User talk:JoeSperrazza

Committed identity: d05d44cb032776bb6362b62a42705e680cb6e37eb4f43efd32feeb0852f82d84fb8526677408c1ce423972bae05d6b4565118c5ede0e4e35f770e1e3f1aec5b1 is a SHA-1 commitment to this user's real-life identity.

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

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)

Thank you

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)

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

Makkah Conquest Edits

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) See Talk:Occupation_of_Mecca#Conquest_seems_to_be_a_value_laden_term. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Wished we had more WP editors like YOU, deserving many barn-stars

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)

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

Cited sources described as "unsourced"

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) 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) 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)

Why do you think that my IP appears to be shared thus justifying that template of yours

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) 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) 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) 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)

About WP:OWNTALK

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) 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)

A barnstar for you!

	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)

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)

Germanwings Flight 9525

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) 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) 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.

Close your AFD

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) 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) 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)

Pending changes reviewer granted

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)

Thank you !

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)

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

Happy Easter!

File:Chocolate-Easter-Bunny.jpg

All the best! "Carry me down, carry me down; carry me down into the wiki!" (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

For a good of the cause

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)

WWE 2K (Mobile Game) listed at Redirects for discussion

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) Thank you for the notification, I replied there. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

New proposal

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)

Craig Button

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>

John Ducas (investor)

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) 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) 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) Very, very cool. Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC) Started a proposal here, feel free to chime in :) — MusikAnimal talk 21:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Wiki labels edit quality campaign kickoff.

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)

AHLM13

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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) AHLM13 The user is a nightmare to WP, but still got lots of supporters --- @Ravensfire: @Nafsadh: @AsceticRose: ANI notice 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) Thank you very much. I responded [2] at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Fraudulent_misrepresentation. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Detective Willy 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) I forgot about that! Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC) Nomination of Detective Willy for deletion 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) A beer for you! 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) Welcome to STiki! 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)

Counter attack

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) 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) 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)

en dash

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)

arabs

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) Fixed it to ignore lower-case "arabs". Thanks for the feedback, and your patience.JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Persondata

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) 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) 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) 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) 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)

some day I'll learn to spell

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)

Please retain this page Comment

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)

style query: ten minute → ten-minute

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)

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)

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)

Bots

You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

• The simple solution is to simply include the "rawcontinue" parameter with your request to continue receiving the raw continuation data (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&rawcontinue=1>). No other code changes should be necessary.
• Or you could update your code to use the simplified continuation documented at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Query#Continuing_queries (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&continue=>), which is much easier for clients to implement correctly.

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks-

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) 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) 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) That is great work, thank you. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) (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)

I'm fed up...

... 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)

Packerfansam

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)

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.

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

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

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)

Don't bring me into your fights

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) 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) I would appreciate being struck from the comment, thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC) 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) 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) 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)

Painting in Naples

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)

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)