User talk:JoeSperrazza/Archive 2012

Zach Harper deletion

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Thank you for flagging Zach Harper for deletion. Please consider Yoo Seol Ah for the same reasons. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Zach Harper did not assert notability, so I think clearly fits the criteria for speedy deletion for a non-notable article about a person. By contrast, Yoo Seol Ah at least assets notability by indicating some movies and TV shows in which the person appeared. I'm not convinced, therefore, that Yoo Seol Ah is a appropriate for WP:CSD#A7. Note, however:

Any editor can nominate an article for WP:CSD, so if you disagree, you certainly could nominate it yourself.
Two less-stringent criteria are Proposed deletion and request for deletion, which you could also use on that article.

Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Re: this user - creating a new account after being softblocked for a username issue is not an SPI violation or block evasion... it's what the user was told to do. They still have a COI and the company may still be non-notable, but it's not an SPI issue. 7 05:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I was expecting a rename of their existing account. Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me while I add a self-mocking "duh!". The WP:SOCK template I added very clearly states what User:7 just noted, above. Perhaps I should read what I insert in the future! JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - you were right in the long run anyway, because they had been blocked for spamming on other accounts before the two you noticed. 7 00:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shared IP?.....

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

What the hell, man?!....Why am I being accused yet AGAIN, for sharing another IP?.....What proof do you have? 68.194.58.106 (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the question! Note: no one is accusing you of anything, just documenting your IP characteristics. Having a shared IP is not an indicator of any inappropriate behavior, or 'sockpuppetry', rather it is a common situation for most ISP users.

What is it? Per Template:SharedIP, the template "This template should be used on IPs which appear to be or are likely to be shared by multiple users - typically IPs assigned to large institutions, or to a pool of dynamic IP addresses". It also adds the page to Category:Wikipedia user talk pages of shared IP addresses. This lets editors know that contributions from this IP address are likely to be from different editors over time.
By host name, it clearly is a an assignment from a dynamic pool: "ool-44c23a6a.dyn.optonline.net", see [1].
"What proof do you have [that it is static or dynamic]"? Determining if the IP is static or dynamic is not always definitive. You can use http://robtex.com to check on which, if any, blocklists the IP is listed (this one is listed in three dynamic lists - dyn.nszones.com, pbl.spamhaus.org and dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net). Often, this provide an indication (but not a guarantee) that the IP is not dynamically assigned (meaning, under conditions not always under the users control, the IP can be reassigned). In the case of this ISP, the evidence indicates this is not a static IP:

Per Optimum Online, [2] "Your Optimum Online service is provided with a single Dynamic IP address that may change each time you restart an Internet session as they are assigned from a shared pool of IP addresses"
"Static IP addresses are offered as an option to Optimum Online Boost or Optimum Online Boost Plus business customers only. If you're an Optimum Online Boost or Optimum Online Boost Plus for business customer, you can order a block of five static IP addresses at an additional monthly charge.".
Such static IPs would have a host name of the form "ool-hex.static.optonline.net"

By policy, an IP may not remove the tag:

PerWP:OWNTALK, a user may remove almost anything (including warnings) from their own talk pages.
Per WP:BLANKING, there is a list of things that may not be removed, including "For IP editors, templates in Category:Shared IP header templates". This same restriction is also noted in WP:DRC.

From a practical perspective, the ISP and hostname are visible to anyone, from links at the bottom of IP talk pages, even without Template:SharedIP. If you prefer anonymity, the best approach is to create an account. Happy editing, JoeSperrazza (talk) 7:04 am, 10 April 2012, Tuesday

Concerning a report on the administrators' noticeboard of incidents

Hello. I am messaging you because I noticed that you performed this edit on a user talk page shortly after I issued this report on the administrators' noticeboard of incidents; thanks for that. The relation between that talk page and the report I issued is that the talk page is for an IP used by the person - and for the respective activity - that is the subject matter of the report. Would you have anything of importance to state on this issue at the report? I don't know why I have received so few responses to it, to be honest. If the editing from that IP range persists (which it probably will), should I file an abuse report instead? Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 21:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: the corned beef article

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There was a dead link, I removed it. I said it was a dead link in the edit comment.--2.122.223.98 (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sorry I overlooked the edit summary! I must have been under-caffeinated at the time. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Schultz‎

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have posted at WP:ANI asking someone to look into this. Let's stop the reverting-cycle until they take some action. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coolness. I've reported the IP for WP:3RR in the interim, making all the required notices on the IP's talk pages and the article talk page. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It's now semi'd for 2 months, and the POV stuff has been removed again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bunch of damn liberals you are. Censorship! Drmies (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Baseball Bugs: Good deal. I think the talkpage might benefit from a FAQ regarding sourcing, etc. If I have time this weekend, I might be bold and make one. There are similar issues with some of the Ireland-related articles I watch, and I am planning to create a FAQ regarding over categorization.
To Drmies You made me laugh - thanks! I do think that is part of the issue with this editor, who has espoused the belief (in the edit summary) that those that revert these poorly or unsourced additions are biased. The reality is I don't care about the subject of the article at all, and only got it on my watchlist when looking at new user contributions some time in the past. What I do care about is WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:SOCK and WP:3RR. If whoever it was would only find some reliable sources (or take the issue to WP:RSN). However, this point has been made repeatedly, on the IP's talk pages and on the article talk page, so, despite my best efforts to WP:AGF, I think there's an element of WP:TROLL in play as well as WP:NPOV. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nirelan12

