User talk:JoeyJ

Spam in Midnight Virus

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Midnight Virus, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Midnight Virus is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Midnight Virus, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Punctuation inside or outside the quotation marks?

For your information, on Wikipedia we use so-called "logical punctuation", that is, we place punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Punctuation inside or outside.  --Lambiam 19:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

May 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Pink Moon, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Pink Moon. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Illmatic. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 00:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

RS 500

My personal comment, usually if something is notable, it is available from accessible, reliable sources. I think noting a "re-ranking" of some list by some magazine is giving a little too much weight to said list. Regardless, it needs a source cited. Dan56 (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for citing the source, but can you format your prose this way? It's more in accordance with WP:MOS, including proper internal linking and italics for a journal/magazine source. Dan56 (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, in cases like Illmatic, it's not necessary to include the revised edition's ranking if it's lower. It sort of defeats the encyclopedic purpose the statement has being included in the first place: supporting an album's standing/accolades with critics. Dan56 (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

References to the older RS500 list published in 2003 are now obsolete. Most of the links in articles citing this online reference no longer work. The ones that do will soon be replaced by the 2012 version. I assume the latest data is always preferable, especially in an encyclopedia.

Let's get a hold of ourselves. If a link for the revision was available by RS, then this issue with sourcing wouldnt have been. Now, if we're gonna debate relevancy, then the original list is the more relevant one. But if we're gonna talk about encyclopedic value, which is what this site is about, then the more relevant ranking is the higher one. The article is about the album; if we note that the ranking decreases in a later edition, then we're giving more weight to the list than the album. What encyclopedic value does it give to the album article by saying it was dropped a few spots in a revised edition? How is it relevant to the album and not the list? I understand if there is an accessible link by RS, establishing the revised one being the prime one, but the links you refer to can be salvaged using sites like archive.org and webcite. Dan56 (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You said in this edit that the 2003 list is not sourced; it is, in the body of the article, as oppossed to repeating citations in the lead (noticed any other citations in the lead?). Dan56 (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and sratch the obselete discussion: Rolling Stone's site still has the '03 list (here), but not the revised 2012 one. Dan56 (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The latest data on this list supersedes old data, just as you wouldn't put on George W. Bush's bio that his current job is President of the USA. The current ranking of an album on Rolling Stone's best 500 list is newsworthy and relevant to all albums on the list. A higher or lower ranking does not make any data more relevant; objectivity is key. More recent rankings should carry more weight. Many links may be salvaged to the online 2003 list. However, this list is superseded by the new list which has only been published in book form. Older online sources do not supersede newer printed ones. The older online source will be replaced soon anyway, making all the links and sources go dead. At that point, my source can be revised to the new online version.

Where not talking about facts, like Bush was president, but one publications opinions. You're giving to much credence to RS and not enough to the point of the album's article. The list is only noted as an example, it becomes a less convincing example of the album's praise/accolades if we do it your way. The online source isn't older: older to what, there isn't a newer online source. You're predicting something, and RS's site doesn't confirm that. Dan56 (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

And you called it "data" in your edit summary to an article. It's just a critical ranking, only included in the article to serve that article, not to be the latest by Rolling Stone. Dan56 (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

As to the point of the article, the album as it currently ranks on a highly prestigious list, though opinionated, published by what is widely considered the most historically important music publication of all-time, is quite relevant. Anyone who takes the time to update that data to the latest version, whether its available online yet or not, should be commended. If only I had the time to update all 500 album articles, I would. While the origin of the list is based on multiple opinions, the publication of the list is a fact. The data within the list represent history. When you say "Rolling Stone ranked this album at number 403" that is indeed a reportable, relevant, historical fact... just like when a newspaper endorses a political candidate. An album's ranking on this list is more relevant that any one review because it is a culmination of several dozen opinions, gathered by an extremely reputable music source.

