I provided a source that directly called Richard a TERF, and yet it was removed for not being "neutral". What is neutral, then? Only the people you like? And again, all you're gonna do is censor and silence, never your own research? And you expect me to believe you're doing it in good faith?

Wikipedia is not the place for you to try to strike revenge on every celebrity you believe has wronged your community. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you have no interest in learning the rules of editing on Wikipedia. So, I am not going to waste any more time trying to teach them to you. And, as an aside, as someone who is a fierce supporter of people in the LQBTQ community, I can assure you that your actions are not having the desired outcome. To the contrary, this type of activism just serves to embolden the right wing bigots (and get people like Trump elected into office.) JoelWhy?(talk) 13:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, with regard to the article, I have added details about him and a few links I could find. Prof. A Satyanarayana Shastri is a notable person in circles both in India and Abroad. However, he passed away in 2004 and hence was not covered extensively on online media. Please let me know what I can do to fix this. I would like to retain the page, and I am new to Wikipedia. Please help. Discover Lasting Happiness (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I shall endeavour to add further references for the Maggie Bird (curator) article. My case for her notability rests on her successful work to open the Met Police archives to the public, when they were infamously suspected of being secretive on issues such as Jack the Ripper. Saint Michael 2010 (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to talk. do not want to upset you. sorry please explain in English what you believe the problem is, I have NOT even finished editing yet. regards.

Dear JoelWhy I have included references & believe Parlo qualifies to be a notable MMA fighter. I hope you will review the article & consider not removing it. Thank you, Adam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamkessel (talk • contribs) 17:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JoelWhy! I receive from You a massage on my talk that the article Soldatenko, Lukashyk and partners was deleted. I wrote the article because of organizations requests about history of foundation of the law firm which make pro-bono support to the ELSA (international student organization), Orden de Malta etc. If you have any concerns or questions about this article please let me know on my talk page. Please undelete the article. Sincerely Yours, Bohdan Bohdan2004 (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.134.54.239 (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] 

About the Shippingsport Bridge... I saw you say it was fake in the deletion talk, I live two miles from it and my uncle owns a hotel 50 feet from it! So if I see that page deleted because it's "fake", I'm gonna rewrite it. No way avoiding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyWheeler4Life (talk • contribs) 00:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Joel,

I seem to have an issue with the article Pushpa Basnet you recently tagged WP:NPOV. The final article was drafted putting WP:NPOV and WP:GNG clearly in mind. The explicit statements sufficiently cite 3rd party references. The resource is authentic and legitimate.

The question is, you haven't given your view on the Talk page regarding the neutrality issue, or why the article is biased, Which is a clear violation of Template:POV. Therefore, please point out the section of article where you find neutrality issue or start a discussion on the Talk page, or consider removing the tag which doesn't comply with Template:POV, so editors can re-work on the article and make it better. Otherwise, I as an editor have to remove the Neutrality Issue Tag in accordance to Template:POV.

Suggestion: Best will be to use ((((POV-section)))) to mark the section with neutrality issue, that way editors can find it easy to work on the issue.

Thanks. Salman 04:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello JoelWhy. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Crave (For King and Country album), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to albums. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info!JoelWhy (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you added Template:Fanpov to Two Loons for Tea. However, virtually every sentence in the article is referenced. There is nothing in it that is "my" opinion; rather it is a summary of factual information and critical (published) reviews of the band and their music. True, most of the cited reviews are fairly positive: I looked for negative reviews to provide a balanced perspective, but I was not able to find any. That doesn't mean they aren't there, but I was not able to locate them. In any case, I don't believe this makes the article non-NPV. The cited critical comments primarily serve to characterize the band's musical style.

I'm not sure what else I could do to make the article more "neutral." I did read Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and it says

"it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public. "

Which is exactly what this article does. So as far as I can tell, the article complies--it is "balanced" to the extent possible and everything is cited.

Please advise. If I don't hear anything in a few days, I am going to remove Template:Fanpov.

Thanks,

--Crandmck (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, JoelWhy -- thanks for your response.