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

...is surely NIrelan, as you surmised. He deleted your sock puppet template; I'm not sure if that's a concern or not. FYI MarkBernstein (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I need to file an wp:spi. Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nirelan12 has just been unblocked by an administrator who is apparently unfamiliar with the back story. I'd appreciate if this action could be reverted. Thanks! ARK (talk) 08:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that your sockpuppeteer tag on Nirelan's 2007 account has allowed Nirelan to misguide an inexperienced admin to unblock the Nirelan account, which in return allowed the block on Nirelan12 to be lifted. I'd strongly suggest that both Nirelan and Irelan12 be permanently banned for all the well-rehearsed reasons, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Dave Winer. ARK (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tag

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi. You just placed {{SharedIP}} here. Was that really necessary? WP:R Van states "For repeated vandalism by an IP user it is helpful to take the following additional steps: ...If it appears to be a shared IP address, add {{SharedIP|Name of owner}}". As is clear from my contributions there are no vandalism edits at all. Why place the tag? Kind regards, --92.6.211.228 (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"This template should be used on IPs which appear to be or are likely to be shared by multiple users - typically IPs assigned to large institutions, or to a pool of dynamic IP addresses". It is clearly a dynamic IP. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JoeSperrazza, the top of the page you just quoted says "The {{Shared IP}} template is an IP user talk page template that shows helpful information to IP users and those wishing to warn or ban them. " Now I can assure you the template doesn't show helpful information to me nor any real information not found on an (already-present) welcome template. That leaves the rest of the sentence combined with the WP:VAND Policy I quoted from.

I've only seen and understood SharedIP to be used following vandalism (repeated). It's not used as a matter of course to create talkpages after an unreg'd contributor makes a positive edit; if anything welcome templates may be, regardless one was already present. I'm not suggesting mine is a static IP either. However, it's never been edited from before my using it. My contributions show familiarity with editing here. From our contribs you presumably saw me after I'd commented on AN/I. I did so reluctantly, having seen a thread and gone to the article in question as an uninvolved editor only to have the editor turn on me.

Please try to understand how (and perhaps coming straight after that particularly), applying the template particularly given its instructions on use may not be suitable in all cases? As you no doubt know that is one of the few templates users are forbidden to remove from "their own" talkpages. I'm sure you placed it in good faith. Can I ask you to please at least reconsider the matter? Thank you. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted from the text of the template itself, its intention is to mark non-static IPs. That it is similar to the shared IP tag (vice the ISP test tag) which is mentioned in responding to vandalism does not change the intent or use of the tag. Here are some things to consider:

The information on the tag is available to anyone and anyone who begins with your IP address. In fact, links to the tools one can use to do so are provided at the bottom of IP editors' talk pages.
An IP that desires additional privacy can always create an account and/or login.
I did not tag your account in any punitive fashion, as your comment suggests. As an editor that appears to be experienced, you seem familiar with several WP policies, hopefully including WP:AGF.
Should the tag be removed (incidentally, contrary to policy, while applying the tag was not contrary to policy), the information therein would be in the edit history of that IP's talk page.

Here're four things you can consider as your next steps:

The approach I hope you will take is to take to heart my comments, above, and move on and enjoy your editing.
Alternatively, using methods you may know already, you can change your mobile device's IP address. When you next access WP, someone (myself, someone else) may or may not apply a sharedIP tag, in accordance with policy.
You can violate policy and remove the tag yourself (violating policy is never a good thing, but, sadly, WP editors violate many policies every minute of every day, with only a small subset of users available and interested to colleagially provide guidance to the contrary). I'm certainly not going to edit war with you, nor waste your or my time in generating some form of a complaint, for many reasons, including that mobile device IPs are quite transient, and at any point, regardless of your behavior (courteous and within policy, from this IP to date, for sure), you can always change your IP and effectively disappear.
Finally, although I would be very disappointed by this action, if you have found my actions or comments to be less than wp:civil or contrary to policy, you are always welcome to report me to one of the many forums available to do so on WP (e.g., WP:WQA, WP:RFC/U). While I would hope if you have remaining concerns you would let me know, however, again, I do not mean to either restrict your rights here nor to diminish your editing experience.

I wish you nothing but the best as you move ahead. Respectfully, JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your considered reply. Thank you.
It's actually not a mobile device IP although that's a reasonable assumption due to the ISPs name.

After posting above I saw your tag of another (reg'd) user who'd posted there. True they got a welcome notice while I got something else, though there already was one. I'm completely comfortable about the information (whois etc) being lookupable online or via the tools on the page bottom (as well as re additional privacy not already afforded by unregistered (WP:HUMAN etc) editing). It seems with the tools being already there as you say and welcome template that mentions accounts/benefits, all the tag adds that's new really is details of blocking with a feed link to monitor for vandalism. It's clear you simply have a system that selects which tags depending on accounttype/redlinkedness/edits. I'm not suggesting your tagging/tag was punitive, bad faith or accusatory. Thanks for your compliments on my edits, incidentally. I don't know of anything policy wise that says the tag must be applied; there is no prohibition on applying the tag, although that's not the same thing. As far as removing the tag, I could do so on "it's only a guideline" grounds or under IAR. I'd rather not. (I'll admit I was sort of hoping you would.)

