User talk:Josephprymak

My honours subjects were philosophy and logic. I also studied environmental science, physics, chemistry, botany, geology, and history. I am a teacher for our children, my greatest joy in life. Logical fallacies are a main focus of mine because of how prevalent they are today, as in the past. Freedom of thought is needed to ensure excellent democratic citizenship. I hope that you are enjoying Wikipedia as much as I am. All the best to you.

Useful

Hi Joseph. I see you've written some interesting articles/edits on the oldest rocks on the earth. You may be interested in referring to the article Acasta Gneiss for your future edits. Good luck. Rickert 07:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I will definitely refer to it when I get a chance. --joseph 16:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petroform

See Talk:Petroform. CJLippert 23:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are clear distinctions between petroforms, petroglyphs, and pictographs. See all three for how they significantly differ.--joseph 00:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Boston Tea Party

Howdy, I noticed that you and I seem to post in one or two articles dealing with progressive issues in political science. There's currently a debate beginning in Boston Tea Party as to whether the article should include the category [1]. Would you be able to pop in to the Talk page and join in the discussion? Thanks much, samwaltz 05:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow heads

Why not merge this article with the Stone tool article? They discuss related concepts in a very similar manner. Your page could be a redirect to the existing version. (aeropagitica) 05:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anishinaabe-related Wikipedia article survey

Hi, I just wanted to let you know of the Anishinaabe-related Wikipedia article survey. The list of articles somehow associated with the Anishinaabe peoples may be found at User:Leo1410/Anishinaabe. Please take a look. If you know of articles that ought to be listed and isn't or topics that ought to be there and aren't or can suggest a better arrangements of the categories identified so far, please feel free to add, suggest, etc. CJLippert 03:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Thanks for your kind words earlier. CJLippert 03:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Justice

Hi. You made a couple of additions to the above. I've removed both, and - in the interests of reasonable conversation - I wanted to say why.

1. In the lead paragraph, you changed 'What exactly justice is, and what it demands of us, are among the oldest and most contested of questions' to 'What exactly justice is, and what it demands of us, are among the oldest and most contested of questions that have their written, philosophical origin in Plato's dialogues'. Why would we be interested in the oldest of the particular questions which have their origin in Plato's dialogues? But more importantly, what I think is that the question of justice originates in Plato - is contestable and rather Western-centric (what about Confucius, for instance?).

2. You added 'In Plato's dialogue on the just, he has the character of Socrates make it very clear that the city-state is an image, or a way to magnify the human soul, or mind and body to see what various types of individual souls exist. Some souls are ruled over by their desires, others are willful, and some use their reason in harmony with the love for wisdom and right actions.' to the end of the section 'Justice as harmony'. I don't think this is an improvement, for several reasons. First, the purpose of the analogy between soul and city is contested. Second, the point about people being ruled by their desires is already made earlier in the paragraph. Third, the addition is poorly integrated: it reads like a response to the earlier part, not continuous prose.

I'm happy to discuss this further at the article's talk page, if you'd like to. Cheers, Sam Clark 08:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see talk at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America/Anishinaabe

Aaniin, Please visit Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America/Anishinaabe#Algonquin_Mythology_link.3F. There is a question that I think you may be very valuable in providing an answer and some guidance. Miigwech. CJLippert 03:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to philosophy

Hello - if you don't mind, I removed the sentence from the introduction to the Philosophy article. I felt it was not enough of a general point to go in at the introduction. Can you discuss any changes to the introduction on the Talk page first, as this has been hugely contentious, as you probably know. Thanks. Dbuckner 09:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anishinaabemowin language Userbox

Aaniin, with great effort from User:Miskwito, we now have the oj series of Anishinaabemowin language userboxes. On the WP:IPNA/Nish page, we have a matrix of the possible categories for the oj series and the major dialect groupings. You can now add to your Userpage one of the oj userboxes that are available or you can help create a userbox for the dialect of your interest. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Babel#Ojibwe_language_userboxes for the full discussion. Miigwech. CJLippert 20:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please critique Image:Anishinaabewaki.jpg

Hi Joseph, Please ciritque this image. Tell me both about this image that you like and don't like. Thanks. CJLippert 22:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CJLippert, The map is a bit inaccurate. Who made it? Based on what data or references? I cannot say much about the other geographic areas, but in Manitoba, it does not look right in some areas.