I see your point about the review excerpts. When I included those quotes, I was really looking for information to characterize their music--but it was almost impossible to find that outside of reviews. As I noted above, the NPOV guidelines do specifically say that it's appropriate in cases such as this to include critical review opinions even though they are obviously not "netural."

I will add quotation marks as you suggest and perhaps attribution; though I think the citation should be sufficient. In these cases, I don't think copyright is an issue because the excerpts are very brief and are covered under Fair use. I looked up the policy, and in Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria it says:

Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks

As to your question, I think their most recent album "Nine Lucid Dreams" is their best work so I would recommend starting there. It's very well done, in my opinion. You can hear one of the songs from the album just by going to http://twoloons.com/.

I appreciate your input. I'm still learning about the Wikipedia guidelines..... I'll make the edits and remove the Template:Fanpov. Please let me know if you think it still needs work. I want to make it "right"! :-)

--Crandmck (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the deletion of this article for the following reason: Decline speedy, looks to me like the remote page copied from Wikipedia, not the other way around. This material was all originally in History of Anatolia. Thank you, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly that's really scary to be accused of copywrite violation when somebody else copies one's work from Wikipedia. There should be some safeguards against that. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JoelWhy, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Subhasish ghosh, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: eminent professor is an assertion of importance. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 23:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JoelWhy. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Canan Topçu, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not all professors are notable enough to survive AFD, but they aren't candidate for A7. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 09:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not the road. Sorry, you can't A9 a band. A9's for recordings with no notability of their own whose artists haven't got an article, and as these have an article, their records can't be A9ed either... (Catch 22a.) A7 includes bands, but db-band is personalised for them. Can't make my mind up about Ruby. I've not heard of them, but they're not in my areas of music so that might mean lower echelon notable or non-notable. Peridon (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peridon. I actually posted on the Talk page right after my CSD submission that I meant to do A9, not A7. In any case, I'll leave it up to you to decide whether they warrant deletion or not.JoelWhy (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can always change a tag. No probs there. As to notability or significance: No way. I said I can't decide. Anyway, what I came back for was to point you at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mgoodyear#Classical_Anatolia which you might find interesting. (Peridon getting verbose again...) Peridon (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, surely you meant A7 not A9... Peridon (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lol, yes, I keep saying A9, but I mean A7!JoelWhy (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I withdraw my objection to the page. I misread -- I thought it was only notable because the bassist was related to Fogerty. I now see that Fogerty was in the band, and his nephew joined for one album. So, sorry for wasting your time. :) JoelWhy (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding this, using ((non-free)) is a bit silly. The SCOTUS decision (and any related documents, I believe) are public domain. The content is clearly marked in a <blockquote> tag and it comes from Oyez.org, which is using a Creative Commons license (albeit the non-commercial one).

I agree that the text should be rewritten and properly incorporated into the article. It was mostly dumped there as a placeholder. However, I was more concerned with ensuring that there was appropriate attribution than I was about trying to pretend that I synthesized the background of the case so neatly myself.

It should be simple enough to reconstruct the background information from the publicly available documents (litigant briefs, amici curiae, and the decision itself). Maybe I'll be able to get to it today. --MZMcBride (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct, my mistake. Sorry about that!JoelWhy (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up some of the text just now. Thanks for catching this and for keeping me honest. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for helping me improving the article Rocket science in finance E. Feld talk 01:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.2.116 (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joel,

Thank you for your comment on Visual Reading article. Although the article is not perfect, like neither of Wikipedia articles, it is hard for me to see how the link you provided is MORE scientific than sources cited in the article. If you think that the article is not scientific, then please provide constructive criticism. What points are you dissatisfied with? What do you think needs to be improved? Please support you statement "the article gets science wrong" with a proof, citing research published in peer reviewed scientific journals. If you are unable to do so, then please delete what you have written about the article, as it is an unsupported statement (opinion) and come back with a more constructive criticism when you are ready.