Please rest assured I won't be taking it to any user forums, I think...that would be a bit strong. Ultimately this is no big deal. I simply wanted you to reconsider whether it's always suitable. Sometimes it definitely is. Anyway, I too wish you nothing but the best. --92.6.211.228 (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't deleted anything

sock blocked

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Somebody wrote a message on another board claiming 'I made an excuse then hastily deleted it' Erm, I don't think so considering that never happened. No need to resort to lies as I have never deleted anything I have written in this 'Talk section' thing. I repeatedly said I don't understand how to use this website as I am new, I don't see why I am getting 'Talks' made about me? Lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratfield100 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"claiming 'I made an excuse then hastily deleted it'", "I have never deleted anything I have written" - See these two edits: [3], then [4].

"No need to resort to lies" - see WP:CIVIL.

Also see your list of contributions at Special:Contributions/Ratfield100 for the many deletions you made to the article in question, e.g., [5] (but there are many others). JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the talk page. Not the Wikipedia section. I didn't delete anything on there. (The talk section, I mean) I do know what I wrote but it wasn't me who removed it! Now I cant even find the section atall.. Why do you need to write all these discussions why don't you simply just remove the page in question?

Secondly, I am civil.. I have not been rude or used any abusive language. This is all very silly! (Edit)

"I am referring to the talk page. Not the Wikipedia section. I didn't delete anything on there". My comment referred to your edits to WP:ANI as noted above. If others have made different comments about your behavior, I recommend you respond where those comments have been raised, e.g.,

"Why do you need to write all these discussions why don't you simply just remove the page in question?". Your editing history shows definite violation of Wikipedia policies, as noted on User_talk:Ratfield100, and suggests further violations, as noted on Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Jessica Nicole Henderson & Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JessicaHendy. Gaming the system is a very bad thing, and usually results in blocks to your ability to edit, and even bans.
"Secondly, I am civil.. I have not been rude or used any abusive language.". Your statement "No need to resort to lies" is clearly uncivil. As previously suggested, read WP:CIVIL.
"This is all very silly!" Your comments are not very productive, and I don't believe it is doing anything but encouraging bad behavior to continue to respond to you. I ask you to respond to the concerns raised at User_talk:Ratfield100, Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Jessica Nicole Henderson, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JessicaHendy on those pages, and not post more here unless you have a very specific question for me not related to the concerns I (and others) posted in those places. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please learn to indent (see WP:INDENT) and sign (see WP:SIGN) your comments. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sock question

Not a sock

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600‎
Joe, on behalf of you I've raise a fresh SPI for User:Lacarids‎ since the last one was closed after the checkuser completed his/her round. If you have any new information, please raise it ASAP. Thanks and best~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reflection, I no longer believe the editor in question is a sock of User:Grundle2600. The revert of the removed comments from Grundle triggered my concrn (and at least one other editor). However, his response at WP:SPI lead me to believe he was just ill-considered in that action, and not WP:SOCKing. I'll add my thought in this regard at the SPI page. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mithila (Nepal)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Few days back, you had voted to delete the Article Mithila (Nepal). I request you to please review your vote. (seeing the current position of the article).
AFD page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mithila_(Nepal)

MithilaDesham (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm happy to do so. My impression from the RFD that the article is certain to be kept now, but I'll update my view before the close. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning template

close - template & documentation updated

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi, what is the purpose of putting this warning template on an editor's Talk page? Just today, I've noticed you did it on two different Talk pages, and up to now, I wasn't even aware the template existed. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose is to provide a header above lists of warnings, with easy links to Contributions, Block Log, etc.. It was developed some time ago as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_user_warnings. One of the "cleaning around the edges" things I do at WP is user warnings (primarily by looking for changes to articles on my watchlist, but also sometimes looking at changes from new editors). When I add warnings to a user's page, I always include that header. I find it very helpful.

Do you have a problem with it? I hope not. As I said, it was developed for Wikipedia:WikiProject_user_warnings (not by me) some time ago, and seems like a good thing.

As an aside, I recognize that there's a lot of variation on providing warnings. Many editors appear to revert and never provide a note on the editor's talk page, particularly if that editor is an IP. That seems unfair to the editor (who genuinely may not know better) and unfair to the project (without warnings, it is hard to "escalate" an issue with a problem editor). It is also fairly common to not provide a "Welcome" message to an otherwise empty talk page, and just provide a warning with a date header. These days (I've been editing, and providing user warnings, for quite some time), I seem to be the only one using the warning header. In my opinion, providing the complete package of information (friendly ISP tag if a shared IP, welcome, warning header, shared IP advice if a shared IP, month sections and warnings) benefits both the editor and the project. Although not as common as I wish, I have seen new editors, including IP editors, "see the light" and change their behavior after welcomes/warnings, without having to go to WP:AIV, WP:3RR, etc.

Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, my post here wasn't intended as criticism. I just wanted to understand it. The documentation on the template you're using is, uh, non-existent (it'd be nice to add some to explain what the template is about). Frankly, though, I find it a bit confusing. It's actually directed to editors who post warnings on the Talk page, yet it feels like it's directed to the editor of the Talk page. I dunno if others are confused by it or if it's just me.

As for your other comment, I can speak only for myself personally about warnings. Sometimes I warn an IP, sometimes I don't, depends on the nature of the problem, whether the IP has been warned before, whether the IP has made just one edit. Also, it's fairly easy to warn editors with Twinkle, but Twinkle unfortunately doesn't give you access to the full panoply of warning templates, so if it's something that's covered by another template, then it takes me more time to warn because I have to go to my cheat sheet list to use the right template. And, even then, I wish there were more templates for specific things.

