User talk:JoeSperrazza

This user may have left Wikipedia. JoeSperrazza has not edited Wikipedia since 26 March 2018. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JoeSperrazza.

Please post comments about the content of a specific article on the Talk page of that article if it is relevant to all editors.

To Leave a New Message Please click here to start a new Section. Remember to sign your post with four tildes ("~~~~") and use colons (":") for indentation when responding to prior comments. Thanks.

I prefer to maintain the continuity of threads by keeping them in a single location when possible. If you post a message here I will almost certainly reply here. If I've left a message on your user talk I will watch your page for any reply.

Archives

2009 Archive 2010 Archive 2011 Archive 2012 Archive 2013 Archive 2014 Archive

Done - disambiguated to Towanda Township, Bradford County, Pennsylvania]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wyalusing, Pennsylvania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Towanda Township. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)  Done - disambiguated to Towanda Township, Bradford County, Pennsylvania] JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

is a good example of fair-mindedness - obviously, since you agreed with me :-) Actually, it really is. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, I've seen the edit history and you have reverted all my edits on the 'Conquest of Mecca' page. Can you elaborate? Occupation is more of a recent term for disputed territories (mostly). Besides, I visited this page back in 2013 (i saved it on my PC) and at that time, it was 'Conquest' and not 'Occupied' Thanks ```` I saw no citation to support your change, nor consensus for the change on the talk page. As the article itself is titled Occupation of Mecca, not Conquest of Mecca, to change the lede from Occupied to Conquered is problematic. Please revert your recent change and discuss on the article talk page. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] See Talk:Occupation_of_Mecca#Conquest_seems_to_be_a_value_laden_term. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joe - This is to truly THANK YOU (see below). To get going after the recent turmoil, I have updated and submitted "neovandalism" project as final for review, assuming it will eventually be deleted, and happy to accept any outcome, and added the note: "This project was discussed heavily both now and 3 years ago. I agree it is a highly controversial topic and may be perceived with high level of sensitivity, and understand that it is high risk for deletion, and I am happy to accept the outcome trusting the judgement by balanced and fair editors such as C.Fred and JoeSperrazza. Thank you for the opportunity.". I am still working on the BO-diabetes project and have already revised it rather extensively and will try to prove its notability and exceptional significance in a few days and will submit. I wished more WP editors were like you, Joe and Fred, and thanks. S.Burntout123 (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	A true thank you for supporting ordinary users during challenging times S.Burntout123 (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the evidence is clear this editor is the IPSock of banned user Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, Joe. You reverted my edit to Julian calendar. I'm not sure what the problem is here. Do you dispute that the Catholic Church is wrong to claim that if the epact is 25 and the Sunday Letter is C then Easter falls on 25 April? See Computus#Tabular methods where it is clearly stated that on epact 25 the paschal full moon falls on 17 April. Somewhere in that article it will state that Easter falls on the Sunday following the date of the paschal full moon, and if the paschal full moon falls on a Sunday Easter is the Sunday after. So the latest Easter can fall is when the paschal full moon falls on a Sunday. If the paschal full moon is Sunday, 17 April Easter is 24 April. Epact 25 cannot produce a 25 April Easter. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] Discuss this on the article talk page please. Simply put, your edit included no references or citations. Cute the text you added from a reliable source or don't add it. Period. To repeat, please offer further discussion, if any, to the article talk pages, not here. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, I don't understand. I used the <ref> </ref> procedure. Please tell me where I am going wrong as I don't want to waste other editors' time 156.61.250.250 (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to WP:AN/I
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Title. 78.68.210.173 (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] The definition of "shared" is not what you might think. In theory, more than one user could use the same IP, so it is considered "shared". Even should you assert to the contrary, barring proof, it is considered "shared". Per WP:BLANKING & WP:DRC, you must not remove these notices. Sorry. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] Wrong. That template requires reasonable suspicion of the IP being of an institution or other place where it may be shared. 78.68.210.173 (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] Take it to [WP:AN/I]]. You seem to be spoiling for a fight, and I am uninterested. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moot, as User:Wowee Zowee public turned out to be a WP:SOCK
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
About what you said on User talk:Wowee Zowee public, yes, it's true that users can remove messages from their talk page, however WP:OWNTALK states There are certain types of notices that users may not remove from their own talk pages, such as declined unblock requests and speedy deletion tags (see User pages § Removal of comments, notices, and warnings for full details)., both of which were among the things removed. ansh666 09:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] Ah. When I glanced at the reverts, what I saw was a bunch of plain old warning notices. I'll clarify on the editor's talk page. Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	In appreciation of your vigilance and concern for the treatment of Wikipedia editors/users! Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, JoeSperrazza. I truly appreciate your removal of the vitriolic personal attack on my own talk, but I don't delete comments there as I prefer to have them archived for future reference should there be an incidence in the future where it may be useful to retain instances of language usage, and any other tell-tale signs that the same user has returned (should there be need of an SPI, for example).

