User talk:Joe6Pack

Welcome!

Hello, Joe6Pack, 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:

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 your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Bishonen | talk 22:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

May 2014

You need to stop pleading Rick Delano's cause on Wikipedia, as you did at Kate Mulgrew, Lawrence Krauss and The Principle. Wikipedia is not a platform from which to push your agenda. Please be especially cautious of adding negative and/or irrelevant material to biographies of living people (please click on the policy link and read), and about living people in other articles. Bishonen | talk 22:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I am just adding facts. The agenda thing works for everybody.Joe6Pack (talk) 04:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at The Principle shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bishonen | talk 05:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Release form for Lawrence Krauss to interview for The Principle Documentary.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Release form for Lawrence Krauss to interview for The Principle Documentary.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Latest revert

Hi Joe. I noticed you reverted my removal of the NYCMovieGuru review on The Principle. I did this because the source of the review doesn't seem all that great - the review has all number of spelling mistakes and poor grammar, and appears to be one person's review blog. I brought the issue up on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard where a consensus - as I read it - formed that NYCMovieGuru shouldn't be included as, though it's on Rotten Tomatoes, it's not aggregated into their score. As such, I'm going to revert again - based on the previously linked consensus. Sam Walton (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:BigJoe.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:BigJoe.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the article. Notoriety is not notability. If you truly think that there is notability, then please look to start the article using the process for articles in the draft: namespace. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Milo Yiannopoulos, you may be blocked from editing. Arkhaminsanity (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One man's disruptive edit is another's illumination. I will not make any additional unreferenced edits. Joe6Pack (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, There was nothing illuminating about that edit, which I have redacted. Just so we are clear, if you ever post anything of that nature on Wikipedia again, you will be indefinitely blocked. Your above response to the warning posted by Arkhaminsanity has raised serious doubts in my mind as to whether or not you are WP:HERE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with the pseudoscience angle. WP:BLP overrides practically any other issue. The article as it was written appears to be very defamatory. I will work with you on the geocentrism issue; just use valid sources. Joe6Pack (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Your recent editing history at Robert Sungenis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Theroadislong (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BRD you were bold you were reverted, now you need to discuss and NOT edit war. Theroadislong (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at WP:BLPN, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at WP:BLP. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is clearly defamatory. Please start with my template. Joe6Pack (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe6Pack, you removed Tgeorgescu's comments at WP:BLPN twice, here and here. I thought it might have been an accident — two accidents, rather — since the timestamps were quite close together in both cases. But when I see you don't even bother to address Tgeorgescu's complaints above, or, I presume, look at the page history to see what he means, it makes me wonder. Would you like to explain yourself? Bishonen | talk 18:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I am not intentionally removing any comments. I think you can see I responded to his comments. I will try and be more careful in the case taht I actually did so. Joe6Pack (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"In the case that" you did so? Are you saying you can't be bothered to click on the two links I provided, which show you did so? Bishonen | talk 18:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I am looking at them (in your link), but it is not clear how I am deleting his comments. I am attempting to reply to him. Again, I will be more careful. Can we restore his comments? Are you sure I am doing this? Could he be deleting his own comments or someone else? Joe6Pack (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I still see the comments that you show as deleted in the original location. Did you restore them, or were they never gone? Joe6Pack (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tgeorgescu restored them himself. He didn't revert you (which would have been easier, but would have removed your comments), but merely restored his own, twice, with angry edit summaries. See the page history. Do you have difficulty reading it? Bishonen | talk 18:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Ok. I see that. I still do not know how I could have deleted his comments, but certainly had no intention of doing so, and will be very careful going forward. First, I am responding to them, and second I realize the record persists (and third- it is not the way I work). Joe6Pack (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I may be able to offer an explanation (I have done it myself), if you find you cannot save an edit because another was made after you started to type (bit before saving) you may well be going back and trying to save the edit again. This will remove the material added after your first attempt.Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. That did happen to me, I think. Thanks. Is there a way to avoid this? I cannot know if there was an edit until I try and save. Joe6Pack (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not as far as I know beyond starting all over from scratch.Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions for BLPs

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Bishonen | talk 18:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

February 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Robert Sungenis. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bishonen | talk 21:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Joe6Pack (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

let me continue my WP:BLP appeal

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Joe6Pack (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #17499 was submitted on Feb 09, 2017 21:51:02. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what I have been blocked for. Those who do not want to deal with WP:BLP want me to be out of action. Please unblock me. Joe6Pack (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, and your block has been extended to 72 hours for attempted to evade it. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best you learn the rules of Wikipedia. Reporting your blocking administrator to ANI, via evading your own block with an IP account (i.e signed out), is a big no no. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine- but give me the ability to edit on the WP:BLP page and the Robert Sungenis user talk page. I think a review of WP:BLP abuses will show massive abuse. You are blocking the worng person. Robert Sungenis has many enemies and they constantly use Wikipedia to discredit him. Please review the 5 archives on his page. Joe6Pack (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Socking and making personal attacks [1] [2] while you are blocked is not a good way to get unblocked. Meters (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not socking! I did not touch the article. I identified myself as I pleaded to get unblocked. Please allow me to edit on my WP:BLP appeal. Joe6Pack (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You used an IP to continue the discussion on the BLP board, and to post to ANI. When you are blocked you are not allowed to edit anything, using any account or IP. Meters (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am allowed to edit here. It is hard to just sit back, and it is not clear what I cannot do it I am blocked. I do not intend to edit THE ARTICLE outside my account. I will cease editing anywhere but here. Please give me permission to continue my BP:WLP appeal. Joe6Pack (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are allowed to edit here to request an unblock (which you have done, repeatedly) but only that. Meters (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Joe6Pack (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please allow me to selectively edit my WP:BLP appeal for Robert Sungenis Joe6Pack (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for your block. 5 albert square (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi Joe6Pack,

If you want to stand any chance of being unblocked, you must pay attention to what Ponyo has advised above. In order for any unblock review to be considered, you must convince the reviewing administrator that you understand what you have been blocked for and you will not continue to cause damage or disruption. In other words, you need to understand that you have been blocked for edit warring and you need to convince them that you will not continue with this behaviour. From everything I have seen on this page so far, you are giving indications that you will continue with this behaviour if you are unblocked and that is unacceptable. You are not addressing the reason for your block both on the unblock requests you have requested on here and on the one you sent to the UTRS system. If you carry on using your talk page in this manner then you may find that your access to it is revoked for the remainder of your block.--5 albert square (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 5 albert,

I am pretty happy with the article as it stands now and is developing. It appears that my message regarding WP:BLP has been noticed and the editors are sourcing properly, etc. If I am unblocked, I will work cooperatively on the article as it is developing. Joe6Pack (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly recommend that you not resume edit-warring on this article. If you revert once more, I will report you to WP:3RRN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not edit warring. I am editing. I have invited you to discuss on the Talk page. Joe6Pack (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. jps (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Robert Sungenis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Theroadislong (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent pushing of your point-of-view and a general disregard for basic content policies. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]