Thanks for explaining where you're coming from.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Query on EagerToddler39 talk

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In response to your query "Hi there. Why did you make this change: [1]? Without an edit summary, I couldn't tell. Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)" The reference was used in the reference list but appeared nowhere in the body of the article. It was tagged for review so I examined the article and deleted it as it was not being used for inline citation. EagerToddler39 (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

IP blocked
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User has not seen the error of his ways. User talk:71.167.197.227 Ankh.Morpork 22:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mandel (nut) listed at Redirects for discussion

Redirect was kept
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mandel (nut). Since you had some involvement with the Mandel (nut) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Dweller (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Achievement's page

Hi Joe, thank you for offering to review the content for our page. Here it is, below. I truly do not see how this content is overly promotional in tone. We have made a good faith effort to use a neutral, fact-based tone throughout. I have looked at other non profits' pages on Wikipedia, and their content reads more promotionally than ours does. If you do feel this content below is overly promotional, please let me know specifically which portions.

We have no problems with folks addiing to and editing our page, but obviously that will be a challenge when our page has been repeatedly deleted.

Thank you for your assistance; copy follows below.

Junior Achievement was founded in 1919 by Theodore Vail, president of American Telephone & Telegraph; Horace Moses, president of Strathmore Paper Co.; and Senator Murray Crane of Massachusetts. Junior Achievement USA is headquartered in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and has approximately 1,500 employees throughout the United States. Local volunteer boards of directors comprised of business, education, and civic leaders set the policy and direction for each of 120 local offices in all 50 states. JA programs are taught by volunteers to more than four million students per year in 178,000 classrooms and after-school locations.

Junior Achievement's programs focus on work readiness, entrepreneurship and financial literacy for students in kindergarten through high school to inspire and prepare young people to succeed in a global economy.

Its first program, JA Company Program®, was offered to high school students on an after-school basis. In 1975, the organization entered the classroom with the introduction of Project Business for the middle grades. Over the last four decades, Junior Achievement has expanded its activities and broadened its scope to include in-school and after-school students. The current elementary school programs include six sequential themes for kindergarten through fifth-grade students and one capstone experience. Students learn the basic concepts of business and economics and how education is relevant to the workplace. The sequential activities build on studies from each preceding grade and prepare students for secondary school and lifelong learning.

The middle grades programs build on concepts the students learned in Junior Achievement's elementary school program and help teens make difficult decisions about how to best prepare for their educational and professional future. The programs supplement standard social studies curricula and develop communication skills that are essential to succeed in the business world. Junior Achievement’s high school programs include economic and business curricula, an after-school student-led enterprise, and a one-day workplace capstone experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbell1964co (talk • contribs) 21:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe, was wondering if you have had a chance to review the copy I submitted last week here on your talk page for Junior Achievement. Thanks in advance for your guidance. Sbell1964co (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You blocked an editor yesterday for making accurate and correct changes to the page "Doctor Who DVD Releases". Edits that have now been accepted and verified by other editors. The "Edit War" was created and started by an administrator who believes they own the Dr Who pages and kept reverting the accurate and correct changes. I am sure you will wish to remove the block, issue an apology and then block the administrator for twelve hours since they were the cause of the edit war. But I suspect you won't. I'm ready for my block now. TVArchivistUK (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"You blocked an editor" - As the block notice and the associated edit summary indicated, I did not block the editor. Rather, I merely added the block notice to the editor's account for Bwilkins (talk | contribs): "notice provided by JoeSperrazza (talk) 9:35 pm, Yesterday (UTC−6)". See [6].
"I'm ready for my block now." Please assume good faith. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So that's all OK then. No need for you to apologize to the blocked editor. TVArchivistUK (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please undelete the N8VEM home brew computer project page

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi Please undelete the N8VEM home brew computer project page. Although the N8VEM SBC started out as my personal hobby project it has now expanded to a fairly large community of home brew computer enthusiasts (~340 signed up on the mailing list). Many of the boards made by the community really have little or no involvement from me any longer.

The N8VEM home brew computer project has expanded to include a class of home brew computers and a particular style of design. "N8VEM" is used a description of that class and it should be defined in wikipedia article. The N8VEM home brew computer project is 100% amateur, non-commercial in nature. All the information is free and publicly posted. It is entirely non-commercial so I don't think "advertising" is a valid basis for deletion since it would not apply to a non-commercial community.

Before deciding on permanently deleting the N8VEM wikipedia page please stop by the N8VEM mailing list and ask the hobbyists there for their input. At this point the N8VEM home brew computer project has little to do with me and is mostly run by a sizable community of volunteers working with a unique style of open source/free hardware and software development.

http://groups.google.com/group/n8vem

Thanks! Please contact me if you have any questions. Lynchaj (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I do not have the ability to undo the removal of that page, nor does the process support doing so in the manner you've requested. Another editor applied a Prod template to that article's page. I merely notified you of that template. You'll want to go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A more detailed response

I didn't nominate that page for deletion. I just happen to be a member of the volunteer Prod patrol who looks at Prods (proposed deletions) and checks them (on a time available basis - such a review is not required) for conformance with policy. I noted that contributors to the article in question had not been notified of the Prod, so I did so. Hence my notice on your talk page.
The Prod period (7 days) expired, so the article was deleted.
I don't see a problem in getting the article re-instated by an uninvolved administrator using Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion - in particular if as a contributor to that article you did not get a full 7 days notice. I'd make that point when you make your undelete request.