Kind regards, Natalia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.3.170 (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not stating my opinion; I pointed to an article that summarizes the findings of speed reading courses. But, I will dig up some peer reviewed journals that say the same thing. And, speaking of peer reviewed articles -- you've listed plenty of citations, but do any of them include peer reviewed articles finding that Shin's method can improve people's ability to read 1,000+ WPM? I haven't gone through all the cited works, but I'm assuming none of them say that such a feat occurred, at least not without a substantial loss in reading comprehension.JoelWhy (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joel,

Indeed you are stating your opinion, as you openly acknowledge that you do not know much about Shin's method or about scientific research on speed reading. Moreover in your deletion note you call Hyo Sang Shin's work "pseudo scientific garbage" (?!) Being an editor on Wikipedia and hiding behind JoelWhy nickname does not give you the right to post libelous comments on other people's work. If you do not know or do not understand something, it does not mean that it is wrong.

I suggest you do your research. Prepare a constructive and substantiated critique of the article and only after that tag the article as biased or raise a discussion to delete it.

I would kindly request you delete the posts that you added on top of the article's page before you are ready for any constructive discussion. Please also remove your libelous comments about Hyo Sang Shin and his work. If it is not done, I will complain to Wikipedia administrators.

Kind regards, Natalia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azbukva (talk • contribs) 23:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joel,

I would like to notify you that I have raised a complaint regarding your libelous and unsubstantiated points on Visual reading article. You can view the complaint here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#Libelous_and_unsubstantiated_edits_by_a_new_page_patroller

Kind regards, Natalia (Azbukva) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azbukva (talk • contribs) 23:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't say "keep, it just needs work" unless you plan to do the work yourself. I see this all the time. "Keep, it just needs work" gets spammed. Everyone claims that the article can be fixed, but nobody gets around to fixing it. Ever. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, TPH. I do solemnly pledge to (at the very least) take out all the PR crap and make the page neutral.JoelWhy (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JoelWhy. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Five Base Yogas.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis and Kahn's The Reptoid Hypothesis: Utopian and Dystopian Representational Motifs in David Icke's Alien Conspiracy Theory is interesting, if you get through the contemporary academese writing. It's readable online at the author's site and other places. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I happened to stumble into the deletion discussion while patrolling new pages, and I was rather shocked at how the article was being defended. The fact that the article creator actually added the reference to James Bond after the discussion began almot made me think that it had to be a joke, but sadly I don't think it is. Rorshacma (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I pity you white cowards. I am going through this sick cowardly conspiracy only to have a coward intrude to stop the truth from being known. You whites are so determined and proud to prove you are even bigger cowards. I feel great sorrow for your race for you have not a bit of courage. I strongly adivse you to be strong emotionally for it will improve your outlook on cooperating. Go ahead and resort to the cowards way and delete my page (Non Treaty Chippewa Indians).

If an entity looking out for the future of Native Americans is involved, i hope they kill you and those close to you, in the most gruesome of manners. Where is your courage? Bring forth your courage by deleting my page (Non Treaty Chippewa Indians). That will prove you have the courage to accept the inevitable which will occur from conducting one's self in a crooked manner. You do not get away with abusing power. Those who abuse power always face a fate caused by their crooked actions. You have no right intruding. Intruders are criminals. You know what happens to criminals who intrude. Incredible numbers of innocent people end up killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poesam (talk • contribs) 20:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly took the above in the right spirit and sayed level headed, should get a barnsar for that ;)

hat said the comment should be struck from the edit histry. Have you thought of petitioning for it? I would support, but i think its common sense to strike it off (Lihaas (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

		The Philosophy Barnstar
		For showing incredible restraint on a comment and even death threat one might say and holding your head till it was resolved in the way it needed to be. Lihaas (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ps- Not sure if this was the right one (was looking for one about keeping a cool head), but its a good fit. Cahnge it if you see fit ;) The Good Humour one could do based on your response on that users talk page ;)(Lihaas (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

Hello JoelWhy. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Joshua Feldman, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoelWhy

You forgot to sign at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Harleston.--Charles (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping you might return to the AFd and perhaps offer support for a redirect to the newly created section on the filmmaker's earlier projects to be found at City of Scars#Background. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworded the article and brought in new references. Is it OK if the tags are removed now? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you've come to agree that a redirect is a suitable option, might you consider placing a <s>strikethrough</s> over your earlier "delete" !vote to avoid possible confusions? Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, the Pakistani village life article has been significantly expanded and improved with sources. Therefore, I'm requesting that you revisit the article and it's AfD discussion. Only people that have contributed to the AfD discussion are receiving this message (no canvassing). Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I found an error in the article (see photo). Copernicus was not a German, he was from Poland. --Top811 my talk —Preceding undated comment added 16:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, the picture is representing the French Marie Sklodowska Curie (she is from Poland!!), who lives in France. Is not this a bug? What do you think? Top811 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Once I finish all the 50m swimmers articles, I will go back and add some more info. Oakley77 (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I suck at referencing. I would greatly appreciate your assistance. I can find and create the stubs easily enough, but the star boxes and improving them is beyond me. :) Benkenobi18 (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with your revert here, I just wanted to note that your use of the term vandalism in the edit summary is inconsistent with the meaning on Wikipedia. Since 3RR doesn't apply to vandalism, I'd hate to see you sanctioned for multiple reverts of something you thought was vandalism. See WP:VANDAL: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful." Morphh ^(talk) 19:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:3RRNO, "The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR:

• Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)."

The reverted text seems to be "biased" and "poorly sourced", and is clearly "contentious". I don't think a WP:3RR block of this editor would be appropriate. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That policy is for WP:BLP, which the article in discussion is not a BLP. Morphh ^(talk) 23:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wonder about BLP applicability in this case. WP:BLP states "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page". The page in question is Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. The edit in question tried, yet again, to tie his campaign slogan to Communism. I think BLP issues would apply to edits to this article, just as they should apply to campaign articles about other politicians. Perhaps some other discussion or arbitration or other <insert Wiki-acronyms here> have judged to the contrary. If so, apologies. If you'd like to continue this discussion, consider moving it to my talk page. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)) below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joel, I've unblocked you. The text you were removing was a BLP violation (I'm inclined to call it vandalism as well, but the unblock doesn't hinge on that definition). I suggest in the future asking for admin help earlier in the process; the 5-10 reverts at that page weren't doing anyone any good, as it was clear the IP was going to keep reverting until blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The BLP Barnstar
		For your work reverting BLP violations. It might have went a little wrong, but your work is noted and appreciated. :) OohBunnies! Leave a message 02:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you tag Solution 13?? It meets Music criteria 6, Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles: Tarmo Kanerva from Poisonblack and Sami Kukkohovi, who has his own article. This was established in the article, with references from reliable sources. Also, thanks for notifying me...  The Steve  07:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look buddy, I frankly don't know what the hell you're talking about. I do dozens of new page reviews. If your page was tagged, and you felt it was incorrect, take it to the talk page and present a reasoned explanation rather than coming onto my page to cry about it. As for notifying you, if the page was marked for deletion, you were notified. Otherwise, you would have it listed on your watchlist. For Christ's sake, this isn't some grave injustice you have to moan on and on about.JoelWhy (talk) 10:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sheela Murthy Photo.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add ((di-replaceable fair use disputed)), without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoelWhy

I just set up a few pages for some authors and their books and they are all being proposed for deletion. You guys move quickly. I was in the middle of writing, got up for a few minutes and by the time I sat back down, everything had been tagged. I'd like to keep these pages up as they are for best-selling authors in niche genres with large fan bases that have an interest in learning more about them. If there are specific changes I need to make to avoid deletion, please let me know. Otherwise, I'll try to just add more detail asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finaledits (talk • contribs) 22:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Requesting another topic ban for User:BruceGrubb. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have just said that your "comment was not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is "an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it." I was stating my perceived opinion about why you support a particular definition." C'mon. Your perceived opinion is about me (ad hominem = against the man) not about my argument concerning the usage of the CS term. And as you have repeatedly argued that it (the CS term) a negative, perjorative and derogatory term you have a nerve to now claim that YOU YOURSELF were not using it in a negative way about me to influence other editors about the worthiness of my argument and opinion. Classifying someone with a term that has negative connotations such as a holocaust denier or an anti-semite or a neo-nazi as a reason for disregarding their contribution to a topic is a classic ad hominem attack. And as you have made clear the term for you is a PRIMARILY negative one.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JoelWhy. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ola Englund, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Being the guitarist of a notable band is enough to meet A7 to me. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Rudy Eugene , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Jill Farrant at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jpatokal (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help again. Some rather ill-informed new page patrollers have nominated Mu Canis Majoris for deletion because they did not bother to look up the notability guidelines for stars. Can you help me fight to keep it? Thanks. Really frusterated by new page patrollers who don't know jack about their job. Why contribute to the wikipedia if people are just going to delete what you work on without caring about actually contributing?Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mu_Canis_Majoris