You must drool whenever RS is mentioned. Prestige indicates honor from other sources. You're giving them way to much credit for something any and every music publication has done. You want to be commended for adding something more trivial than notable? Data is not a ranking/opinion/award/accolades, it's a fact, usually statistically-based, and an album being the 403rd greatest album of all time cannot, and will not, be a fact. RS are critics, not scientists. And don't remove content from the lead as you did to The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill. If you want to propose your changes to the article, do so at its talk page and find consensus, b/c their disputable. Dan56 (talk) 00:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Too much credit? Do you actually think a Grammy award is any different? A group of peers in the industry vote. Same thing. I find your condescending attitude to be deconstructive to the spirit of Wikipedia. Do you seriously have nothing better to do than follow me around all over the site and nitpick my edits to your standards?

Do you have nothing better to do than add a new ranking? And you're right, a Grammy Award isn't any different (see Grammy Award#Criticism, which I contributed to). The nature of Wikipedia is to be encyclopedic, and whats best for the articles you are editing is to consider the topic, the album, over the list you admire. You're missing the point of why the ranking is even mentioned in the article in the first place. I would like to see one publication's list of "greatest" albums be removed from any lead, as it looks a little skewed and unencyclopedic, but I respect the editor of the Lauryn Hill album article, as he/she expanded and improved it significantly. Dan56 (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

If your argument is to remove all references to awards and critical response from all Wikipedia articles, that is beyond the scope of this discussion. Every album on the RS500 list has a reference on Wikipedia to its place on the list. I am simply updating the data to reflect the current list. I also update release dates and other information I come across that needs correction. That is what Wikipedia is about... users contributing. You seem hell-bent on the exact opposite, namely reversing volunteer work done by someone who cares about updating and correcting data, and overlooking your stated standards for subjective reasons because you like how someone writes. Nonsense.

Again, you're giving too much credence to this list. It's not a sales report, or an update on a release date, it's nothing like that. It's opinion, not fact. A sales report updates what's fact, that is how much something sold. Updating a release date is updating something real, an upcoming event. But calling an album the #rd greatest album is opinion. Also, The 500 Greatest Albums list by RS was an issue published by the magazine in November 2003. It's seperate from what you call the 2012 "update", which was published differently. So if anything is prestigious, it's the 2003 list, not the latter. And you misunderstood what I said about removing this ranking in general. I was talking about the lead, which is reserved for the most notable aspects of the article's body. If RS's list is included in the lead, why shouldn't Pitchfork's or Spin's, or Robert Christgau's, etc. That is another discussion. Regardless, my entire point is it's becoming like fancruft with you and this list, and Rolling Stone. Dan56 (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said, all RS500 albums in Wikipedia cite their rank on the list. This was not my doing. It appears to be an accepted Wikipedia policy. And the vast majority of articles have this in the lead. I agree it should be in a lower section for awards and critical response. However, I am not going to be the one to re-edit all 500 articles to suit that standard. The scope of time I have limits me to correcting the data to reflect the latest list, which is most relevant. Your bias against the list itself is not relevant here. You can propose on the Talk pages to remove references to the list. However, if the ranking is cited, it is my opinion that the LATEST rank be indicated, either alone or with the older ranking. The revisions to the original 2003 list were made partly to correct voting errors and consolidate greatest hits albums with the originals, as well as add data from later polls. The 2012 list remains the most complete and accurate source. If the list is to be cited at all in articles, it should include the ranking on the 2012 list.

Again, I'm not understanding how "accuracy" even enters the discussion. These kind of lists are not based on statistics or anything factual. They're based on critics' opinions, so they're subjective. Accuracy is about correctness, but there's nothing correct about one album being the greatest of all time, which is what these lists claim. And what is this "my bias"? I didn't remove the statement about the list from the article. You are treating this list like gospel: "Complete and accurate source"? Source for what? And once again, you're priority is the list and not the album, which is the topic of these articles you're editing. If a higher ranking serves the article better, than why are you changing it? That's why these lists are noted in all these articles, for that purpose. So following that principle... Dan56 (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

A higher ranking most certainly does not serve articles better. The articles are not promotional tools for the record companies. They are supposed to contain objectively-gathered information. Positive weighs just as much as negative. But I don't see how a new list which takes into account albums from the last decade could possibly be less relevant than one that does not.

