JoeScarce

JoeScarce, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi JoeScarce! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Gestrid (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Catholic Church sexual abuse cases in Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Freeman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Hello. In this edit you introduced a quite offensive named reference. Please observe neutrality at all times and choose better names for references; even though readers cannot see them, it is off-putting for editors who might have to deal with this kind of nastiness from you. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice

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 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.

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.

Please exercise due caution and use the article talk page. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Roman Catholic Diocese of Kalamazoo. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You took an edit that was reverted with policy based reasons and restored it without gaining consensus. The material in the reverted edit violates WP:BLP, particularly WP:BLPCRIME. Do not restore it without discussion leading to consensus on the article's talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

BLP violations

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being 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 ~~~~}}.  Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• Edit warring to restore blatant BLP violations is about the quickest route to a block. This is the only time I will provide a finite block; should the disruption and apparent trolling continue once the block expires, you will either be blocked indefinitely or you will be topic banned.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

You are pathetic. You are clearly stating that I violated a policy I made clear on the talk page I did not. Blocking me to protect the Diocese of Kalamazoo from sex abuse reported in news stories is only making me laugh. Let me guess, my block is extended for standing up for myself on this talk page too. LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAOJoeScarce (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

WP:NPA Your immature comments of censorship are not acceptable, grow up. See also WP:OWB. WCM_email 01:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Grow up and quit whining like a baby you hypocrite.JoeScarce (talk) 01:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.} WCM_email 01:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being 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 ~~~~}}.  Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

You are involved in disputes over what looks to be almost identical material in the Falklands War and Aftermath of the Falklands War articles. This material is being discussed on both articles' talk pages, where there is no support currently from other editors for including it. As such, continuing to edit war this material into the aftermath article after the above warning [1] is very unhelpful. Please do not edit war further when your block expires - instead, use the dispute resolution process to seek broader views. Nick-D (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please stop reverting, and discuss your issue on the talk page. This means making sensible points, and gaining the consensus of other editors. Reverting my edits and making unintelligible comments on the talk page is not helpful. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I laugh at you for calling me "disruptive" and my edit "unconstructive." You are clearly vandalizing the article for your own personal reasons. What pathetic excuse will you come up with next?JoeScarce (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Dexter Avenue Baptist Church. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I cannot add any more to what you've been told, so I'll just ping Nick-D and Wee Curry Monster, the administrators that blocked you previously. John from Idegon (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

LMAO. You corruptively blocked me because you didn't like my factual Diocese of Kalamazoo sex abuse edits. Some of the people charged are also in at least one of the Archdiocese of Detroit articles I recently added.JoeScarce (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

Hello JoeScarce,

Please read and study WP:VANDALISM, which begins: "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge." The recent edits to Dexter Avenue Baptist Church that you reported to ANI were not vandalism and false accusations of vandalism are a type of personal attack. Those edits were part of a legitimate content dispute and are being discussed on the article's talk page. You have been blocked twice recently for policy violations, and have been editing in a combative, confrontationtional way. Please consider this a formal warning: Any further personal attacks on other editors, or BLP violations, or edit warring will likely result in an indefinite block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

"Editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge" That's what happened on the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church page.JoeScarce (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the meaning of vandalism is incorrect. None of the editors who disagree with you have the intention of obstructing or defeating the purpose of Wikipedia. This is a routine, garden variety disagreement about content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

No, they did and were uncooperative. Look up the NPOV policy too. Just because you disagree with someone is no excuse to make "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge."JoeScarce (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion is ongoing at the article talk page, which is powerful evidence that your claim is incorrect when you state that other editors were "uncooperative". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, including from a Guy user who has a sign posted "This user is one of the 532 left-wing thought police who aggressively force their biased perspective on the rest of the world" on his userpage. I would like a fair edit.JoeScarce (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

That is what is known as a joke. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328, "Don't make me go to the noticeboard" is hardly a collaborative edit summary: [2] and perhaps you could also coach JoeScarce about WP:BRD. Guy (help!) 09:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

JoeScarce, your addition to Trump–Ukraine scandal have been reverted by two other editors. This article is under stringent WP:1RR restrictions. Please go to Talk:Trump–Ukraine scandal and read the section in the yellow box that says "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES" in full, and note in particular the specific statement: "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit."

Please consider this a formal warning. If you add that content again without obtaining talk page consensus, you will be blocked. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

It's extraordinary how you like to waste your time just to follow little old me with threats that only make me laugh. See the actual CBS News video.[3]JoeScarce (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC) The other editor who reverted also informed me it was because of the page's one revert policy.JoeScarce (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I spend my time as an administrator entirely as I see fit, and will continue to do so despite your comments. Legitimate administrative warnings are not threats. They are essential to the orderly functioning of the encyclopedia. If you take the warnings to heart and correct your behavior, then all will be well. Please take that course of action. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

You correct your strange behavior, then maybe you'll come across more honestly.JoeScarce (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