I am, however, very grateful for your concern and decency, and am more than happy for you to revert vandalism to my actual user page. Cheers for your considerate removal of the offensive comment. I'm sure that a lot of editors (particularly newcomers) would be happy to know that an experienced editor is looking out for them. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closed again. Angry editors need to chill out. Sheesh.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Firstly, I'd ask you to raise any copyright issues with me directly rather than forcing myself and other contributors to argue the merits of the track in various places. Flightradar24 says in their press section "Screenshots from Flightradar24.com or any of the Flightradar24 apps may be used for free by media if screenshots are attributed to Flightradar24. Websites publishing screenshots must link to Flightradar24.com." The use of GPS data is no different here than in Malaysia Airlines 370, which FlighRadar24 explicitly gives permission to use. AHeenen states "Since the location of the aircraft is a fact, not a creative work, and the map traced purports to show the path that Flight 370 traveled based on primary & secondary radar, the flight path is not subject to copyright" I'll add a similar copyright justification. Additionally, FlightAware, which I checked the flightradar24 data against in an unpublished graph, has a second set of GPS co-ordinates, and state "Accredited news outlets and members of the media may reproduce or redistribute FlightAware content... contingent that FlightAware is cited..." BEA permits their photos to be used copyright-free with attribution - the same will happen for charts when they have a full report. These images will be replaced when BEA puts out their final report. -- Aronzak (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] Further to this, look at the stats for the number three story on ITN. I don't take kindly to placing tags on files seen by 166,000 people a day. I've killed the tag because the admin says he's happy for his file to be used, and spent an hour talking with a CNN journalist about it. There is no copyvio. In future, I must stress that you should understand that it is likely to be perceived as insulting if you add a tag to a file viewed by 166,000 people a day, in a way that is likely to be perceived as a false attack on the competence or intelligence of the person who produced it Please do not re-add the tag.-- Aronzak (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] Your tone is insulting and clearly intentionally so. Back off. I re-added no tags. Another editor did so. To the best of my knowledge, I followed the process. If you have evidence to the contrary, post it at the appropriate administrative area.

Closed as Keep
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Joe, looks like there's a consensus to keep the image Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 March 27. c1cada, B, and Nyttend all support keeping the image. The image has evidence of the two it is based on, and there's evidence provided that the company wants information about major flight losses released to the media. If you have no further justification for the deletion tag please remove it. -- Aronzak (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] Great, thanks for going through the process. I'm @ Work at the moment (doing some training), but saw the notice. Before morning my time, I'll do so. JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] I have requested the WP:FFD be withdrawn and closed as Keep and have removed the tag [1]. It is possible the latter may be reverted by someone as premature until the FFD is actually closed. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages. Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. See also: Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. — MusikAnimal talk 23:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hello, thank you very much for your kind message. Actually I'm not fluent in English (I'm French) and I will not be able to make many contributions. I did it only in very basic cases. Anyway I will try to do my best... with caution. thank you again, --Otto Didakt (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, you are very welcome. If you need anything, please contact me. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chocolate-Easter-Bunny.jpg

Yet another long-term drama-fest
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
that http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=1741703 29.06.2014 + http://www.ntv.ru/novosti/1085256/ next 17.07.2014 shotdown (after a month). Is elementary to simple question. Why Are? (for what purpose). The Government of Ukraine+not closed the sky Civil Aviation. good night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.218.182.27 (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect WWE 2K (Mobile Game). Since you had some involvement with the WWE 2K (Mobile Game) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. RichardOSmith (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for the notification, I replied there. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
pls see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Ban Chealer from Wikipedia altogether -- Moxy (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded at User_talk:First_Post_Fund#Response to your email
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Mr. Sperrazza, I had left you a message about my recent posting. And, yes I did notice it was removed and I re-entered it the second time (repost) because I didn't think I saved it properly. The second entry was in a different sub heading. Therefore, after all that I will not violate the policy of Wikipedia and I will not reattempt to post it again. My original message was to explain that my entries were accurate and that the claim that parts of a body were discovered and the fact that the MK-82 bombs were never found led me to the belief my evidence was appropriate and timely since the recent announcement to prolong the retirement of the A-10 Attack Jet program. I cannot produce a third party reliable source to the already stack of news coverage. I am the source. <name redacted>