I just saw that you added your name to the members list of WikiProject United States. Welcome to the project and please let me know if you have any question. Kumioko (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sheela Murthy.jpg, which you've sourced to Murthy Law Firm. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add ((OTRS pending)) to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as ((non-free fair use in|article name)) or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoelWhy. I live near a construction site, and thought to myself, "That's odd: one of the drivers of the earth-moving equipment must have taken a short-cut past my house..."  :-) --Shirt58 (talk) 12:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a slightly more constructive note... Just commenting on your proposal to delete, I'm interested in some of your thoughts. I don't know whether we should have an article or not, but I've just slightly improved the article by highlighting that it was the strongest earthquake in this Australian state for over a century, and one of the strongest in all of Australia in that time. It was in an area nowhere near any recognised earthquake zone. It was magnitude 5.3, small by world standards, but quite big by Australian standards. The location is also close to some very big open cut coal mines and oil and gas drilling. Also, the name of the article bothers me. I live between Melbourne, the state capital, and where the earthquake happened. It doesn't feel right to name the article after a place further from the quake than I am. If it's to stay, I'd rename, maybe to Gippsland earthquake 2012 or similar, but I bow to your greater experience re these matters on all the above points. So, your thoughts please. Should I bother with the above improvements, or is this a WP:SNOW situation? HiLo48 (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, JoelWhy, in the course of looking at the duplicate nomination for the Fed chairman list, I noticed that the talk page link in your sig goes to User talk:(JoelWhy). Might want to fix that. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! I think it's fixed now. :) JoelWhy? talk 18:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Err, maybe now... JoelWhy?(talk) 18:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...on this page User talk:A. Satyanarayana Shastri. The talk-link doesn't link to your actual talkpage, but instead links to Creating User talk:(JoelWhy). The code looks like this at the User talk page for A. Satyanarayana Shastri:
[[User:JoelWhy|<font color="red">Joel</font><font color="blue">Why?</font>]] [[User talk:(JoelWhy)|talk]]. There seems to be an errant link to "(Joelwhy)" instead of to "Joelwhy".
Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think it's fixed now. JoelWhy?(talk) 12:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JoelWhy. You have new messages at OlYeller21's talk page.
Message added 14:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