Well, I put the map together using the geospatial information available from both the US (na99_d00.shp) and Canada (CLAB_2007_01_02.shp) for the Reserve/Reservation location, while the municipalities were drawn from the Canadian gcsd00a06a_e.shp and the various US csXX_d00.shp files. Its projection is that to maximise UTM 15T (centre located southeast of Owatonna, Minnesota), opposed to UTM 14U (centre located just northwest of Gypsumville, Manitoba). The Reserves and Reservations that were selected came from either the US BIA or the Can INAC databases. Some municipalities were selected in addition to these Reservations and Reserves due to known concentration of Anishinaabeg in these Urban areas, either as significant number of student population or the nearest "big town" that provides economic security to individuals living off-Rez. Should more have been selected? Less selected? What doesn't look quite right exactly... knowing what looks wrong would help in trying to make it look right. Thanks. CJLippert 21:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be better to clearly indicate what is a reserve versus what are high urban populations. I do like what you have done though, good work. --joseph 16:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status of Manitoba Eco-Network

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Manitoba Eco-Network. For legal reasons, we will delete copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites (http://www.mbeconetwork.org/about.php and other pages on the same mother site in this case) or from printed material.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article's talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Manitoba Eco-Network with a link to where we can find that note;
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article's talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Manitoba Eco-Network with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own original words to avoid any copyright infringement. Thank you. Cheers, CP 21:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Jack Steinbring

A tag has been placed on Jack Steinbring, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Blair - Speak to me 01:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Ü 4 making contact Joseph

Remember that Universe when it takes the definite article "the", as in 'the Universe', is a proper noun 99% of the time. Moreover, Sun and Moon are also generally proper nouns.
May the breeze be at your back as the Sun, Moon and stars light your way.
Blessings in the Mindstream to you and yours.
B9 hummingbird hovering^{(talk • contribs)} 13:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to Majority

Hi there! My spouse and I had a fun argument about appeal to majority last night because of your edit. Suffice it to say, everyone who thinks about it in detail will easily and quickly admit that using the scientific consensus as an argument that anything is true is, in fact, a logical fallacy. It's a logical fallacy if the point of the article is to use logic and axioms and such to prove a point. However, with an important general interest subject such as global warming, the point in the introduction is not to use logic and axioms to prove a point. The point is to introduce a large subject and its accompannying cultural issues. We must have a statement about how global warming is viewed by scientists in the introduction because it is important issue about global warming. Yes, in order to actually know what's going on, you have to look at the evidence (not the axioms, because it's experimental science, not philosophy) and figure out what we know. The science is too complicated and there is simply too much of it for people to do this as a matter of course. So what do have left? What do people who, as their job, know the evidence, think? Yes, it's a logical fallacy but it's also the way this information-overload real world works. If you'd like to tweak the existing language (instead of plopping in an out-of-place sentence) to help highlight the difference between evidence and opinion, please do so by putting new suggested language on the talk page. - Enuja (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been having this disagreement at Global warming controversy in addition to Global warming. Might I suggest that scientific consensus should probably include this type of discussion (and looks like it needs a fair bit work!) which is out of place in both global warming articles? - Enuja (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be careful of WP:3RR. I understand that you feel outnumbered because several editors are reverting your changes. I frequently feel the same. The reality on the GW related pages is that there is an established group of editors on the pro-GW side that support each other as you have seen. This is a normal consequence of them being aligned with the "majority view" as you note.

On those particular pages you won't get anywhere unless you can make a case based on a 3rd party statement and WP:RS and WP:V sources. Note also that if your material were to deal directly with a scientific theory that they will require peer reviewed sources as well, and general media sources won't be accepted. This is apparently by long standing consensus on those pages.

BTW, I agree completely with your point but unless you can find a reliable source that says basically the same thing they will claim your comment is WP:OR as well. Sorry but this is the reality on these pages. The minority needs to live within the bounds set by the majority on these points I am afraid, and a double standard is frequently applied even then. --GoRight (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is reply to your recent comment [2] on Talk:Global warming.

The global warming article is not an argument nor does it exist to tell people to reduce their carbon emissions. This article covers what's important about the topic. Unfortunately, the existence of a consensus among scientists who work on climate change (and the argument that there is no consensus) is an important part of this topic because it gets talked about in the media (and in private conversations) a lot. Ignoring this part of the subject does not make it go away.

You need to convince the culture as a whole, not editors on Global warming, that trying to judge what percentage of scientists think what is useless. - Enuja (talk) 02:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few more ideas and thoughts that are often on my mind:

I hope you enjoy reading them. Why are you reading this any way? Pleased to meet you. I hope you are having a good day today. You did not expect me to write directly to you did you? Hello there. It is as if I know you are reading this right now. I expected you to read this. It is my intention to write to you, yes you, the one reading this right now! Welcome. It is my pleasure to write to you. My thoughts are now entering your brain.