If you are not familiar with the Prod process, it is simple:

Any editor can tag an article with the Prod template and include a reason.
Any editor can remove the tag. once removed, it can't be re-applied.
However, the article can still be deleted by being nominated at "Articles for Deletion" (WP:AfD) by anyone (e.g., the editor who assigned the Prod template originally). Other editors can then offer their support ("Delete") or contest the proposal ("Keep"). After the review period ends, an uninvolved administrator then acts on the consensus of those who offered their views, using WP policy (not votes - hence the common phrase "!vote") as the basis for the decision.

I will add that the article in question did appear (to me, when I reviewed the Prod) to lack 3 things:

An assertion of notability, in the article itself (e.g., "The N8VEM is remarkable because x, y, z").
Reliable sources (not Google Groups or blogs, read WP:RS for more information) that support the assertion of notability (as in-line citations linking those reliable sources to the text of the document).
1 & 2 meeting the General Notability Guidelines (see WP:GNG).

Some Wikipedian's are "deletionists" (they err on the side of removing weak articles). Although I consider myself neutral, I do tend to I err on the side of keeping an article if I think it can be salvaged. As written, I didn't see enough to have me be the one to remove the Prod tag (otherwise, I would have done so). Worst case, you can ask to have the article restored to your user space and then edit the article to improve it as I suggested. You can then get some help in reviewing the article to get it in shape to be republished.

Ultimately, the person who tagged the article may be willing to explain why they tagged it (but I'd guess their reasons are as I noted above). Regardless of their reasons, the process of having it restored, and its likelihood of still being deleted once restored are as I noted.

Best regards,

Joe S.

Topic ban (Panonian)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hey, there, do you really understand the phrase "indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions on Serbian history that took place more than 20 years ago"? Maybe I'm dense or too literal, but it's oddly worded. Perhaps you could interpret it for me. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while not the most artful phrase, I believe it quite simply means that USER:PANONIAN cannot neither edit articles nor participate in any discussions, anywhere, that have any relationship with Serbian history (which would include Yugoslavia) that is 20 years prior to the ARBCOM decision date of 2012. As the discussion is about Yugoslavian flags that fall in that date range, it seems an obvious violation. I'd think the user would be aware of that. The spin that the discussion is all about the "editing practices" of a particular user is WP:WIKILAWYERing at best. JoeSperrazza (talk)

Thanks. Assuming your interpretation to be correct (and at least it makes sense), the phrase "more than" has to be not just confusing but flatly wrong. Without getting too legalistic, a better wording might be "indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions on Serbian history within the last 20 years". I could probably come up with something better than that, but ...--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing on the WikiProject Yugoslavia talk page?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You are repeatedly interrupting discussions over the template of WikiProject Yugoslavia. You keep saying that I am imposing a "deadline" - I have not, I am not attempting to "disrupt" Wikipedia by illustrating a point - I was addressing an NPOV issue. Also, you have ignored that other user who was not involved in the discussion prior to this, supports a plain tricolour flag map to be used. I mean, I get it you think it's all WikiDrama - why don't you post a trout slap on my talk page and not directly after another user new to the discussion has posted a comment on the discussion board - because it looks like you are insulting them. I don't see how what I am proposing now (the map superimposed over the flag) is in violation with Wikipedia's position on flags. Your last edit was not constructive and looks offensive to the last user who posted, please consider rescinding it and offering a constructive view instead.--R-41 (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please relax. Any editor can edit anywhere (unless banned - and I assure you I'm not). You raised the issue at ANI. I went to the source. And my suggestion, and Trout, violate no rules. Now, boo! Back to the project talk page with you. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I applaud your effort. A lot of editors wouldn't have bothered to go that far. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 21:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis my great pleasure. Keep up your good work! JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what you said on the noticeboard, I'm not pretending to "own" WikiProject Yugoslavia

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am not trying to have WP:OWNERSHIP of WikiProject Yugoslavia. I am listening to other people's suggestions and have accepted another proposal by another user as a solution. Yes I am an evil maniacal jerk who wants to take over the world and destroy England like Police Chief Dreyfus did in one of the Pink Panther movies, but my diabolical plans do not involve WikiProject Yugoslavia. Muhuhahaha! (pinky finger in mouth) And as you suggested on the WikiProject Yugoslavia and I suggested would be more appropriate to post the trout on my talk page rather than the WikiProject, here is a picture of my evil spirit: <picture elided - another editor suggests it was inappropriately used> Also, upon review I agree with your decision to shut down the ANI section because although I think that DIREKTOR went out of bounds (I have agreed with DIREKTOR on things in the past), it appears that PANONIAN was taking it over for a personal vendetta against DIREKTOR, and PANONIAN's block and ban record appears worse than DIREKTOR's.--R-41 (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You made me laugh! Good luck - JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MediaMatters