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I had to sign off shortly after so never got to ask, what was with this revert and the one that followed? Twice you restored inappropriate content, in what does not appear to be machine error. Please be more careful. Thank you — MusikAnimal talk 15:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Hi, both were slips of the finger using Chrome on my iPhone. The first was from browsing the history. The second was when I was looking at the change I was alerted to. Too small screen vs too big fingers. Sorry. I believe I "Thanked" you for your fix edit, trnig to quickly indicate my appreciation for the fixes. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] No worries, I figured it was a mistake. Accidentally rolling back on touch devices is a problem that is not unique to you. That's why I created confirmationRollback-mobile.js (confirmationRollback.js is for desktop as well as mobile), where you will be asked to confirm whether or not you want to perform the rollback. Maybe the -mobile script should be default enabled. — MusikAnimal talk 21:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Very, very cool. Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Started a proposal here, feel free to chime in :) — MusikAnimal talk 21:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoeSperrazza! We're officially kicking off the Wikipedia:Labels campaign for edit quality. You should be able to load the interface by going to Wikipedia:Labels and clicking "Install the gadget". Once you've installed the gadget, the "Install the gadget" button will be replaced by the "campaigns" listing where you can request worksets from "Edit quality (20k random sample, 2015)". The software is still a little rough around the edges. We'll be on the look-out for your bug reports & feature requests throughout the week. I'll post progress reports on the campaign talk page. Thanks for your help and let me know if you have any questions. --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 05:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Combine & collapse per WP:RBI. WP:DNFTT by discussing this here or elsewhere. Recommend all involved get uninvolved to avoid feeding WP:DRAMA
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
<elide>. If you have time go through the details I mentioned at Occultzone's talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OccultZone#AHLM13 --C E (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] I can't speak to other issues with the editor as I've not yet looked into them - I'm sorry you've had concerns that may not yet have been addressed. Regardless of his editing behavior, I think it is never a good idea to ascribe personal bias as a reason for bad edits - how can we really discern why anyone does anything? Regardless, the edits I reported are edit warring & mislabelling edits as vandalism when they're not. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] I thought you will check the details, anyway going through the details below you will find out : using abusive language "jahil ka bachcha" nonsensical comment with hatred using "Munafic" in edit history reverting user's own talk page unblock request calling me names after i pointed out his canvassing calling a user double agent speculating country of origin threatening another user Anti-bangladeshi sentiment I didn't notice this before. ethnic comment on a sockpuppet C E (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] User:CosmicEmperor, you need to stop to following and accusing me. Even other users told you to be calm.-- AHLM13 talk 16:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] AHLM13 Please improve your English at least to intermediate level before editing English WP. It's a request.C E (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] You are still insulting me. My English is better than yours one and I am more experienced than you in Wikipedia. I do not know why you are following me. You are wasting a lot of time, as you are observing all my edits. -- AHLM13 talk 16:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The user is a nightmare to WP, but still got lots of supporters --- @Ravensfire: @Nafsadh: @AsceticRose:

Close as ANI section is now archived
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlusterBlaster (talk • contribs) 11:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] Thank you very much. I responded [2] at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Fraudulent_misrepresentation. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article improved, passed WP:RFD
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For future reference, {{prod2}} is your friend. De728631 (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] I forgot about that! Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result was Keep after being withdrawn
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Detective Willy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detective Willy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. De728631 (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your good faith efforts on Jimbo's talk page and for being exceptional in your ability to adjust (and even apologize) after getting feedback from others. You have earned my support and respect! — Keithbob • Talk • 15:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Save for reference
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, JoeSperrazza, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Widr (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed, all seem satisfied
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What makes you think that counter attack is correctly concatenated to counterattack and not to counter-attack? See OED counter- prefix if you do not have access to the OED see counter-attack in oxforddictionaries.com -- PBS (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Interesting, thank you. Can you show me a Diff where I did that? Regardless, I'll be sure to follow that rule henceforth! Best regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] I found the articles to be informative: Grammar and Style in British English: A Comprehensive Guide for Students, Writers and Academics - Grammar: The Hyphen [ - ] Hyphens | The Economist JoeSperrazza (talk) The diff as requested. BTW I was commenting only on articles written in Commonwealth English, not American English (where concatenation is far more common, see for example the MOS advise on compass points) -- PBS (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi there, just want to let you know that changing a hyphen to an en-dash for a page number range (as you did in Caffeine) is unnecessary within a {{cite book}} reference, as that template automatically renders the page range with an en-dash. Tayste (edits) 00:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change made to prevent future problems
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your bot keeps capitalizing the word "arabs" in contexts like Canis lupus arabs. Please fix! Many species are named "arabs". Chrisrus (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Fixed it to ignore lower-case "arabs". Thanks for the feedback, and your patience.JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Score: 1 collegial, 1 not
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello. You're clearly not aware that WP:Persondata has been deprecated, so we shouldn't now be adding it to articles. The relevant RfC is HERE. And there's a request in to remove AWB's persondata-adding/updating functions, see Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Persondata deprecated. So when you're using AWB to clean up articles, please would you reject the addition of persondata. Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Yep, just about to post this. Persondata is dead. Continuing to add persondata via AWB breaks the rules of use and could lead to a block. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Hi, I didn't know about persondata being deprecated. I certainly won't add henceforth. I do wish AWB had been updated such that it would not be added, but I'll ensure not to do so henceforth. No need to mention blocks, however @Lugnuts: a cursory review of my work here should show I scrupulously follow the rules. (Is there a "please don't bite the old-timers" essay, somewhere?) Thanks again. JoeSperrazza (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] And if you made "a cursory review" of my edits you wouldn't be complaining. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Holy smoke, why the hostility? I do see you reverted my errors, and thanks. I did say I didn't know about it, and would not do so henceforth. My only complaint is that there was no need to mention blocking, as if you assumed I'd not comply. Yes, I see you have made many more contributions to WP than I - does that justify hostility? What exactly do you want? What more than "Thanks, won't do it again" is needed to satisfy you? If your only response is further anger, I'm puzzled. JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome!
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
-) typing is harder. thanks. Peter Flass (talk) 14 53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

PROD'd
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello Joe, We have been trying to improve the information on this page since the last month. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aditi_Staffing This page has been around for a long time, we will be adding relevant citations and secondary sources to this article as well. We understand wikipedia guidelines and will be doing our best to improve the quality of the article by conforming to its guidelines. Please extend the timestamp for this article so we could edit the page appropriately with a lot of due diligence. Zuhebsmbota (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe,

Looking at your recent revision of the page Be-Bop Deluxe... I wasn't sure whether your talk page was the right place to post, but I've posted here because I think this is probably more an issue of style than of content.