I am concerned about false new age theories and pseudoscience in an age of increasingly complex technologies. Few humans know enough about how technologies work and their historic origins. Many humans use technologies that they do not understand and they do not give credit to the many scientific and philosophical founders.

I am concerned about the use of the word "races" with no careful thought about whether there are any races or not. Is there just one human race, or are there many races, how many exactly, over what time frame, what exact geographical areas, what criteria to us, and why? I have good reasons to think that there is only one human race and any other claim is inconsistent and based on logical fallacies. See race.

I am a part of a philosophical community of friends that learn logic, first principles, logic, math, philosophy, and natural science. We carefully re-read works by Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, Locke, Rousseau, Newton, Nietzsche and many other great thinkers. Our goal is to educate, to teach, and to improve humanity. This can be done through free thought, free will, the love of wisdom literature, by cultivating virtues, and with the help of an intellectual community of true friends. The dialectical method is partly required to seek true answers. Probable conclusions must also be proven using the scientific method. Humans have the potential, the innate ability, to be more self-aware and self-conscious of their natural gifts. One can use reason, emotion, and our will in virtuous ways. The main goal is to do what is at least partially proven to be Good, or to seek permanent wisdom for as many important questions as possible. This requires true freedom of thought, to question our popular opinions, and to be aware of contradictions in our thoughts. Knowledge of our own ignorance is an important Socratic starting point. Of course this is not easy. Some universal questions will go unanswered, yet some specific aspects might be proven and known. We can know when we are ignorant of, which is when we do not know the proof for our conclusions. Statements are either probable, improbable, true, or false. The rule of non-contradiction allows only some statements to be true and probable, and the rest will be false or improbable opinions.

Some universal questions are these: What can we know? Does God or a First Cause exist? What should you do? Do you have enough free will? What exists? What is love? How can we know What is good to do? What is after death? Why is there something and not nothing? What is true as opposed to false? What laws and principles should we live by? What is true happiness? What is true love? What is friendship? What is the best human community? What relations should we have with nature? What are the origins of mathematics and geometry? What is of everlasting value What is common to all times and places? What is the nature of human beings? What are natural rights? How can we prove our answers? How can we demonstrate which statements are true?

Human beings have the universal abilities of symbol making, detailed forethought, the idea of symmetry, basic mathematics, geometry, logic, art making, cultivated skills, architecture, and have made universal discoveries about the natural and the immaterialworld. We hope that you participate in the great philosophical conversation over centuries and through many great books. Great ideas, related to important questions, are at the foundations of human civilization. Ideas must be rediscovered, taught to continue the fantastic journey of human kind. What are the best relations between nature, all species, humans, the intellect, math, emotions, the will of a human being, and including the Creator (if there is a First Cause)? Socrates said that self-knowledge is very important. All wisdom starts with an understanding of our own nature, within, of our will, desires, opinions, contradictions, virtues, and how we use our reason, mind, thoughts, imagination and memories.

It is important to clearly show how some words can accurately define actual things or places that exist. For example, any human can point to the Sun, or one of the largest mountain tops, and name this specific being. By pointing to a thing, we can define it and show it to anyone. Some things exist over and over again, each time anyone points to it. The Sun, Moon, and large mountain tops exist, without a doubt. Will these kinds of objects exist in the near future as in the proven past? It is probable, and there are no better theories to assume otherwise. There should be no illusion when defining, thinking and acting in relation to proven reality. Some things, otherwise known as existing matter and energy in specific areas or volumes of space-time, can be mapped, predicted, and described in great detail, independently, and repeatedly. Statements and descriptions are not in complete detail due to our limited senses and other problems. The Sun can change to a certain degree, and in specific ways, but the spherical, very hot being exists, for billions of Earth years. Humans can use math, geometry, and precise language to co-operate, to act in proper relation to reality, to plan, predict, accurately map, repeat experiments, and to build complex technologies, cities, and nations. We are able to get to the Moon using the knowledge about natural laws, physics, and the successful manipulation of real matter or things into human made technologies. Language, words, logic, geometry, and math are the basic tools of human civilization, with universal common ground between all nations, all languages, and all times and places.

Truth relativism, or subjectivity, is a claim that does not account for how humans can repeatedly act with success in relation to the reality of things like high cliffs, guns, and other dangerous objects. We can avoid death because we know some real physical causes of a severely injured and bleeding dead body. One does not need to experience dying to truly know some facts about the very real nature of how a human dies due to natural laws from falling to the ground from very high up.

Wake up, do not react, blame no one, why do you act like that?

Wake up!

The Eternal Being is watching you. Are you being tested in some virtual reality game? This is a magical place of atoms, electrons, and mostly empty space.