JoeScarce, you are headed down a dangerous path. Cullen328 and I are administrators, we've been here a very long time and we're quite well versed in Wikipedia policies. You've been here a relatively short time and you've already been blocked twice, once for violating WP:BLP and once for edit warring. Your posts at the noticeboard are inappropriately aggressive, and overall you seem to have quite the battleground mentality. We are trying to help you because we've both seen this a thousand times before, and if people don't get it, they tend to end up banned. Guy (help!) 22:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

And yet, more powerful MelaineN noted I was accurate. Your exploitation of corruption is not helping you. Some blocks can also be only abuse of powerJoeScarce (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, do you see any evidence of corruption or abuse of power here? I would appreciate your input. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I can't imagine what JoeScarce is referring to, when he claims I said he was accurate. I do see highly aggressive and insulting behavior here by JoeScarce, and if he doesn't cut it out he will deserve at the very least a short block to show him this is unacceptable. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The only place I can find where I interacted with him was at Talk:Trump–Ukraine scandal this talk page, where I told him were were not going to use the video he kept trying to use as a source. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, MelanieN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

No, you didn't interact with me. I didn't even respond to that comment and didn't even know of it's existance until I found it after reading about it here. I didn't even return to Talk:Trump–Ukraine scandal until after reading your comment, which was probably at around 00:17. If you read the article, you will find I did enact in any discussion and only included the CBS News YouTube video, which was not meant to be included if the testimony was in the article. I also appreciate what you mentioned on Talk:Kurt_Volker that "P.S. The fact that he revised or recanted his earlier testimony is the lead item in all the reporting about this hearing. Not just Politico[4] but NBC [5][6] Washington Post (can't link - subscription required), CNN [7], etc." Why didn't you bring that up by chance? It sure backs my claimJoeScarce (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, I'm surprised you're not mentioning that the edit has been restored in properly altered fashion on the Trump-Ukraine scandal. All I wanted was for the fact of the testimony to be included, and that's what happened.JoeScarce (talk) 00:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I decided to finally include a new comment on the Talk:Trump–Ukraine scandal. I don't like being told that we "interacted" when we did not at all. As the mention of the testimonies has been re-included in well-tailored fashion, I do not desire any more new editing on these pages.JoeScarce (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC) Changed that thought, as Morrison and Sondland are connected.JoeScarce (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mark Sandy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deposition (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing

Hi. I see you're editing a lot of articles that are covered by WP:BLP, and the sources you are using are not top-drawer. Vox, for example, skews quite a bit left and is not in the top ten for accuracy either. I recommend that for information in the area of the Trump impeachment, virtually all of which is not only biography-impacting but also highly contentious, you take a look at https://www.adfontesmedia.com/ and stick with sources as close to the top centre as you can. Anything that implies wrongdoing (e.g. changing testimony between hearings or being caught contradicting themselves when questioned) I strongly recommend two or more reliable sources and use language that assumes good faith. There's nothing wrong with saying that X's public testimony departed from their original private testimony, if the sources say it in the same words, but it's a good idea to note that they are using the "recollection refreshed" trope. I've been a witness in a court case, it's remarkably easy to misremember things that other testimony then reminds you about. AP, Bloomberg and Reuters are excellent sources because nobody, liberal or conservative, appears to consider them biased. I also use the BBC, NPR, WaPo, WSJ and NYT pretty much as fact - NPR, WaPo and NYT get challenged by partisan conservatives but rarely with any success. Politico is pretty good but again the right are deeply suspicious of it, so I usually try to double-source if that's one of the sources. That's my rule of thumb. Also on the american politics area there are discretionary sanctions so anything even vaguely contentious on a large or mature article is best raised on Talk first. You usually get rapid consensus for obvious ones. If you're reverted, assume good faith and take it to Talk. Guy (help!) 12:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

Hello, I'm Donald Albury. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Suwannee River, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - Donald Albury 23:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

Please do not revert Suwannee River again without discussing your changes on Talk:Suwannee River. We have guidelines and conventions on editing articles and providing citations, which you have not been following. Also, please note that reverting an article to a previous state that you left it in may develop into an edit war, which may have consequences. - Donald Albury 13:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Then erase it from the Old Folks at Home article before you type I have "not been following."JoeScarce (talk) 13:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring, as you did at Suwannee River. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being 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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meat_puppetry is bad corruption.JoeScarce (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to assume you're accusing Donald Albury and John from Idegon of being meat puppets. I suggest you retract your statement, or you risk having this block changed to indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Nope. I will form new accounts from different sources. I even noticed Donald sent messages on John from Ideogon's talk page.JoeScarce (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Your decision. I have indefinitely blocked you based on the unfounded accusations and the socking threat.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, Bbb23, I think he's accusing you. This pattern of NPA has been constant with him. I'd strongly suggest this is a case for indef and TPA revocation. Responding to reverts, counsel or blocks has been the same and has not stopped. It's almost always a PA. There has been no onboarding of input whatsoever. But nm...I see you handled it. John from Idegon (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23 and John from Idegon: see [8]. Also the threats of legal action. Doug Weller talk 20:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Since you are actively engaging in block evasion and making legal threats from an IP address, I have revoked your talk page access. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)