User talk:Joe1978

Hello, Joe1978! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Kingturtle (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

WP:ANI notice

Hi Joe, just an FYI but your editing is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Abuse_of_User_Joe1978.3F. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering why all the rapid fire tagging of various political figures as Jewish Conservative or Former Liberal? You seem to have done some of the tagging just to create a new page Former Liberals and I am unsure of your intent in the Jewish tags? Are they proud spokespeople of their heritage and beliefs? If so then it would seem appropriate. Personally, I listen to Mark Levine sometimes, but I haven't really heard him talk about his heritage before--unlike Michael Medved who openly discusses his faith and heritage many times to help get a point across or draw an analogy. However you marked those pages with a Jewish American Conservative, which happens to also be a page that you also created. Could you please explain why this is so? On the one hand perhaps a sub-category is appropriate and I would love to hear why, on the other hand it seems like the articles I mentioned (as well as others) should have relevant referenced material on their pages before the sub category was created.Rocdahut (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia links

Please stop mass adding external links to Conservapedia. It is not an appropriate link per WP:EL and adding it to so many articles is spamming. Hut 8.5 20:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wrong according WP:EL they should be added, "Links normally to be avoided: Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." --Joe1978 (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also I only added links to Conservapedia when I thought people might be inteterested in what Conservapedia says on the topic, for example Gun control and abortion, not to articles like China. --Joe1978 (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The actual value of such a link is very small, and it doesn't meet any of the "What should be linked" criteria on WP:EL. There are thousands of sites we could have chosen to link to on those articles, and their link sections have been thoroughly pruned to keep only the most relevant links (Wikipedia is not a linkfarm). Mass adding any link to articles is almost always a bad idea. Hut 8.5 20:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you check item #12 at WP:ELNO, it's pretty clear: No wikis as ELs. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually read the whole thing you'd notice that is says "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." conservapedia fits this criteria --Joe1978 (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Furthermore, Conservapedia is a small wiki (under 24,000 actual articles) and has been broadly and frequently criticized by third-party sources as unreliable. I'm sorry, but none of your additions were appropriate. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Atheism article on Conservapedia has 1,750,000 views of course that link makes sense to be linked to and these are relevant links it fits criteria 4 of what should be linked here also I put a link to Conservapedia on the abortion article under the section "The following information resources may be created by those with a non-neutral position in the abortion debate" for the link --Joe1978 (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are links to many wikis on wikipedia for example, there is about 177 links to lyricwiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=LyricWiki&fulltext=Search

--Joe1978 (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that other articles have problems is not a justification to introduce new problems (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). the Lyricwiki links should probably be deleted too! --Jaysweet (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already showed you that Conservapedia fits the inclusion criteria, many of their articles have 100,000's of views or in some cases 1,000,000's thus on an article such as abortion, there should be nothing wrong with putting link under "The following information resources may be created by those with a non-neutral position in the abortion debate" --Joe1978 (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why add it? Even if you reject the contention that the Conservapedia articles fell under External Links to Avoid, why are they desirable links? A non-neutral position is not helpful at all! --Jaysweet (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I rolled you back again. Please be careful about WP:3RR if you continue to re-add the link. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The abortion article has 2 sections of external links for links which have a non-neutral position --Joe1978 (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't particularly like the External Links section at Abortion either. I mean, do we really feel that we need to help people find website on the internet where people have an opinion about abortion?! :D ha ha ha...

Anyway, that appears to have been there a long time so I am not inclined to mess with it. But I don't like it one bit.

I still feel you are spamming for Conservapedia and don't think it is appropriate. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly about this particular link, but for the future, perhaps it would help to hash out at Meta:Talk:Interwiki map whether Conservapedia is an appropriate external link? Also, this discussion might be more useful (although also more heated) at the article's talk page. Cretog8 (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — Becksguy (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Evolution do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop - you appear to be edit warring to insert material into the Barack Obama article that is disputed as WP:POV. That article is under a de facto "1RR" restriction rather than the usual WP:3RR policy. If you continue to revert the material into the article an administrator may temporarily block you from further editing the encyclopedia. Thanks. Wikidemo (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of CfD

I've nominated two categories that you created, Category:Jewish conservatives along with Category:Jewish American conservatives, for deletion. You can dispute my nomination here. In order to avoid the loss of data I'd recommend manually transferring the names from Category:Jewish American conservatives in to Category:Jewish American Republicans (United States) if applicable. --Wassermann (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Romania

Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in contributing to WikiProject Romania. It is a project aimed at organizing and improving the quality and accuracy of articles related to Romania. Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]