Choose what you think, feel, and do. You have some free will and free thought now, so use it. No longer blame others and your past for what you choose.

You are not some machine, or materially caused! You are a human, with great potential. You have some free will and free thought.

This is an attempt for us, together, to wake up right now, or soon. Do not daydream anymore! Do not react to anything that comes your way! Blame no one for what you think, feel, and choose to do or fail to do.

Wisely choose every thought with careful reason, will power, and unwavering desire! There is not one precious second to waste on this wondrous, astonishing, one of a kind, remarkable planet (with irreplaceable wilderness) as it hurdles around this immense sphere of fire and heat, a vast nuclear furnace, an enormous explosion of color and light! This one Earth orbit year (of 30 Joseph years) will only be here for one astonishing time only, for all of us! Think, Speak, Reason, and Act in only the best possible good way, and pray for this. Choose as wisely as you possibly can!

This one and only day, this one chance, will be gone forever soon. How will you live it? You have this one day, one chance, to live this day right, and then it is gone forever. Did you waste it? You have no second chance to live today. This day will only come once, and then it is gone forever. Seize the day.

This day is incredibly unique! This Earth day of March 9, Gregorian Calendar standard, 2001 orbits after the death of Yahshua, plus or minus some probable error, is The Day that will never be here again! This is a year, a decade, with only one chance to live it the best way you can. It is ONE DAY that can never be repeated. I am trying to freely choose to live it fully now. We all have chosen to live it! Many of us have failed. No longer fail!

This is a wise use of a few minutes of my life that I have chosen! I, we, will not fear the humans that call this kind of talk crazy. They are asleep! I am awake to some degree, and aware of my own ignorance. I do not know the great, final, true answers about why I am here! I know that I am ignorant of the final, certain answers to all of the great universal and enduring questions. I desire and will seek to discover the great final True answers with the wisest of humans who have wrote the wisest of books, and any one else ready for the greatest challenge on this one and only Earth.

Act differently! Do something very different when alone, to test all the possible ways to act, think, feel and how to exist within moral boundaries. Sing, dance, feel, move in new ways, and break out of your old habits. You are stale and need more education. Why do you talk the way that you do? Why do move the way that you do? Why do you have those mannerisms? Did you choose them?

Wake Up! Seriously. Fully live this new day.

Try to arouse your passion for the Good, Happy Life! This is your one chance, today, to live in this real moment. Tomorrow is not here. Yesterday is dead and done, and now only a memory. You are existing now. How you live right now is your choice alone. No one can live and choose for you. Blame no one person or thing for how you live. Take full responsibility.

How will you finally live differently? Now. What can you say and do better? End your pathetic and wrong ways. Stop your whining and negative thoughts. Wake up. You have a wonderful life to live, before it is all over at death. How will you be judged in the end? What will most people say about you, while you lay dead at your funeral?

There is no time to waste. Live a better life now.

Wake up out of your sleep. Are you an automatic robot? No, you can be a free thinking human being!

Are you partly divine?

Live like you are more than a robot. Will a better life. Live the best life. Seek happiness and love.

You must choose how you will fully live, and only you are to blame if you want greater control.

Claims to be verified, debated, discussed, and explored

Imagine our lives as sparks on a planet, surrounded by an endless cosmos, that are short in time and small in space. Physical existence is a fleeting moment, full of vanity and chasing after the wind. Anything of lasting, true value on Earth, requires generations of human beings to keep it alive. Living wisdom is true knowledge about what is good, just, and the courage to act accordingly. What is the purpose of human beings on this planet? If the changing material world is vanity, then what can we partake in that is eternal?

What are the best and true writers of all time? Ancient texts of Jews and Christians, Moses, Jesus, Ecclesiastes, Plato, Socrates, the Koran, Cicero, Newton, Einstein, and who else?

The afterlife is our eternal home? There is some evidence for an afterlife. Assuming the afterlife is real and true, what can we gain while on Earth that can be taken with us after death?

What we do on Earth, as physical, changing beings, will all be lost and forgotten eventually. New generations will take over, and what is true and wise will continue on in their living minds and bodies. The living will be responsible for what is gained from a good education. A good education for freedom of thought and free will keeps many of the ancient and eternal ideas alive and present. A book is dead words on paper without the new generations to study it well. The fundamental foundations for self-conscious beings are eternal ideas and eternal substances. Natural numbers are an example. Such as 1 - 11 - 111 - 1111 - 11111 - 111111 and so on, in any base unit. Foundational mathematics, chemistry, and physics are discovered and universal to intelligent beings, anywhere, and at any time in this universe.

