User talk:Joseph77237

June 2024

Hello, I'm Jdcomix. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Criminal law have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Jdcomix (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of asking to contribute if everything is deleted by lying about the absence of reliable sources? So what's the point of the Wikipedia Charter being voted on these days? Joseph77237 (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this was the edit in question. It appears you added the incomplete sentence "The versari in re illicita", which does not make sense. The removing editor did not claim the reason was lack of reliable sources, only that this edit was not constructive. Perhaps this is not the change you intended to make to this article? -- Beland (talk) 08:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Strict liability. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Materialscientist (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I put the sources, but you deleted everything anyway. Not having administrative powers in Wikipedia, I stop contributing: I worked on it for 2 days, and you deleted everything in 30 seconds, citing untrue reasons: the sources are cited in the notes. 95.75.78.144 (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I put the sources, but you deleted everything anyway. Not having administrative powers in Wikipedia, I stop contributing: I worked on it for 2 days, and you deleted everything in 30 seconds, citing untrue reasons: the sources are cited in the notes.

the sources are all academic as well as ministerial; Is deleting without justification a game against Wikipedia contributors? Joseph77237 (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Special:diff/1231813697, I don't see any sources for the paragraph you added, either. What do you mean "the sources are cited in the notes"? I would expect inline footnotes in this new paragraph every sentence or two, but there are none, and there are no Harvard-style parenthetical citations, either. Are we missing something?

BTW, accusing another editor of lying or playing games could be considered a serious violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. No worries if you hadn't heard about that guideline before; in my experience conversations here go a lot more smoothly if when I first respond I assume what looks like an inappropriate revert is simply a misunderstanding we need to work out. If someone really is behaving badly, either my good behavior encourages them to be reasonable and revert themselves, or they make it clear to me and other editors that their edit was unjustified and it gets reversed (and if they are seriously disrupted they get reported to administrators with a longer paper trail). Sometimes I learn that I was missing something and I was in the wrong, and it's nice to avoid accusing or insulting a fellow volunteer who is just trying to be helpful when I'm the one who has made the mistake. -- Beland (talk) 08:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

What's the point of asking to contribute if everything is deleted by lying about the absence of reliable sources? So what's the point of the Wikipedia Charter being voted on these days???!!! Joseph77237 (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Praeterintention moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Praeterintention. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has too many problems of language or grammar. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

for me the article is complete. Then do what you want with it. Joseph77237 (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm compatible to contribute if the article is judged wrong: it is objectively correct in all the points of the Wikipedia pillars. I will certainly not wage wars of edits in Wikipedia without impartial judges who judge on the merits. I have better things to do than to be bullied in Wikipedia. goodbye. Joseph77237 (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi, can you check the Praeterintention entry?: I've finished fixing it: simplifying it further means giving the user wrong information, and from tomorrow I can't intervene.; if there is any problematic

aspect highlighted in red. good morning

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Praeterintention Joseph77237 (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

taxpayer abuse: no protection?

In Wikipedia shouldn't the Wittgenstein principle apply: "whereof one cannot speak, one must remain silent"...or rather, if one is not competent on a subject, one cannot judge? Otherwise, to be a doctor one should not have a degree!; or is Larry Sanger right?: <<... contributors have failed to understand the many problems that plague Wikipedia, from its management problems to its often dysfunctional community, from its frequently unreliable content to a series of scandals. Although Wikipedia is a rather useful and incredible phenomenon, I am now certain that it can no longer be fixed.>>. L. Sanger Joseph77237 (talk) 05:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of "qui in re illicita versatur, tenetur etiam pro casu"

The article "qui in re illicita versatur, tenetur etiam pro casu" has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unclear topic; title most likely corresponds to concepts of Fault (law) and felony murder rule, both of which already have pages. The abbreviation "Versari in re illicita" given in this article also already exists as a page and is a redirect to Fault (law). I suspect the length of this title makes it unlikely to be useful if turned into a redirect page itself.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — nmael ^talk 16:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I spent days contributing and Wikipedia administrators enjoy bullying contributors, with false reasons: 1) Qui versari in re illicita, tenetur etiam pro casu, is an article present in all global Wikipedias: just do a simple search;

●https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qui_in_re_illicita_versatur,_tenetur_etiam_pro_casu

● https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A5llande_till_annans_d%C3%B6d

2) Praeterintention has suffered the same fate, despite a basic and synthetic elaboration;

The problem with Wikipedia is that the law of the jungle reigns: and in the jungle you can't work: there are only do-nothings. Joseph77237 (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I add: but aren't there administrators in Wikipedia who decide who is right or wrong?: in an impartial manner. Joseph77237 (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joseph77237,

I'm sorry that you've had some experiences on Wikipedia that have been frustrating.

Unfortunately, the presence of similar articles on other language's Wikipedias is not itself a reason to have one here.

There appear to exist several articles on the English language Wikipedia that cover the same themes as the "qui in re illicita versatur, tenetur etiam pro casu" article; specifically, Fault (law) and Felony murder rule. It may be worth considering whether those articles could be improved with the topics referenced in "qui in re illicita versatur, tenetur etiam pro casu" rather than making a new article for the phrase alone.

If you still disagree, you may stop the proposed deletion process by removing the {{Proposed deletion/dated ... }} tag from the article per the proposed deletion policy. If the tag is not removed, the article will be reviewed by an administrator (I am not an administrator) in 7 days; the article may or not be deleted depending on the reviewing administrator's assessment. If the tag is removed, the article may still go through the Articles for deletion process, which would allow for a period of public discussion before a decision is made.

Thank you — nmael ^talk 22:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had already done it:

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability

Your colleagues have ALWAYS deleted IGNORING THE REASONS EXPOSED WITH AUTHORITATIVE BIBLIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES. Wikipedia co-founder L. Sanger is right: <<administrative abuses in Wikipedia make it irretrievable...>>. In the world of civilization and democracy, before killing the work of others, you go to check and ask for explanations, and then after a process of cognition you decide to kill the work of others. In Wikipedia the opposite happens: first you kill the work of days without the necessary checks. Joseph77237 (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article was a Proposed Deletion. You can prevent PRODs by removing the PROD tag from the article. You can also challenge a PROD tag on the article talk page. If you believe this deletion is not uncontroversial, you can request its restoration by making a request at WP:REFUND. Just know that it can be tagged for a future AFD deletion discussion. This will be a week-long discussion where you can argue against or for the deletion of an article. Guidelines and policies on Wikipedia can seem complex as they have been developed over 23 years but there is usually a way to appeal an article deletion.

If you ever have questions about policies and guidelines, please bring them to the Teahouse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Praeterintention has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Praeterintention. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Preterintention has been accepted

Preterintention, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

asilvering (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]