User talk:JoeM/Archive 2
April 2015
[edit]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dwpaul Talk 02:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- What are you talking about?? How is there any disputing the fact that ISIS is a Muslim group? That's the core of how they would classify themselves, what motivates them, and what inspires them. By the way, please learn to assume good faith. Also, I will be working to clarify the description of the article. The facts will help me build a consensus on the talk page. JoeM (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- They are an Islamic extremist group, as the article stated before your edit. You needn't instruct me as to what I need to learn. Watch your step. Dwpaul Talk 02:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Are you denying the fact they are Muslim??? If so do you want to go on the article about the Pope and say we can't call him Catholic??? Please respond to my explanation on the talk page. JoeM (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Saying that Islam is the guiding ideology of ISIL is like saying that American Patriotism was the guiding ideology of Timothy McVeigh. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- McVeigh was just one guy and does not represent American patriotism. ISIS is huge movement and large enough to represent Islam. JoeM (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Saying that Islam is the guiding ideology of ISIL is like saying that American Patriotism was the guiding ideology of Timothy McVeigh. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Are you denying the fact they are Muslim??? If so do you want to go on the article about the Pope and say we can't call him Catholic??? Please respond to my explanation on the talk page. JoeM (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- They are an Islamic extremist group, as the article stated before your edit. You needn't instruct me as to what I need to learn. Watch your step. Dwpaul Talk 02:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- What are you talking about?? How is there any disputing the fact that ISIS is a Muslim group? That's the core of how they would classify themselves, what motivates them, and what inspires them. By the way, please learn to assume good faith. Also, I will be working to clarify the description of the article. The facts will help me build a consensus on the talk page. JoeM (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
You are not large enough to represent scholarship about Islam. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Accusations of "threat/harassment" and "stalking"
[edit]Joe, I'm responding to your recent edit summaries here remove threat/harassment. You are not an administrator; and you seem to be stalking me, reverting everything I do, despite my use of talk page explanations and citations
and rv. please stop stalking me. I did not violate the 3RR. So please spare me the cut & paste spam/threats. respond to me on the relevant talk page
. First, the messages left for you here did not need to be left by an administrator (which I happen to be). They were normal content and 3RR warnings that editors (admins or not) leave for other editors all the time. Second, leaving those messages on your User Talk page here is a crucial part of the purpose of this page. A User Talk page is a place where messages can be left about editor behavior, because article Talk pages aren't supposed to be used for that purpose. I'm not convinced I'm not wasting my time leaving this message for you here, but you should understand that those sorts of messages are basically what your User Talk page is for. Thanks... Zad68 03:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Zad68, I wasn't directing those comments to you. Another user has been following me around. Thanks for the note. JoeM (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
A beer for you!
[edit]
|
I know where you're coming from. Keep on keeping. It's impressive how far back you go. Oh, the nostalgia... DawnDusk (talk) 07:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC) |
Byrne
[edit]See my comment here. One thing you should keep in mind is that when you create this new article, you will still need to use secondary reliable sources, so things like Breitbart are not going to work.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Nomination of Clinton Body Count for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Clinton Body Count is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Body Count until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
July 2016
[edit]
Your addition to Clinton Body Count has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- It wasn't a copyright verification, just reporting on a list that is circulated on many sites of the internet, attributing two of them. By your reasoning, Wikipedia couldn't report on a single copyrighted book, essay, publication, etc. JoeM (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi :)
[edit]Hi Joe, I just saw your attempt at filing a RfA - I wouldn't worry too much about it, there's still a lot you can do here without those couple of extra buttons! What kind of things interest you here? -- samtar talk or stalk 17:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- And I suggest you focus on not getting yourself blocked. I've removed portions of your user page which were obviously unacceptable. --NeilN talk to me 17:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Note
[edit]
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.