User talk:Joo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note to ALL visitors to this page[edit]

Please post new messages on TOP (above all other messages) instead of at the bottom. The page is too long to scroll down. :p

Helpfulness references[edit]

Hi, Joo! Thanks for your changes to the Helpfulness article back in 2005, they were really valuable.

You mentioned a paper called Krueger et al (2001) which I'm having trouble finding. Can you please post a reference in the References section? Thanks again for the changes you did make! Gred Sixteen (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temasek Review[edit]

Regarding your edits on Singaporean general election, 2011, please be advised that Wikipedia does not consider Temasek Review to be a reliable source and you should not use it as citations. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Temasek Review is generally NOT considered a reliable source. But surely if the website said it is endorsing Tan Jee Say, it can be believed? Or it still cannot be believed? Lol! Anyway, okay, I've changed the source to Straits Times. By the way, what's this Tor thing that Wikipedia keep trying to block me from editing? joo 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, since there is a Straits Times source to say that TRE endorsed TJS, then we should use that over TRE. As for Tor, see WP:TOR. It shouldn't really be affecting you, but if it is, you should request an IP block exemption. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 04:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference[edit]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Welcome![edit]

Hello, Joo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Whomp 15:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. Copyright violations are unacceptable and persistent violators will be blocked. Your original contributions are welcome. Whomp 15:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reorganization is deleting cited material[edit]

It's okay to reorganize but you can't delete cited text. If you were editting as an anonymous IP, that is why you received a warning. I expect you to revert as you deleted cited material again. --Morenooso (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, did I delete cited material? Not my intention. I've been counter-checking my edits with the original version. If you could point them out, I'll re-add them. I'll also re-check. joo (talk) 03:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Every time you see <ref> Blah, blah, blah, </ref> and type over it, that is a deletion. You destroyed a number of references. It is best to just revert as you have also inserted commentary. --Morenooso (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you cite one specific example? I don't remember typing over <ref> Blah, blah, blah, </ref> joo (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's stay here on your talkpage. Please revert your edit now. --Morenooso (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot to undo. I think all the references are still there. Please give me one specific example of a missing reference or cited text. joo (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

==April 2010== Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Catholic sex abuse cases. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Morenooso (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

3RR advice[edit]

I don't know if you logged out or in to accomplish your edits. Please see 3RR advice. --Morenooso (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I logged in to be identified. I could edit without logging in. I still don't understand anything other than this 3RR threat. I see that you have reverted the edit. I repeat: The contents have not been changed on the whole. Why do you have to kill the elephant to take out a fly? joo (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am a technical writer by profession for more than 10 years. Please give me a specific example of where important content has disappeared or changed drastically upon my re-organization.
If you don't understand how to edit without deleting cited material, then you are killing the elephant to use your metaphor. I don't make threats; I just give advice. Editors have been known to conveniently "log out" to make edits or reverts. You were asked quite nicely several times to revert yourself. Since you didn't, I took care of it for you. Please learn to insert material with citations without deleting cited material. --Morenooso (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]
For goodness sake, give one specific example of deleted cited material. joo (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited references appear as per what I wrote above[edit]

<ref>[www.citedurl.com Entitled with a name www.citedurl.com Retrieval date]