Firstly, thanks for cleaning up some references I've put in, great improvement.

Secondly, I've a query about another change you've made in the same edit.

Quote:

Latest revision as of 00:25, 15 June 2015: ten minute → ten-minute, 40 year → 40-year

I don't understand why you've added in the hyphens - I don't believe they should be there. Please explain why you believe they're needed. I'd like to know your reasons.

(I'm not going to hit undo as that would lose the cleaning up of references you did, which is an improvement. But my gut feeling is, take these two hyphens out.)

Thanks,

Alterations (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the very nice note. See http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/hyphen, rule 4:

Rule 4. Hyphens are often used to tell the ages of people and things. A handy rule, whether writing about years, months, or any other period of time, is to use hyphens unless the period of time (years, months, weeks, days) is written in plural form

This seems to apply to the examples given. These rules are just one of many documented at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Joe, thanks for this.

I stand corrected; one lives and learns.

I subsequently spotted another 40 year you missed, in the discography; have now hyphenated that too.

Alterations (talk) 08:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close in lieu of further discussion at ANI or the editor's talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Many thanks for reinserting James Lafferty's name in the Empire, Wisconsin article. I have to admit that I am getting burnt out trying to correct Packerfansam's articles. Again my thanks-RFD (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Thanks to you for finding and adding the reference in the base article. I'm worried about the large number of articles that need to be reviewed. In addition, edits from 24.178.45.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) are recent, problematic and all need to be checked. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] I had been expanding some of Packerfansam's articles about Wisconsin state legislators. Being a Wisconsin resident, I used my public library card to access Badgerlink and access the newspaper articles section to find information about about a Wisconsin legislator who died and adding the information to the article. Sometimes I come across Wisconsin Session Laws that have copies of Wisconsin Legislature Joint Resolutions that express sympathy to a family of a deceased legislator and that mentioned the day of death and additional information. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] That is great work, thank you. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Many thanks for your comment-Several state legislatures: Iowa, Minnesota have data bases about their former state legislators. The Chicago Tribune is an excellent resource about an Illinois legislator or Illinois constitutional officer who died. The Illinois Blue Books are also a good resource. This would give an idea of what resources I used. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Let me add my own thanks for your work in trying to sort out the issues with this editor. I'm a little discouraged by the falloff in attention that the matter is getting at ANI but ultimately I think the editor's indifference to the concerns will do her in. Thanks again. JohnInDC (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] With all due respect while you're chatting about me among yourselves. I feel I deserve an apology in at least this instance where I get messages saying that I put things in the article about Lafferty that weren't sourced, such as him living in Empire, when clearly the source did confirm this. I get that things I do are going to be more scrutinized, but now it's like people are jumping to conclusions. Packerfansam (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] The citation you added, as I noted on your talk page (which you've now blanked without response) did not refer to Lafferty, but instead to another person. I looked in the source. Thus, your assertion was unsourced. I am grateful to the other editor who added a correct source. More importantly, you have any answer to the questions posed on your talk page, which you blanked [3]? Do you acknowledge you made the edits about which issues were raised? Do you understand that your edits, both while logged in but particularly while logged out, were inappropriate and should not be repeated? Will you agree to not make such edits ever again in the future (edit warring - whether logged in or out, using misleading edit summaries, using no edit summary, removing religious, political and sexual content or sourced materiel of any sort without consensus)? Will you agree to not routinely edit while logged out (your pattern indicated an attempt to evade scrutiny? Finally, will you help us fix the bad edits you've made by identifying the ones we may have not found yet? If you can't or won't help us trust you, I would expect there will be a call to topic ban you from religious, political and sexual topics, broadly construed. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] The situation with User:Packerfansam has become blatant, including the apparent use of an IP sock. I'd be surprised if that ANI thread closes with no action. I guess we can't conduct any negotiations with her on her own talk page because she will just blank it. EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] This is not the place for this discussion, but what is it more that you want from me? I've stayed to contributing things about only state legislators since this debacle started, as far as I can tell not submitting or removing anything that would seem to be offensive and I've taken more care with how I list sources. And still here we are. Packerfansam (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] You chose to respond here, and not at your Talk page [4]. "what is it more that you want from me?". We want to be able to trust you will change your editing habits permanently AND help us fix the problems you've already created. See my list of questions above. Answering those is one way. Simply "not contributing things about only state legislators" is insufficient. if by the recent WP:ANI posting you mean "since this debacle started", that's insufficient, too, as you've been doing disruptive editing while logged out since May 15th! JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict)You need to go to the discussion at ANI, review the many examples of problematic edits that are listed there (there are at least two separate lists) and declare whether you were responsible for them or not (you should be able to remember). No more gee, maybe I was hacked, I don't know. Then you need to acknowledge that you understand that there are certain areas of the encyclopedia where your judgment is questionable, and demonstrate that you understand what those areas are. Then finally you need to say you'll stay away from those areas and stick to the stuff you seem to be good at. That's what *I'd* like to see, anyhow. Short of that, you remain a problem editor who won't own up to her edits, won't acknowledge the problem, and won't commit to improving. JohnInDC (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... with the whole pile of nonsense associated with editing here. Disruptive editors get treated very sensitively (I guess WP:AGF is a suicide pact), but trying to help gets you criticism. Why do I bother? JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're fed up, but thought you might be interested in this edit. 32.218.36.31 (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, boy. @OrangeMike: This is very disappointing. The WP:ANI discussion has sputtered out, but this edit is another example of Packerfansam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) using a misleading edit summary to remove sourced religious information from an article:

Edit summary portion replaced with sculpture parks

Prior version:

There are several other historical cemeteries in Omaha, historical Jewish synagogues and historical Christian churches dating from the pioneer era, as well.

New version:

The city's pioneering history is celebrated at two sculpture parks, Pioneer Courage and Spirit of Nebraska's Wilderness.^[1]

References

1. ^ Sculpture Parks. Retrieved 6/22/15.

Help! JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And another one: [5] 32.218.36.31 (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone looking here, being discussed at the editors talk page:

• User_talk:Packerfansam#Omaha
• User_talk:Packerfansam#Cornish_politicians
• User_talk:Packerfansam#Continuing_to_create_problem_stubs_vs._cleanup

JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Re: this edit - I do not see why you have brought me into it. I expressed a fairly minor "concern" (even concern is too strong a word) about a renaming of a category. I do not recall ever having said I had any problem with anything the other editor has done. DuncanHill (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Hi. No fight (at least as I see it). I saw your comment, and included you as someone with a concern. I wouldn't worry about it. If you like, I can certainly strike your name from my comment. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] I would appreciate being struck from the comment, thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] If I edit that talk page again, I will. You are, of course, welcome to post your own comment there in the interim. I find your characterization of my efforts to be "fight" to be incivil and in bad faith, however. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] You did edit it again after I posted here. I find your use of my name to back your own position to be dishonest. DuncanHill (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Oh, for goodness sake. I did it again before I replied here again, my point being I'm not sure I plan to edit there again. I have no position I was looking for you to back, I genuinely thought you shared a concern. Don't feel you do - post so there, or not. Regardless, knock it off, will you? I'm moving this inside the close. And please try to not attack my character again, WP:NPA and all, yes? I explained my edits, etc. Sheesh. JoeSperrazza (talk) You made a false claim about me which you are now refusing to retract. Your edits (regardless of your impeccable character) are dishonest. DuncanHill (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Holy smoke, I said that if I post there again, I will. I'm trying to avoid conflict and staying away from that talk page for now. Your comment should suffice, but if I do, I will. Please don't attack me again here. It is out of line. I am doing the courtesy of replying to you here, but if you post again on this same topic in the same vein I will open a complaint at WP:ANI regarding your conduct. Is there a reason you are continuing to escalate this? Whatever it is, I'm not interested. You've made your point, move on. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think that's just a repost of the very same Wikipedia article. There's really no source for it that I can find. The sentence was added in 2008 by an IP out of Fort Myers, Florida. Maybe just a bit of boosterism there. JohnInDC (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that might be the case, but didn't check the timestamps. I thought it might be the reverse. On a related note, I'm not too pleased to have WP:HOUND thrown around, but the editor's talk page is the wrong place to discuss (if at all). I reiterate my "I'm fed up" comment from earlier on my talk page. But I do thank you for trying to do the right thing. You, I and the 33 IP, along with others (e.g., RFD) have all been working to improve the articles and find a way to suggest, plead, cajole, and almost beg the editor to improve. Having only looked at their last 500 or so edits, I can't say how far back the problem goes, but I'm concerned it goes back farther than the beginning of May. Hopefully, editors who routinely work in that area will have some time to look and fix things. I had thought we could get improvements on the new stubs being created, but I've lost hope. I don't pretend to understand other's motivations, nor why accusations of bad faith are being thrown at us (which are themselves in bad faith). Simultaneously we're trying to fix things, explain things, and debate other editors who seem to be, sometimes, shooting from the hip (inasmuch as some, clearly, have not read the links to the things on which they comment). As I said, when you add to that the general incivility of some editors and the constant barrage of socks, I am fed up. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't let it get to you! My experience on the whole is that the community susses out problem editors sooner or later. Like you I am a bit mystified in this instance - the problem seems so abundantly clear, and the editor so determinedly clueless, that meaningful improvement seems like a pipe dream. And it's not like my concerns were shouted down in ANI - there were lots of folks calling for an indef block. So yeah, I'm frustrated too, but figure either 1) I've pegged it right, in which case eventually the right thing will happen; or 2) I'm wrong and things will be fine. The third option - I'm right and everyone is is wrong and the encylopedia will suffer as a result - well, I encounter it so infrequently that I'm willing to wait a bit longer to see how it sorts out. The intimations of bad faith (from real editors as opposed to vandals and sock puppets) are kind of unfamiliar and unwelcome territory for me but there too I figure the best way to show it is to acquiesce for a while. If the problem persists in a real way, it will be easy to revisit. And if not, then we were statesmanlike. Win-win, eh? JohnInDC (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, my new found friend, and thanks for making me laugh. I have decided I'm done with editing on any of those topics, and am going to clear them from my watchlist. Certainly I agree that it is either 1) or 2). I am surprised and disappointed that other editors (none newbies, some with considerable tenure) chose to respond they way they did on an obviously troubled (I don't mean that on a personal basis, just regarding their contributions) editor's talk page. It turned into the kind of drama-fests that make me avoid WP:ANI whenever I can. Hopefully, IP 33 can continue to chip away at fixing new contributions of that editor. As for the old ones, well, they'll either come to light some day and be fixed, or they won't. Thanks again for the nice note. Best regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the Sunny Side 32.218.38.92 (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A minor update. I was a day or so away from dropping you a note to observe that the problematic edits had ended, and suggesting that perhaps we had, in fact, been overzealous. Today however brought this edit to Eau Claire, Wisconsin, removing a comprehensive list of churches (including a synagogue and LDS Temple) as unsourced, and substituting a sourced / wikilinked list describing 5 Christian denominations in town. The longer list was unsourced, but the effort that went into building the list of major Christian churches could have as easily been directed toward filling in sources for the others, rather than deleting it wholesale. (I found sources for four or five of the more obscure ones as an easy starter.) I learned my lesson with the Naples painting here, which is that if she makes what looks like a biased edit but offers up a technically correct justification, I'm going to fix the bias but make sure the restoration is within WP policies. I plan to continue in that way for the time being. That way the encyclopedia is improved; and, as I said above, if in fact a pattern of biased editing re-emerges, we can raise it again. JohnInDC (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, and good approach. Thanks, and happy July 4th! JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for editing the page, I recently went to the Crewe heritage center and asked about the class 87. They told me that the traction motors had been robbed last year and vandalized the whole train that is very sad. I thought it would be a good idea to put this on the wiki to tell people that the train was hopeless of ever working again. I would really appreciate if you included this in the wiki to let people know the current condition of class 87035. Sorry for taking so long to reply and i hope you can make these changes if you don't that is fine by me.