OlYeller21^Talktome 14:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just closed your AfD on Hervé Descottes. You were the only person who participated in that discussion, which I don't really understand. With the thousands of people who are registered on this website, I would have thought that at least one other person would have an opinion on the subject. In any event, the article is preserved. Thanks. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a GA review of an article to which you have recently contributed. Any help in addressing the concerns raised in the review are welcome.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi Joel - if you get a chance, please see my recent suggestion for improving the Sanford, FL article. I'm proposing removing the "Recent Controveries" section, as I don't see its intrinsic value in an encyclopedic page on a city. I'd appreciate your feedback! Cheers, Ronsword (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am kind of disappointed that you note the 29 quasi-propaganda link backs inside the Huge Chavez article, yet you say that removing them would be wrong. How does that work exactly? Blahwiki4ever (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012 Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m. Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104 Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand. Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki. Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration. Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Homeopathy". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 19:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply. 2602:306:C518:6C40:D5B6:C1CD:4D8E:9B53 (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Crashdoom ^Talk 08:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I don't know what the current status of E-Verify is in the Immigration bill, but even if the requirement that all employers use it has been removed, I don't think the whole chunk should be removed. It's an important criticism of the bill and if it's been removed that's part of the bill's political history. Rather, start a new section ("Removed provisions" maybe?), move the info there, and add sources indicating that it was removed and why it was removed. If civil liberties groups were successful in getting it removed, that's important information about the strength of their criticism. Do you see what I mean? HistoricMN44 (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please provide a source for your assertion that a change needs to be filed 6 months before the L-1B petition expires. Thank you. jfeise (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not only do I agree with every word of this edit, but I agree even more strongly with the edit summary. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After I posted that message, I decided to have a look at the editor's editing history on other topics. I discovered some truly wonderful stuff, such as this gem. If I had known about stuff like that before, I probably wouldn't have tried so hard to explain things to the editor, as it is clear that he/she is never going to listen to reasons on such issues. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, thanks for the laugh! I used to get into lengthy discussions with conspiracy theorists, but ultimately found it to be entirely pointless. It always devolved into their backpedaling, moving the goal posts, and/or accusing me of being a shill for Big Pharma, the government, or shape-shifting aliens. JoelWhy?(talk) 12:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. To a conspiracy theorist, anything you say that suggests there may be after all not be a conspiracy just proves that there is one, and you are part of it, because why else would you want to deny that there is a conspiracy? The result is that anything at all that anyone says about the conspiracy theory, either for or against it, strengthens their conviction that there is one. I learnt years ago to just listen politely for a minute and then change the subject when my sister starts on the great world-wide conspiracy. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with diversity visa page? I provided all necessary links with references -- AlexanderRa — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderRa (talk • contribs) 18:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I want to file WP:OR violation case against Valenciano regarding his latest change to the page. You saw my arguments. What do you think about it? What is the best way of doing that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderRa (talk • contribs) 00:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AlexanderRa, given that you weren't remotely interested in enforcing WP:OR for several months and were, in fact, actively resisting attempts to have your original research removed, I doubt that you're all that interested in enforcing this now. What this is about is that you're angry that I ensured that your original research was removed from the page and now you're seeking revenge. You shouldn't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. You file whatever report you like, but remember, your rationale for the removal had nothing to do with original research. You stated: "Removed references to info from a lawyer's website that could be interpreted as a veiled spam for a lawyer". No mention at all of original research, so that's like your claim that I offered to report myself for vandalism or that I added 3 links that hadn't been there previously. Totally false and you should have the decency to apologise. I reverted your edit on the basis that justice.gov, an official government website, cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as spam for an individual lawyer. If you'd actually given the correct rationale to start with, we could have had a look, so again, that is your mistake, nobody else's. Remember the First law of holes: when you're in a hole, stop digging. Valenciano (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valenciano, that was not my mistake. That is some simple logic under the reasoning containing combination of two reasons. The logic is that if lawyer's websites are not allowed, then those links do not prove anything, because the sole reason why they were initially included was opinion of a lawyer (and, as I said, those links themselves were from one of his videos, I do not remember which one). So, it would not be an OR issue if I had a good reference to use on the page. Without a good reference it is an OR issue. I just did not realize you would not understand this logic, my note was a shortcut to this thorough description. I think nothing to apologize, it was a misunderstanding on your side. I was not resisting attempts to have my OR remove sine I accepted it in September. There were no attempts. JoelWhy? forgot to enforce the policy and I forgot to make a change as well. My rationale has never been anything like revenge. It looks like you are trying to guess on my reasoning, that is what no one should do. I do not think making personal remarks on wikipedia pages is appropriate. AlexanderRa (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Something you did is in the news.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/

Second to last paragraph.  — Scott • talk 15:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's embarrassing and a bit aggravating. Yes, I nominated it for deletion (as I did for 1,000 other articles). But, I did so because it was 1 sentence long and provided zero information to make one think that the person met 'notability' requirements for Wiki purposes. I'm proud to call myself a feminist, and I'm a bit ticked off that this journalist included this mention with zero investigation into the matter. JoelWhy?(talk) 13:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I eMailed to the Atlantic:

Attn: Emma Paling

I would like to refute the implications in your recent article about sexism in Wikipedia that I attempted to have an article deleted because of some sort of gender bias. I really wish you would have at least checked with me before publishing the article to allow me to respond.