Disambiguation link notification for December 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spark Seeker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, JoeyJ. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Chris Brown

How about this one JoeyJ ~ it's interesting that brown is mentioned on the talk page of Felicity Huffman but you decided to edit her first ~ maybe you should read the talk page before going for the easy edits ~ by the way nice to meet you! ~mitch~ (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

In what way do you find it interesting?

May 2020

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

- MrX 🖋 23:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring to add disputed content

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• If you want to restore contested information to the lead, the WP:ONUS is absolutely on you to get consensus for the change prior to restoring it. Edit warring to restore this disputed content will lead to a block.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to George Floyd, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Like post-1932 politics of the United States, this page is under discretionary sanctions. You've now added this information twice today and been reverted by two different editors. —valereee (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

partial block 72 hours for George Floyd

Sorry, didn't realize the notification didn't post. I've blocked you for 72 hours from editing George Floyd because of edit warring and disruptive editing. You clearly are a well-intentioned editor, but you need to start listening to other editors who are trying to explain how we work here. If you'd like to request you be unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}—valereee (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This block is invalid as it violates Wikipedia’s terms and conditions for blocking.

Notice was not given to me on my Talk page as to who blocked me and for what purpose.

Reason and notice was finally given after the fact.

No alternative option to blocking (such as stand-aside provisions) were pursued, nor were alternatives or compromises to my edits encouraged or even discussed.

My first attempt at editing this article was met with the response, “You will need consensus for this in the Talk page. Hint: You won’t get it.” This was in response to my bio intro contribution that Floyd is verifiably, obviously, and relevantly a convicted felon, and was posted with two cited sources.

Another change I made was to remove the assumption, made without citation or source, that “the police killed” the person who is the subject of the article. This is simply not the case, and editors have defended it on the ground of the findings of a coroner, not a judge. A legal determination must be made to truthfully and fairly say someone killed someone else... and that legal standard is our justice system after a guilty plea or verdict. Otherwise, anyone could say similar things about Michael Jackson and OJ Simpson, both of whom were acquitted, protecting them from any editors claiming their guilt.

The tone of this entire article appears to be in “honor” of its subject rather than an objective presentation of facts. This is temporal bias, or recentism, fueled by current public sentiment and amongst political groups. This kind of tone discourages objective writing and the editors are attempting to enforce that tone, which is explicitly against Wikipedia policy. None of the editors, in their response to my edits, have been willing to discuss those edits as it relates to Wikipedia’s guidelines and none have discussed compromise. Edits were simply removed. Related talk page topics were then subsequently deleted or relocated or hidden inside other topics to make it difficult for other editors to follow the conversations.

There is a time a place to make a stand against racism. Articles which are biographies or factual accounting of activities surrounding deaths of notable people, is not that time and place... until due process has occurred with which to fuel the integrity of claims being made.

I have studied the “5 pillars”’ of Wikipedia contribution guidelines. I will continue to mercilessly edit and correct misguided attempts at sabotaging factual accuracy and relevancy by those using Wikipedia as a soapbox/vanity press of editorial opinion and non-objective viewpoints to fuel political and personal agendas which run contrary to reality and objective accounting of sourced facts. The decisions being made by “consensus” on this type of article are of such importance to the integrity of Wikipedia as an unbiased encyclopedia that I argue they are too important to be decided by editor consensus and should instead be handled by the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee.

I ask this ban be removed immediately. I ask that a ban be placed on user “valereee” for violating the ban privilege they earned, and I ask that same privilege be granted to my account. I ask that I be respected and recognized for my ongoing contributions of fair and impartial edits and that those who continue to reverse my contributions without cause or process or compromise or discussion be sanctioned appropriately.

