User talk:Joeshea

Autobiography rule violation?

In notice that a number of unnamed accounts (all originating in the RoadRunner IP domain) have been editing the article Joe Shea - and that many of those same accounts have very similar edit histories to yours (notably: they have all edited the obscure article: Oxyhydrogen and have taken remarkably similar points of view on the subject). This makes me strongly suspect that you have been editing the Joe Shea article while not logged into Wikipedia - perhaps to cover your true identity. If (as your username suggests) you are really the Joe Shea about which the article is written - then you should immediately aquaint yourself with the WP:Autobiography and WP:COI rules! Wikipedia takes a pretty dim view of people editing articles written about themselves. If all of this (admittedly circumstantial) evidence is mere coincidence - then let me apologise in advance. SteveBaker (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Joe Shea replies: I did contribute to my article. However, I did so before the rules you cite were established. As the first Internet daily newspaper, which started on April 10, 1995, we were often the first to join later-coming projects like Wikipedia. I think my entry is grandfathered in.

COI inclusion on Rick Sanchez

Hi. I'm pretty sure you're a conflict of interest, as The American Reporter is written by Joe Shea, which is presumably you.

Wikipedia isn't the place for you to promote your newspaper or anything you've written on there. Further, this is a living person article and is therefore subject to extreme scrutiny in its sourcing - and your online publication isn't considered reliable, I don't think. So please stop inserting text with links to your organization, or you may find yourself blocked. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fact, by Joe Shea: The American Reporter is written by the 400 journalists who have owned it since April 10, 1995, long before Wikipedia was created.

Joe Shea replies: I'm pretty sure Wikipedia wants to include dissenting views when they are appropriate. The American Reporter's lead article this morning discusses the appropriateness of the firing. I'd suggest that the rules violation is yours, in censoring mine. I am not aware of any other article that defends Sanchez's remarks on the basis of his free speech rights. I am obviously qualified to comment on free speech issues as I won the free speech case Shea v Reno in 1996, and was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in 1997.

Articles from our publication have been reprinted in the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle and other fine newspapers. Our credibility was established for all time when we reported in 1998, exclusively, via Nando.net that the IRA would declare a cease-fire the following day, and by the selection of our correspondent Andreas Harsono as a Nieman International Fellow at Harvard. I won a First Prize from the LA Press Club for online news writing. Our contributors have won a very long list of journalism prizes. I have no clue as to who you are or your credibility, by contrast.

October 2010

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Rick Sanchez. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, this warning is in response to this edit. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Shea replies: It is not "unconstructive" to add a dissenting viewpoint. It is constructive, and in an encyclopedia, it is essential. I am not sure how you view one-sided information, but you have seemed to support it in violation of Wikipedia's standards.

Changing "Steve Krakauer" to "Steve Krakpot" (as you did on 23:16, 2 October 2010) is in no way constructive. It is out and out vandalism. There is no possible defense for that. Added to your previous willful ignoring of the Wikipedia COI rules (and I checked, there is no way your edits were "grandfathered in" - that's pure, premium bullshit)...you are well past the line that could get you a block or even an outright ban from this site. I recommend that you tread VERY carefully from now on - many people will be following your edit history closely. SteveBaker (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should develop a sense of humor, Steve. I apologize if it so grievously offended you. As you have noted, Wikipedia officials have restored my page, which includes references to more than 60 LA Times articles that mention me, and some of which contain photos of me, including several that appeared on the front page and several that mention The American Reporter. I don't have time to justify myself to you with all the other esoterica that documentation on this site demands. I need to hire a librarian to do it, and right now, I can't afford that.

So you imagine that having a Wikipedia page written about you gives you license to come here and vandalize our encyclopedia? If you are the important mainstream journalist that you seem to imagine yourself to be - I think your standards of public discourse and writing should rise a little higher than vandalism. How about a proper apology on the talk page of the article you vandalized. Perhaps the Joe Shea page needs a section about how this person vandalizes Wikipedia articles for fun? SteveBaker (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Shea replies: Your outrage is absurd. You are being pedantic. My edit of the Rick Sanchez page, in an effort to balance the one-sided criticism of him, has since been validated by the agreement of Jon Stewart himself, the object of Mr. Sanchez'es remarks. However, without cause or common sense, you censored my edit. I think that shows you to be an enemy of free speech and purveyor of bibliographic arcanae.

Removing unresolved maintenance tags

Hello, you removed the maintenance tags in American Reporter in this edit, but you didn't solve the problems pointed out by the tags: the article still lacks (sourced!) indications of why it's notable, and the references are still lacking (few sources, many facts stated without a source to back them).

Please don't remove tags unless the problems pointed our by the tags have been solved by yourself or by other editors. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning on logging in

Hi. Going forward, please remember to log in when you edit. Edit while logged out as a way to avoid scrutiny or to continue edit warring is unacceptable. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to BlackLight Power may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

has provided an argument for the existence of the hydrino in an article <ref>arXiv:physics/0507193 [physics.gen-ph</ref><i>"On the hydrino state of the relativistic hydrogen atom"</i>. Naudt states, "
{{cite journal arXiv:physics/0507193v2 [physics.gen-ph]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]