that are known? The facts of what McQueary saw are a bit hazy since the grand jury presentment says anal rape, while his prelim perjury testimony says something about body position and/or unseen fondling. Note I took out the next sentence too and I don't disagree with reverting that, don't care. Do you agree with re-deleting that 10 word phrase above? Think about it.

Also, your justification that Noonan's opinion is more valid than an opinion piece is welcome, note that on the talk page of that article I am working to get someone to reduce the amount of pasted in opinion piece from the Jenkins article in some intelligent way. The theme of the piece is something like 'Paterno is a hero but a flawed hero.' I state the opinon that a reference would be fine, along with two notable quotes. I don't have a strong opinion about that, but it was weird that you justify including something like "...as many have concluded from the facts that are known" which just adds to the fluff and vagueness of the whole article, on the grounds that it is fluffy and vague. Not to be critical, but does it really justify leaving those 10 words there in the article? Also those 10 words and also the Jenkins article have a sort of underlying innuendo too which isn't harmful but certainly doesn't justify including both. Createangelos (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very much so. It was tacked on by someone arguing that we don't know for certain whether Paterno ever went to the police (despite the numerous reports that he never went to the police, and the criticism by the Chief of Police criticizing him for never contacting the police.)JoelWhy (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, In note you're online now, can you explain in greater length? I'm not conversant with the facts here. Createangelos (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I understand this. The phrase makes sense, but only to people who have been involved in writing the article. I took it to mean 'he should have contacted the police because the facts of wrongdoing are evident to many unspecified people.'

It needs to be made more precise somehow, otherwise seeems to implly some unspecified facts, very confusing.

Createangelos (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, basically, someone made a fairly pedantic argument that we don't know for sure he didn't go to the police, because all of the evidence showed he went to an administrator, but didn't specifically say he never contacted police. There's ample evidence he never went to the police, none of his supporters claim he went to the police, and the police say he never contacted them; not even Paterno claimed he went to the police. This was just what I can only assume to be a Paterno supporter trying to make him look better.

For the record, I don't really care about Paterno one way or the other. I don't watch college football, and I don't care at all about college rivalries (I couldn't even tell you who Penn State's rival is!) I just thought this article had a heavy Paterno apologist bias which bothered me. The guy didn't molest anyone, he's not some evil sociopath. Do I think he should have gone to the cops? Of course. But, all I want is an objective article. Anyhow, thanks for the assistance with the article.JoelWhy (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah well you seem to know about Wikipedia so I'll leave it to your greater expertise on that front, bye.Createangelos (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 CT article

I was thinking of more than just thermite, but they did not dismiss thermite either. Saying something is unlikely is not the same as concluding it did not occur, which is what NIST did on the use of explosives. However, NIST only specifically looked at controlled demolition claims and Popular Mechanics focused on mainly the Loose Change-type accusations. Neither were looking at questions of criminal culpability.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please stop making snarky remarks about me, especially on the basis of the claim that I am a conspiracy theorist despite me reminding you previously that I have not at any point said I believe the conspiracy theories?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Mainstream" implies that fringe media outlets are the only ones that have not rejected them, but removing that implies all media outlets have done so. Please see my comments on the article talk page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Able Danger material

Would you mind providing your opinion about this attempted edit to the 9/11 CT article on the article's talk page?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of cative orcas

ive noticed that every time i edited List of captive orcas, stuff i wrote has been deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.134.54.239 (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

its true

Ulises can be seen with Corky and he is indeed dominant for a male. you can read it on cetacean cousins.

also Takara can show her dominant side. every time you delete it, i will put it back because im telling the truth. go on cetacean cousins for proof.