In summary, I engaged in repeated edits of my contributions only after disruption and edit-warring were inappropriately initiated by others without appropriate discussion on the Talk page as well as hiding/deleting/moving of discussions that were ongoing. Joey.J (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your request should only address your own behavior and not that of others; you can pursue grievances against others outside of this request(though I would advise against doing so). Actually, Wikipedia does not claim to be an unbiased encyclopedia. (there is no such thing, everything has biases) Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state; any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. Those sources are presented to the reader so they can evaluate the sources and judge them for themselves. See WP:TRUTH. I'm a bit concerned when any user says something like "I will continue to mercilessly edit and correct misguided attempts...." as such an attitude reflects a battleground mentality, as does your edit warring. If you are here to be a truth fighter, you will be sorely disappointed and will need to do so elsewhere. If you want to participate in this collaborative project and work with others to write an encyclopedia, you will need to adjust your attitude and/or outlook accordingly. As this request does not indicate that, I am declining it. 331dot (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

Joey.J (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I will add that there does not need to be a legal determination of a 'killing', as there is no such thing. The legal issue is whether the killing was a criminal act or was legally justified- which does require a legal determination. We cannot use the term murder until and if Chauvin is convicted of the same- but the Floyd killing is reported as such by independent sources and is on video. 331dot (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed response. I’m confused. From WP:5P “Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. We strive for articles in an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence. We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". “Since all editors freely license their work to the public, no editor owns an article and any contributions can and may be mercilessly edited and redistributed.” “Mercilessly” is Wikipedia’s word, not mine. A “killing” is on video, you claim. That is a bias, not a factual determination. One can die of heart failure while under the influence and not be “killed” even if a video perspective appears otherwise. It is not the place of a Wikipedia to advocate a perception of an historical event, but to document all reasonable perceptions as they’re reflected in credible sources, no matter how unpopular, disturbing, or against anyone’s beliefs it may be. Hence the various theories presented on the assassination of JFK. I am simply here to present alternate points of view with legitimate sources despite unpopularity. The Floyd article reeks of temporal bias at a time when people are turning to Wikipedia for objective truth about a man who may very well be a murder victim, but first and foremost, is as much a convicted felon as Martha Stewart and Bill Cosby. There is no excuse for those who will fight me on this in an edit war (which takes two to engage in), so perhaps you should consider those editors as the real threat to Wikipedia’s stated purpose instead of me. They are the ones removing my edit without reasoning why on the Talk page, where I repeatedly and respectfully attempted to discuss this issue and finally had to assume consensus. Joey.J (talk) 03:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

January 2022

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ain't She Sweet, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. – zmbro _(talk) 14:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Track listings of music albums have never required sources. In this case, the statement is linked directly to another Wikipedia article which lists it as a track. Joey.J (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Ain't She Sweet in Miss Mary (1986) - reply

I have seen Your post on the other user's talk page, but I will reply here (I am aware that the other user would likely see this message, I just didn't want to spam his talk page). Unfortunately, some editors like to role-play as Wiki police and try to make it harder for other users. If that makes them feel better, fine, as long as they are not in the majority. Personally, although technically not against the rules, I find such behaviour against the very idea of Wikipedia as a collaborative effort. Especially in such minor and non-controversial issues such as the one I had (adding a film in which the song plays a prominent role, while all other films/TV shows on the list were unsourced!!!!). I, as someone who has published papers in scientific journals, am aware of the importance of references, but some users, sadly, take it to the next level, and act more like a repressive apparatus than as part of the editing collective. Unfortunately, we have to endure that and try to find common language with them :( StjepanHR (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. On behalf of reasonable editors, I want you to know your contributions are appreciated and I hope you aren’t discouraged by the actions of those who put ego before ideas. Joey.J (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank You for Your kind words :) During over a decade I have edited the Wiki, there were dozens of people like him, but also some much, much worse (I am talking about full-on, film-style, psychos/paranoid men). It is sometimes very frustrating, but we must all endure it and words of encouragement are always helpful. StjepanHR (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I tried to show the other user his mistakes, but it seems to be in vain. Let's hope/pray he will see that approach like his will lead him nowehere in real life. I won't try to discuss the matter with him any further, but You can contact me anytime in similar situations. I am always here to help. StjepanHR (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)