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi Joe, thanks for explaining your revert. However, the progressive claim remains unsourced in the Blumenthal article. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself. Furthermore, even on the Media Matters article, the progressive claim comes from the organization itself, not from 3rd party reliable sources. Therefore I have removed it again. 74.198.87.67 (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I accept your reasoning. Thanks for the reply. BTW, perhaps the entire sentence should be removed, as it is tagged as needing a citation. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See further discussion here User_talk:74.198.87.67#May_2012 and here Talk:Media_Matters_for_America#.22Self_described.22_as_Progressive. Please move discussion, if any, to the articles' talk pages. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning spaz

Personal attacks denied

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Wow buddy. I tried to be polite with you but you are totally freaking out and spazzing here trying to give me every warning template you can think of. I think you need to take a look at WP:HUMAN. Not that I owe you any explanation, but I edit from a mobile phone and it changes my IP frequently. You have no right to punish me for that fact, and I will therefore be deleting your bogus warnings from my talk page. 74.198.87.108 (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy, you may delete any warning message you like *except* the shared IP templates (those will be restored). You should also *not* make personal attacks, as you have, above. Please take further concerns about your editing to the talk pages of the relevant articles. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro, Prince Imperial of Brazil

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi! I responded to your message at Talk:Pedro, Prince Imperial of Brazil#See also. Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, no worries. I responded there. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate Vandalism template

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

User_talk:209.6.69.227&diff=494892020&oldid=494888807

Am assuming this resulted from an automated bot. There has never been any vandalism of any kind from this IP. If you had legitimately felt differently, you should have explained what you meant, it is otherwise unhelpful. Please remove, or, if you want, explain your tag here. I will look for your answer. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see that I added any "vandalism" template. Per wp:blanking and wp:drc, you may remove almost anything posted to your talk page- a significant exclusion to that is the shared IP template, which must not be removed. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 08:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As for the "Warning Header", it too is not in any way related to "Vandalism". Rather, it precedes any talk pages messages on a talk page. See the links included therein for more information. JoeSperrazza (talk) 08:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Joe; am I missing something? (asked as a question, not a challenge) The header you added says "In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation." and goes on to talk about "disruptive users"--209.6.69.227 (talk) 12:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YGM from Qwyrxian

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, JoeSperrazza. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Received and replied. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ports

Template kept
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Template:Ports has been nominated for deletion. This template creates a floating portal linkbox. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Ports. Yours aye, Buaidh 20:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Scott Thompson (author)

Article deleted
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello JoeSperrazza. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Scott Thompson (author), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP addresses

I didn't want to continue the discussion at ANI. When you say the IP may be refreshed when the router or modem is reset, are you talking about the user's router and modem? If so, would that happen only when the user resets them, or could (and would) the ISP send a signal to reset the modem (I can't see how the ISP could directly refresh a user's router)?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you are right, better to continue this discussion here.

"When you say the IP may be refreshed when the router or modem is reset, are you talking about the user's router and modem". Yes.

"If so, would that happen only when the user resets them". Yes, either by cycling the power, pressing the reset button, or using software (e.g., a web interface) to do so.

"could (and would) the ISP send a signal to reset the modem". I'm not aware of any provision to remotely reset an end-user's DCE in a consumer environment. It is the case that some devices do have the ability to be remotely managed. In a corporate environment, it is not uncommon to use such devices throughout a network so that a central support group can manage them remotely, and this remote management does include the ability to restart a device from afar.

Best regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Joe, I think Time Warner can reset the cable modem remotely, but assuming they can't, then as long as I don't reset anything, keeping my PC up and running will keep the IP address assigned to me. Of course, if there is a power outage or I fail to pay my account ... --Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Joe! Hi Bbb! Pardon my butting in here, but the remote reset feature is a (required, I believe) part of the DOCSIS 1 & 2 (Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification--the cable modem standards) specs. I'm unsure about the new DOCSIS 3, but it would seem to make sense for it to be there, too.

The resets are normally accomplished via an SNMP PUT from the head-end to OID 1.3.6.1.2.1.something (IIRC; please don't quote me on that) on the cable modem (or the cable modem part of a cable router). This is frequently done when new cable modem parameters need to be pushed out to the field. The resets can happen very quickly; so quickly, in fact, that you might not notice it unless you're looking for it. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 18:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

Thanks again - and I've finally archived!

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	FYI, I've been bogged down by work lately and couldn't take out much time to defend myself on ANI/WQA, you're one of those who defended me and what I believed in for WP. Thanks again for your kind words, really appreciate it. Best. Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, thank you so much for the barnstar (my first!). I was happy to be supportive - it was well deserved. Best regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you're a barnstar virgin? Just teasing ya~! But seriously, more will come your way when you continue to contribute constructively/positively. Cheers~! (PS: Just a thought, me thinks it is high time you start to archive your take page since it took me a bit more time to load your page on my browser.) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi - You input as an uninvolved neutral on talk:Gordon Brown was really appreciated - Thank you for taking the time to investigate - Youreallycan 18:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Vanburrena

Sockpuppet blocked

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hey

Got a message about sockpuppet. I am not sure what that is. Who is Vanburrena? Who are you? Kasanders (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vanburrena to post any responses you have to this issue. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding DriveByWire and Ochson

Hey, you recently tagged these as LC socks. On what basis? DriveByWire was thought to be unlikely to be LC at an SPI discussion, while I personally don't think Ochson is an LC sock based on communication patterns and other things. Their both socks, but neither one looks much like LC? If you could point me to the evidence that leads you to suspect the connection, it would be helpful. However, when an account is incorrectly linked in this way, it makes it harder to find the real LC as it makes the waters more muddy. I'd just like to know what led you to your conclusions. Thanks! --Jayron32 02:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jayron32, sorry for the delay in responding. Life priorities (first something to resolve with my dogs, fortunately a false alarm, then a work priority interrupt) interfered with Wikipedia. My quick response is:

I agree that correctly tagging sockpuppets and sockpuppet suspects is an important part of the process to mitigate sockpuppetry.
I've not gone back to look at the SPI, but clearly something there led me to conclude that the users in questions were in need of the tags I added. Apologies that I missed evidence to the contrary. I'll re-review and remove the tags, as needed, prior to the end of my day. Thanks for the note! Best regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COI+ certification proposal

I've thought of an idea that might break our current logjam with paid editing. I'd love your sincere feedback and opinion.