Thanks cdgames — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdgames (talk • contribs) 12:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Cdgames:, and thanks for the note. I see the edit to which you refer [6]. Can you help find a reference to this in the news or something? If so, as I now understand it, it sounds like it may be a worthwhile addition to the article. Thanks again for getting in touch with me. Best regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again I have been to the heritage centre recently and I have confirmed that the traction motors have robbed but only a few parts not the whole traction motor also other electrical parts. Apparently the throttle of the traction motors was stolen and sadly they as well said that 87035 has no chance of working ever again. I could not find anything on the news or around the internet about it only the staff know. Anyway I hope this is enough info to add this careless and sad robbery to the page.

thanks cdgames — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdgames (talk • contribs) 11:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joesperrazza.... I dont know how to deorphan a profile. Could you help me out with an example? After searching on the internet i found out to deorphan you must link the wiki page in other pages. If possible jus give me an example. Would help alot. Thank you

117.253.199.73 (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joesperrazza.... I dont know how to deorphan a profile. Could you help me out with an example? After searching on the internet i found out to deorphan you must link the wiki page in other pages. If possible jus give me an example. Would help alot. Thank you: Cambite01 (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Cambite01:. I believe you received an answer at User_talk:I_dream_of_horses#Orphan_Page regarding Navaneeth Unnikrishnan, but I'll elaborate:

1. Don't be overly concerned about an orphan tag. It is there to let editors know that, at the moment, other articles in WP don't link to that article.
2. To find relevant articles in which to add a link to Navaneeth Unnikrishnan, consider looking at linked articles. Example: Perhaps add him to Thalassery#Notable_residents.

Best regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IP sockpuppet of banned User:Vote (X) for Change blocked per SPI
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If 87.81.147.76 is a IP sockpuppet of banned User:Vote (X) for Change, why is it not blocked yet? -AsceticRosé 05:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] Because no admin has noticed yet. It recently was blocked for 2 weeks for block evasion, but that block just expired. I plan to do an WP:SPI later, but have been busy with work. JoeSperrazza (talk) 08:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] I see. -AsceticRosé 14:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vote_(X)_for_Change/Archive#08_July_2015, IP sockpuppet of banned User:Vote (X) for Change has been blocked: [7]. JoeSperrazza (talk) 10:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AWB settings corrected & tested
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is not a useful edit. Please note that there is a warning somewhere on the AWB page not to use semi-automated tools for cosmetic changes only. Debresser (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] My apologies. I'll update the settings. Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You probably don't want to change "movie" to "movi.e." as you did here. You might want to see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 138#Protecting an entire article against automatic spell-miscorrection. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! What a dufus edit. Sorry I missed it. Thanks for the link. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe! I've also fixed the similar issues from this edit. Could you please look through your recent contributions to see if there are any others that need to be fixed? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! Will do. JoeSperrazza (talk) 06:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Anotherclown (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this text from Gregorian_calendar#Months_of_the_year:

Numerical methods were described in the ''Journal of the Department of Mathematics,'' Open University, in 1997 and 1998.<ref>Journal of the Department of Mathematics, '''M500''' (ed. A D Forbes) Issue 157 (September 1997) p. 21, Issue 160 (February 1998) pp. 19 - 20 (contains typographical errors), and Issue 161 (April 1998) p. 21. The M500 Society, Open University, Milton Keynes, England. ISSN 1350-8539.</ref>

When you look into it, you'll see that the so-called "Journal of the Department of Mathematics" is neither a journal nor a reliable source. Per the publisher, M500 Society it is a collection of WP:SPS. The text also appears to be irresistable for certain London area anonymous editors:

The M500 Society began in 1973 as a self-help group for Open University maths students in Southampton.