Before I begin, I would like to thank you for writing about sexism on Wikipedia. This - along with other horrible acts on online sexism (e.g., gamergate) - is a topic that must be addressed. Clearly, far too many men fail to recognize the gender bias and open hostility many women face on a daily basis, both online and in the 'real' world.

That being said, I must take issue with one point made in the article. In your second-to-last paragraph, you mention that a page was created for Clare Hasse and then quickly nominated for deletion. I am the Wiki editor who nominated it for deletion, but I can assure you that sexism played no roll in my deletion request.

Back in 2012, I volunteered as a 'new page patroller,' skimming through new articles to weed out those that did not appear to meet Wiki editorial requirements. Upon finding articles about bands, people, events, etc that did not appear to meet Wiki requirements, I would send to admin to review for deletion consideration.

When I initially came across the the Clara Hasse article, it consisted of 1 sentence:

"Clara H. Hasse (1880?-1924) was an assistant horticulturist and botanist in the Bureau of Plant Industry, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., and later worked at the Florida Experiment Station."

The information provided gave me no reason to think Ms. Hasse was 'notable' (i.e. 'Notability' is a term defined under Wiki editorial rules, and is a threshold that generally must be met for an article to remain included in Wikipedia.)So, I sent it for deletion consideration.

Shortly after I submitted it for deletion, the editor posted the following on the article's 'Talk' page:

"This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is a part of the wikipedia edit-a-thon at the Smithsonian and it is in process."

I responded with:

" So, maybe I'm missing something here, but 'assistant horticulturist and botanist'? I'm just not understanding how that's notable. There are plenty of people employed by the USDA, and we don't make Wiki pages for all of them. What's so special about Ms. Hasse?"

Well, it turned out Ms. Hasse truly was special - and, more importantly, quite notable. The article was eventually updated to provide info on some of her great, pioneering work in this field of science. Accordingly, the page was not deleted. And, that's precisely how the Wiki editing process is supposed to work.

To be clear, I sent dozens of new articles for deletion consideration. This process is necessary to try to keep Wikipedia from being overrun with articles about every neighborhood garage band, local business, or friend who was once mentioned in a new story. I acted in good faith when I requested the Hasse article be deleted - albeit, I may have been a bit hasty - and I am thrilled that additional information was provided to demonstrate that she truly deserves to be honored for her work.

In closing, I do hope you continue to pursue stories about online sexism. This is an important topic and it may take a generation or more for many men to truly recognize just how difficult the online realm can be for women. But, I also do not want to be lumped in with these people as I truly am proud to call myself a feminist.

(stalking) I just used your old diff tagging this article with ((db-a7)) as part of a conversation warning a NPPer to be careful, but I'm quite happy to believe this instance was a simple mistake and you are right that we should assume good faith on NPP taggers, not treat them like ogres and batter them with torches and pitchforks. In at least one instance, I challenged a speedy tag on an article, the tagger agreed with my arguments and helped improve the article to DYK, so it is worth refraining from beating people up over it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I mean, maybe I jumped the gun and should have given them more time to beef up the article. But, at the time, when all I saw was 'assistant horticulturist and botanist', I think it was fair to assume that this would run into notability problems. (And, rather than responding by saying this is part of a Wiki workshop, the appropriate response would have been to quickly mention her accomplishments and that would have been the end of the problem.) Anyhow, I really am glad the issue of sexism on Wikipedia is being brought to light; but, I just wish I hadn't ended up in the crosshairs! ;) JoelWhy?(talk) 18:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoelWhy,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JoelWhy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joel, re: this edit, why would the source not be considered reliable for a relatively unbiased description of how Jallikattu works? Sources don't have to be unbiased to be included. WP:BIASED: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was being used to to express a viewpoint, but it was presented as fact. If you'd like to rework the text to show this side's argument, that's fine. But, as it was used, it violated NPOV. JoelWhy?(talk) 17:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see you were just using it for the initial, more neutral portion. I suppose that's fine - the aggregious use was in the section on breeding. JoelWhy?(talk) 17:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JoelWhy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JoelWhy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	US Banknote Contest
	November-December 2019
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)[reply]

I see that you are a big part of the US project I was wondering if you could help create articles for some of the state courts that are still missing? Thanks Bigmike2346 (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]