WP:COI certification

Feel free to circulate this to anyone you think should know about it, but please recognize that it hasn't been agreed upon by either PR organizations or WikiProjects or the wider community. It's also just a draft, so any/many changes can still be made. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi 15:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Gross incivility from two editors

I love the article Twenty-mule team, too!

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Re:Gross incivility from two editors

Thanks for linking Twenty-mule team - this article is amazing! Bulwersator (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article feedback

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi JoeSperrazza. Thanks for your feedback on my recent activity. As you saw I did revert the changes I made by reinstating the images I removed(albeit reluctantly). I'm fairly new to this so am getting it as I go along. Does this mean its acceptable to put a picture sequence and video of a person being decapitated on the "Decapitation" page? regards...Robvanvee (talk) 08:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi JoeSperrazza I'm still waiting for some feedback regarding my last comments to you. Please could you clear that up for me so I have a better understanding of Wikipedia rules and regulations. Yours in appreciation.i Robvanvee (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rob. Sorry for the delay (busy with work things). My brief answer to your question about adding images is "doing so is based on 4 policies: WP:CONSENSUS, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and the policy on image licensing". Thus, if an article's editors agree, via talk page discussion, that an image adds to an article, and there is no sourcing issue, and it does not provide undue weight to an otherwise minor point, and the image has no licensing issues, then it can be added. The example you gave in your question might, however violate WP:POINT, so would be worthy of discussion on an article's talk page rather than being WP:BOLD and just adding it.

Pragmatically, there are recurring disagreements regarding salacious images on some of the articles, such as those you edited recently. Do I think these images are necessary for the articles? No, but I am in the minority on this topic. However, I am not offended by them, and don't completely accept the "what about the children?"-type argument some make (not that I recall that you did). I think some of these images lower the perceived quality of WP. and make some if these articles a bit sleazy. However, I don't view this as a something worth pursuing, nor do I think it is something likely to change per consensus (see WP:BATTLEGROUND and compare to WP:WIKILOVE - I avoid the former and espouse the latter).

Finally, there are methods available to block images from being displayed, which I believe are noted on the talk pages in question.

Consensus can change, but is unlikely to do so in these cases. You could continue to discuss this on the talk pages, but I predict the experience would be frustrating for you. I'd recommend learning to block images, and editing other articles of less controversy (the food-related articles always need expansion and copy-editing. for example).

Best regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe. I much appreciate your clearing that topic up! I too am not personally offended by these images, just don't see the need for some of them on WP as they, as you say, lower the perceived quality of the articles. I certainly won't be blocking them either as I love Wikipedia so much and wouldn't want to deny myself the full experience. Again, many thanks! Kind regards Robvanvee (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Boy Bubby

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi Joe Rob again. I see you undid a change i made to the Bad Boy Bubby page. The reason I removed the link is because its not working anymore. Can you please tell me why you reverted my change. Thanks Robvanvee (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, here's the diff of my change on the right-hand side of the screen. Notice the edit summary? "Reverted good faith edits by Robvanvee (talk): Rv unexplained deletion." Compare to your edit summary on the left hand side of the screen - non-existent. It is helpful to other editors to explain one's edits in an edit summary, otherwise others can't tell the difference between a helpful and non-helpful edit (of course, you could alternatively leave a note on the article's talk page). In the case of your edit, a perusal of Wikipedia:Link rot notes more helpful alternatives than simply deleting dead links. Finally, consider adding new discussions to a talk page in a new section - see WP:TALK. Regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I'd take it personally if it didn't happen to me far too often! Giant Snowman 12:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that - slip of the finger! JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring of talk page section header

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I noticed this and wanted to stop by to tell you that I think Evil666 was making a good faith edit there that is permissible and compliant with policy. It is inappropriate to modify other editor's talk page comments, but it wasn't an editor's comment he or she was editing. Instead, they were correcting the problem that the current section header title makes it seem as though there is consensus that some of the material, photos and video, is offensive and should be removed. By removing the "Agreed:", Evil666 was correcting the problem and rendering the section header neutral. Would you mind re-instating his or her edit, to fix the problem? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the header implies there is agreement where there is not. However:

The text that follows makes it clear that there is not agreement.
I don't see the change as meeting any of the exceptions of Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages.
The edit doesn't seem to improve the encyclopedia, per se, per WP:IAR, either.