In the early days of the OU there was very little contact between students other than at their own tutorial group meetings, which often only took place during the teaching periods of the school or university in which they were held.

Before students had personal computers and the various forms of electronic communication that they now use to communicate with each other and OU staff, the Society compiled and published the names, addresses and current courses of students willing to help other students with their studies. These lists were mailed out with a magazine containing articles, comments, puzzles, reviews and news submitted by members.

Now there are members throughout Britain and in many other countries across the world and, although we no longer publish student contact details, the magazine is still going strong.

The M500 Magazine

This is published free to all M500 members six times a year. It still contains articles, comments, puzzles, reviews and news submitted by members. It is aimed at all levels of mathematical attainment from Foundation to Postgraduate.

JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:10 am, Today (UTC−4)

P.S. A formatting error occurred whenever I pasted the above into the article talk page. Thus, I posted it here. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TPO, closing section created by IP sockpuppet of banned User:Vote (X) for Change
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This revert of yours to Prime meridian (Greenwich) where you claim to be reverting a sock under WP:BE should not have been made. First, WP:BE specifically states that you should not revert good faith edits that appear to be constructive. Secondly, the IP address is a dynamic IP address and there is little chance of it still being used by any sock puppeteer who has used it in the past. Third, the nature of the recent edits from this IP address do not match the past edits. London is a very big place and has hundreds of thousands of IP address and just because two editors have London based IP addresses, the liklihood of them being the same person is very low. The position is made worse, because if you perform a geolocate on an IP address, after it has been deassigned, you will get the geolocation of the IP address server and not the person who used it. Now I wonder where the UK's largest ISP keeps its IP address server for the south east of England? And since my router updated its firmware yesterday and rebooted itself, the IP address has probably changed again and is now... 86.145.209.15 (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TPO, closing section created by IP sockpuppet of banned User:Vote (X) for Change
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 86.145.209.15 (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the script error that was being caused by the legitimate template you just removed. Then lets fix this so the template can be returned. Trackinfo (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I just happened to look at the article, and noticed that it stated "Script Error", in red, at the top of the article, and for every reference (except the first one, oddly). I tried undoing the most recent change (yours, I'm afraid), and the error went away. Your addition seemed perfectly fine, otherwise.

Following your note, I went and looked at the prior version (i.e., your edit's version), here: [8]. This suggests:

1. There was something wrong with {{Footer US NC 1500m Women}} that has suddenly been fixed
2. There was something transiently wrong somewhere else that is now fixed (note I did briefly check a random article and didn't see the same script error).

So, based on the above, I just reverted my revert. Who knows what was wrong before, but there was an error.

Thanks,

JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[9]? I'll just note that I'm a fairly well-known editor around here and on that page, and I'd think an explanation would be in order. I'll put it back at least until I see an explanation. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Misclick I didn't notice on my part. Note: Before responding, I self-reverted [10]. I see you also reverted. May I leave it to you to re-revert one or the other. Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Smallbones: ping! JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I politely ask to stop the action of this bot inserting a comma after each "therefore" (at the beginning of a sentence?). This is inappropriate for formulating immediate, logical consequences. I encountered the second occurence of this effect in one day in Jerk (physics), the other was in a logic-page. One could consider this as vandalizing. Regards. Purgy (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you and he have something in common, and you could be friends? - 2601:42:C100:9D83:B1BB:193D:AAF6:31A4 (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no hate, sorry if you feel that's the thing. Since you asked:

• I'm totally cool with Wiki criticism. I've seen some good things done by you at WO. Sometimes, you do come across in a bad way, but I can't be the first person to mention that to you.
• While I'm firmly in the WP:BMB camp, I know that JimboTalk provides leeway. On-topic, genuine posts (even snarky one's pushing a WO blog entry) are OK. TPO, despite you flogging it at WO, seems pretty off-topic here. YMMV.

As for Bear Creek Camp Conservation Area, I don't think I've ever been anywhere near it (there's a Bear Creek Lake in CO I've likely been near, as I used to live west of there for many years, so for a moment I was surprised, as I thought you meant that). ISTR you are in the PA area. I did recently finish a multi-month assignment in Central PA, and have some family north and south of Central PA, but my knowledge, let alone experience, in that area is pretty limited.

Regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Sorry, I blindly assumed you were the Joseph Sperrazza from Jenkin Township, PA, but then saw that there are plenty of other individuals named Joe Sperrazza out there. I'm in a pickle as regards Jimbo, because he says publicly that I should maybe "e-mail him", but then he has told me in the past "never e-mail me again". I'm working on a story about TPO that should be fairly interesting, including a segment on one company subcontractor having been presided over by a former FBI suspect in a money laundering sting at a strip club he night-managed. And that happens to dovetail with a "right to be forgotten" situation with a metro newspaper, another item on which Jimmy Wales is regarded as a global expert. But, if Jimbo won't discuss with me, it's difficult to allow him fair response before the story is published. - 2601:42:C100:9D83:95EB:91F:6010:83B4 (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Joe Sperrazza's in the world, there are more than one would think. I am believer in full transparency on-wiki (and don't agree with WMF on anonymous editing, but I'm a nobody, so have no traction on this issue). I don't hide who I am, but don't feel the need to publish my address (lol). I used to have a badge on my user page indicating I'm originally from Maryland (I seem to have removed it, as I no longer live there).

Regarding the situation with Jimbo, I have two thoughts:

• For the article you are writing, you could have your editor (if there is someone in that position for wherever you plan to publish) contact him via email. Not being any more than a life-long reader of newspapers, I can't say what a reasonable timeframe or process would be to wait for a reply before publishing.
• The elephant in the room, of course, is the history between you and Jimbo. I don't need to detail it (I don't know it that well), but, to me, it seems (a) you feel you have been personally wronged, but (b) he feels you are unreasonably obsessed with him, and that your attention makes him uncomfortable. Various people at WP fall in one or the other of those camps. There seems to be information supporting both points of view. Regardless, I think you would accept your approach with respect to Jimbo and WP is considered to be that of a gadfly, i.e., "someone who persistently challenges people in positions of power", with the person in power you most frequently challenge being Jimbo. The challenge for you, I think, is that your observations and criticism are clearly considered by some (if not many in the WP hierarchy of authority) to be tainted and diminished by a personal agenda. Sometimes, your postings to Jimbotalk reinforces that point of view. Even your work on "creative vandalism", which was interesting and did, as I recall, get some press, was surely considered by some to be driven by your conflict with Jimbo and not by any desire to objectively identify and report on a genuine issue within WP.

I have no clue how to best move forward regarding the second point. I apologize if anything I said, above, was offensive in any way.

Kindest regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe, re the tag on User:86.181.243.0. This IP locates to an entirely different continent from the sockmaster. I'm pretty sure this is just a troll. I suggest you remove the tag. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ThanksJoeSperrazza (talk) 08:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoeSperrazza. We have added you to the list of clerks and subscribed you to the mailing list (info: WP:AC/C#clerks-l). Welcome, and I look forward to working with you! To adjust your subscription options for the mailing list, see the link at mail:clerks-l. The mailing list works in the usual way, and the address to which new mailing list threads can be sent is clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. Useful reading for new clerks is the procedures page, WP:AC/C/P, but you will learn all the basic components of clerking on-the-job.

New clerks begin as a trainee, are listed as such at WP:AC/C#Personnel, and will remain so until they have learned all the aspects of the job. When you've finished training, which usually takes a couple of/a few months, then we'll propose to the Committee that you be made a full clerk. As a clerk, you'll need to check your e-mail regularly, as the mailing list is where the clerks co-ordinate (on-wiki co-ordination page also exists but is not used nearly as much). If you've any questions at any point of your traineeship, simply post to the mailing list.

Lastly, it might be useful if you enter your timezone into WP:AC/C#Personnel (in the same format as the other members have), so that we can estimate when we will have clerks available each day; this is, of course, at your discretion. Again, welcome! Regards, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I look forward to contributing. Best regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the clerks team, JoeSperrazza! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for applying to become an SPI Clerk. At this time we have decided to take you on to the December 2015 training. Please watchlist the page and keep updated with it as time goes on. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on DJ Esco, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Atlantic306 (talk) 04:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chaaval. Since you had some involvement with the Chaaval redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Nimbu. Since you had some involvement with the Nimbu redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2027 Cricket World Cup. Since you had some involvement with the 2027 Cricket World Cup redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ande (food). Since you had some involvement with the Ande (food) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm reaching out to you because I saw that you signed up as a labelling volunteer at Wikipedia:Labels/Edit quality. I'm starting a new project that builds on Edit quality, to predict Newcomer quality. That is, to predict the damagingness and goodfaithness of "sessions" (multiple related edits) of users within 1 day of their registration. With this AI trained, we could help automatically distinguish betewen productive and unproductive new users. If you wouldn't mind taking a look at this new labelling campaign and label a few sessions I would be very grateful. In addition if you have any feedback or discover any bugs in the process I would appreciate that too. You can find the project page at Wikipedia:Labels/Newcomer_session_quality or go directly to labels.wmflabs.org/ui/enwiki/ and look for the campaign titled "Newcomer Session quality (2018)". Thanks so much!

Maximilianklein (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	US Banknote Contest
	November-December 2019
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Italian Job (2003 film) (film). Since you had some involvement with the The Italian Job (2003 film) (film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 19:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mighty Joe Young (1998 film) (film). Since you had some involvement with the Mighty Joe Young (1998 film) (film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 19:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sweet November (2001 film) (film). Since you had some involvement with the Sweet November (2001 film) (film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 19:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Scarecrow (1973 film) (film). Since you had some involvement with the Scarecrow (1973 film) (film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 19:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]