Many moral relativists reject claims of truth, but they also allow for all claims, even false ones. Some relativists tolerate all opinions, and often ask how someone feels above what they know to be true or even probable. Some say that a diversity of opinions is good and normal, and that no one should make claims of what is right, wrong, best, illogical, or proven. The belief of no truth and no natural morality and ethics will lead to more illogical appeals by the majority, appeals to authorities, to fame, and to force. The tyranny of the majority, or through consensus, can be a real danger if unreasonable and without evidence or proof. A majority in some group can be wrong or immoral.

It is important to know the origins of our opinions throughout history, and to discuss and question which claims are false or true. Evidence, logic, witnesses, various sources, science, and philosophical methods are needed to answer a variety of important questions. Different methods are needed for different kinds of questions. Specific and detailed answers are needed, without making many illogical over generalizations.

Humans need to be well educated, able to read and write, able to use logic, mathematics, and to apply the right methods. Written words can be carefully looked at, analyzed, changed, improved, and edited. Oral communication is often less precise and careful, not allowing for a lot of editing and improvement over time. Great books have the test of time, often in response to the previous ideas written down, and are a great historical lineage. There are human minds filled with idle chatter, trivia, false information, noise, wasted words, and mere opinions. Do you know the origins of your opinions?

Only individuals can keep alive the true and probable statements that are proven. Books alone, if not read, will become useless, decay, or they will be lost in a vast archive. Words on paper are dead without enough readers. A few individuals are the wisest in any time, and they think about more true and probable statements about logic, math, reason, ethics, science, the First Cause, the afterlife, what exists, nature, laws, and justice. What can humans know with proof?

Words are not the real things, not pure awareness, and not the real beings that exist! Words are often just the sounds we imagine in our heads, and not spoken. Words only point to reality, or correspond to what exists to some degree. Words can partially make up the content of memories, thoughts, and mind. Some statements point to and represent reality more accurately than others. Some statements are false, improbable, or lies. Some statements are mere opinions, without verification. Mathematics, logic, geometry, and the scientific method can very precisely and accurately describe physical laws, matter, energy, and processes. There are true and probable answers to proper questions, but the best answers are not always known to each individual human being.

Words are needed to fully explain all the types of human characters that exist on Earth. History is needed to record all the real and possible kinds of ways of living. Words are needed to describe feelings, music, and various subjective experiences. The inner possibilities of human consciousness cannot be captured with pictures and the scientific method. Decisions are made due to how one thinks, feels, and according to what actions are possible. Material causes are not the only possible causes for how a human will or will not think, feel, and act.

What universal actions, emotions, ideas, categories, contents of intelligence, symbols, first principles, and mathematics are universal to any planetary species, any self conscious beings, anywhere, anytime?

What exists eternally, without change? Some basic natural laws, logic, and mathematical first principles? Some a priori categories of matter and energy? Either this universe had a causal beginning, or an infinite regress of cause and effect. However, in either case, is there some matter, energy, constants, and/or laws that stay the same always, and why?

It is fascinating to explore the nature of consciousness. What is lucid dreaming? How can one know if one is dreaming or not? Why do we dream? Is there an afterlife, or self-consciousness existing and separate from the physical body? What are the illusions and lies to avoid? How to pursue and love truth? How to cultivate inner calm and resolve? What are the virtues?

How many are fully self aware and self-conscious of their existence? How many react and act like robots, with little or no awareness of their body, emotions, and the contents of their mind?

What does it mean to be fully awake? Is there a danger of sleep walking through life? Do automatons walk on this Earth?

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Josephprymak. 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]

Please take the time to see what encyclopedic editing really means

Hello, Josephprymak, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! —J. M. (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Josephprymak. 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]

Ottawa, situation

Hello! I have a question about Ottawa, and I do'nt know whom would be best to ask that question. But I see that you once upon a time have written a little about the history of Ottawa, and I thougt that perhaps you can answer my question. I have translated some of the enwp-article of Ottawa, and I find it hard to translate "situated on a cliff face would make it more defensible from attack". I ca'nt see anything of this mentioned in the two sources mentioned, and as I never have visited Ottawa, I do'nt how the city is situated. I have read about three rivers in the article, but nothing about a cliff or a mountain, in other parts of the article, except what I have mentioned above. Regards from Sjunnesson (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC), Sweden.[reply]

A quick picture search of Ottawa Parliament will show the high cliff. The cliff area also has a large water fall nearby.

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Whitemouth River Park & Campground

The article Whitemouth River Park & Campground has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A privately-owned campground. No indication or evidence of notability.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PK T(alk) 16:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]