Best regards JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chick-Fil-A

I've no dog in this hunt. I have Chick-fil-A on my watchlist as a likely consequence of WP:GNOME-like work there. Discuss on Talk:Chick-fil-A

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi there. I just undid your revert of an ip user, not because I agree with the ip user's edit (I do) but primarily because I opened up a discussion on the TP about this a few days ago with no takers. That discussion is still open if you care to join. Thanks little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 01:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted simply because the IP remove a sentence from the lede with no explaining edit summary. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan edits

Further discussion regarding the sovereignty of Taiwan should take place among the editors of Taiwan at Talk:Taiwan

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi. My edit may have been a little bias but for many people it is also the truth, which includes billions of Chinese. Taiwan's soverignty is Chinese business, no one elses. To me, the original article (and its current edit) is also biast (albeit to the American and pro-Taiwanese independence activists, which only make up a small portion of Taiwanese population by the way), as it recognizes Taiwan as an "Sovereign State", which it certainly is not. Most of the countries in the world don't even recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state, so the fact that Wikipedia (and your edit) states that it is a sovereign state is clearly even more biast than my edit.

The definition of Sovereign State on wikipedia also contradicts your edit. It says that the sovereign state must have full capacity to organize diplomatic relations with other states (which Taiwan does not and cannot, so it violates the Declarative Theory on Statehood as described in the article to call Taiwan an independent sovereign state. It also OBVIOUSLY violates the Constitutive Theory, so obviously that I won't even describe it here.

The wikipedia rule states that degree of bias is determined by how the same information is portrayed by other reputable sources. However, there are plenty of reputable sources out there that also clearly do not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state, including international organizations like the United Nations (which is why Taiwan has no representative!). Most Taiwanese themselves don't consider Taiwan a country. Therefore, I find it ironic that you use the "bias" argument against my edit.

As far as I can count, there are FAR more reputable sources that deny Taiwan's sovereignty out there (most countries and international organizations) than the mere number of activists and political bloggers who think Taiwan is sovereign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssss9999 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to discuss this, please take it to talk:Taiwan. Readin (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Readin - the correct place to discuss this, and potentially gain consensus for your changes is the article's talk page. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. — Abhishek ^Talk 18:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, respectfully, I am familiar with WP:NOTVAND, and the edits in question, which replaced a comment in the wiki-markup explicitly noting NOT to make the edits in question, do not meet any of the criteria of NOTVAND that I see, in that they were clearly intentional and disruptive.

I'd like to further recommend that you become familiar with WP:DNTTR. As an editor with quite a number of edits, I believe I fit the definition of a 'regular'. Regards, JoeSperrazza (talk)

WP:DNTTR is only an essay - it's merely an opinion piece representing the views of one or more editors. There's no requirement for anyone to be familiar with it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but note that I did not claim any policy violation in my reply. I suggested that familiarity with WP:DNTTR would be useful (in that following its suggestions may yield more congenial results), in response to the OP warning me for violating WP:NOTVAND (which I addressed in my response). Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shoofly pie

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Shoofly pie is NOT a southern dish. It's origins are from Mennonites and Amish of Pennsylvania. There might be Southern versions, but it originated from PA. So to say that it is Southern is not true. This coming from someone from PA that lives in SC. I have NEVER once heard a southerner talk about shoofly pie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.7.219.246 (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Provide a reliable source (see WP:RS to support your edit to Shoofly pie, then, please. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Troubling Application Of Wikipedia Guidelines

WP:DENY WP:TROLL

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have found a recent allegation of violations of the No Personal Attacks guideline that you levied against me to be truly troubling. A personal attack requires a second person. A comment to all editors in general is not a personal attack. Regardless, my personal opinion of a colleague who willfully and openly impugns another's actions without knowing their intent, who they are, and with reckless abandon is that they should be reprimanded severely. And though I am aware that other editors are more lenient than I, I strongly suggest you be more discriminating in your future criticisms. Have a little more self control next time, after all this is a COMMUNITY, Not an autocracy. 173.206.96.72 (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you're upset, but the edit summary "style infringement, if you're too lazy to look up the given citations, go work the night shift at an esso" clearly is a personal attack on the editor you reverted. Consider taking you're own advice about exercising more self control next time. Regarding your comment about community editing, consider starting a section of the talk page in question, per WP:BRD, vice continuing to revert (this time, another editor). Still unhappy? Consider filing an RFC/U. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, unless the comment is directed at a specific person, it cannot by definition be a personal attack. In regards to your RFC suggestion, Resorting to outside intervention is for the uncivilized, and child-like, you probably shouldn't advise anyone else to do so in the future. Since you failed to comprehend the substance of my last comment, I must conclude that emotion has clouded your understanding. Remember, self control. Cheers. 173.206.96.72 (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poogate

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Good question.

I thought I was looking at an article when I hit the revert button and then I just rushed to undo it when I realized it was a talk page. A double slip, sort of, I guess. Widr (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Will you revert your undo? Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP user is now claiming that your mistaken undo vindicates him and should lead to his unblocking. See [7]. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Couldn't simply undo anymore, so please check if there's anything important missing now. Widr (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

xPL

Hello I am Francois Corthay. I edited the List of TCP and UDP port numbers, where I

added port 3865 for xPL
moved the line for port 3880 under 3872

and you informed me that you deleted this edit.

The xPL wiki states that port 3865 has been assigned to the xPL protocol by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). As you put me on doubt, I checked on the IANA port numbers: UDP and TCP ports 3865 are effectively assigned to Ian Lowe's xPL. The latter source, which one could consider as reliable, is cited at the top of the table and doesn't have to be cited in each particular line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcorthay (talk • contribs) 09:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]