It can appear as <refname=citedurl</ref>

When you type over a <ref> you deleted references. You really need to learn how to edit on Wikipedia as if you are writing for a college professor who gave you a paper with citations and asked you to add material. Deleting his citations will not impress the professor. Please see WP:FIRST. If you don't recognize that you did that, then again, you need to stop and compare what you did and learn how to edit properly.--Morenooso (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grooaaan! You are still talking in the generic sense. I understand you. I've inserted <ref> many times. Please give me one specific text or ref which I've changed or deleted. joo (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've told you you can review on your own. It's pretty obvious when look at the history and compare differences.--Morenooso (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. As mentioned many times, I've counter-checked both original and the re-organized version. Anyway, to make it easier for you to follow the changes, I'll make the changes incrementally now. joo (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do it without deleting references. --Morenooso (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I won't. I believe I didn't either. joo (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see now why you thought I've deleted references or cited materials. I had merely deleted duplicate text. joo (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You done much better doing it incrementally. This makes it easier for all to follow. And, if you think I am rough as a Page Patroller, you will see much harder editors than me. --Morenooso (talk) 04:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a "heads-up" you are editting a highly controversial article which at this time draws lots of attention. Some of the harder editors will cite WP:NOTNEWS, WP:OR or Wikipedia:Recentism in reverting long or big edits. You're always better off doing it the way you just did as it becomes more transparent for all to follow. --Morenooso (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Granted that you're doing your job in stopping massive changes that are difficult to follow. Peace. :) joo (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could see this time around you were doing well and did not want to break your train of thought by patting you on the back. I truly believe you did a great re-write this time around. It's not so much massive changes but those usually will get reverted for one reason or another based upon what I have seen and all the various Wikipedian policies out there.--Morenooso (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Btw, isn't "damage control" an opinion or a perception rather than fact? (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#cite_note-102 and click ^)
If I understand you correctly (and, I'm watching my ballgame amongst other things), if the original editor had just stated, The Vatican has gone into full damage control - then yes that would be opinion, WP:OR or WP:NPOV. However, because the editor found a reliable source that can probably be found in other similar newspapers or online content, I think that reference is okay. It just depends on how you use the reference. If you put undue weight on a reference, then yes that reference could be deleted but should first be discussed on the article talkpage to get WP:CONSENSUS. --Morenooso (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The AP report title and the Wikipedia 'quote' says the Vatican backed off from linking paedophilia with gays. But within the AP report, "A Vatican spokesman, Federico Lombardi, said the statement was aimed at clarifying Cardinal Bertone's remarks and should not be seen as the Holy See distancing itself from them." joo (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this section "Vatican Responses"? How come the wordings are not fact-based but seem to have devolved into media perceptions of the Vatican responses? joo (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it depends on how deeply you go into the citation. The original editor may have been just trying to convey that the Vatican was had gone into full damage control - please notice those words appear directly in the cited material as the editor used direct quotes, i.e., "full damage control mode". In essence, it was using the article title to connotate what I said initially in this response (right now in this paragraph). Now, you as a subsequent reader/editor might note there is a disconnect or valid point that not covered by the direct quote. In that case, you could add the one-liner about Bertone and use the same citation for your counterpoint. --Morenooso (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And your edit summary can be what makes or breaks your edit. Be snarky, and others will try to take you down. Put a nice smooth even line like: Clarified what was said in the citation and your counterpoint becomes almost bulletproof. --Morenooso (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just did so. How is my comment, "wording change to reflect nPoV; truer quote of what Vatican spokemen actually said; also words like "damage control" and "blame" suggest a point of view that's against the Vatican." Need to run. Thanks for your advice.

New train of thought[edit]

In this diff, some editors will say that you editoralized by saying the Associated Press. While it can be always be inferred by one person that "the libel press" said this or "the reporter got it wrong", putting that into an article edit can lead to problems with NPOV and you being reversed. I wonder if anyone will notice. --Morenooso (talk) 05:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write that the reporter got it wrong, but "AP claimed". In fact though, the AP report title really did not reflect the Vatican statement. joo (talk) 05:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you're leading the reader to a judgment. In response to the AP claimed a smart editor would put [who?] and begin the dismantlement process. I recognize the next editor up and mostly likely he will do some healthy edits on your material. I would advise you to just watch what he does. Don't try to revise, edit or revert what the editor does. --Morenooso (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Will first watch. joo (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The {{who}} template connotates to other editors, who really said that? You could try to say the reporter said that but you would need another WP:RS source saying the first reporter said that. That is part of the convoluted Wikipedian process. Editoralizing in an article usually gets reverts. Kick back, relax and see if you'd be a good flexible. --Morenooso (talk) 05:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the editor at bat got reverted in thisDIFF which kind of proves I know this article and its players. --Morenooso (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, how does feel to know that you warmed up the fireplace (so to speak)? This article dominates half my Watch list today. --Morenooso (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have kept you so busy. This is the first time that I've edited an article so intensively. The issues involved look so convoluted that I need to organize the contents properly to see more clearly. joo (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about keeping me busy. I have other interests here on Wikipedia. I try to keep up with the changes as best I can but the fire keg is lit. --Morenooso (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's this User:Haldraper guy who kept cutting the Criticisms of Media Coverage section until the content left is quite inane. Could someone do something about this? He has ignored my multiple attempts so far to engage him in discussion over changes.

Catholic Sex Abuse Cases[edit]

What are you trying to accomplish by adding nonsense about NAMBLA and quoting hate groups such as the Family Research Institute? Why all that anti-gay propaganda?--Dvd-junkie (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Dvd-junkie:

(1) You need to put my name in proper wiki formatting (as I've put here) before I can see your message.

(2) The NAMBLA reference is not nonsense. It is a fact (documented on Wikipedia itself at NAMBLA and at the jstor reference I gave) and a significant fact that NAMBLA was a member group (for 10 years!) of ILGA a homosexual organization that has consultative rights to the UN and European Commission. If NAMBLA (the pedophile group) is not homosexual, what was it doing inside ILGA? And for 10 years?

(3) How is Family Research Institute a hate group? Who defines it as a hate group? And not worthy of having its views and research being represented here? Even if it is, aren't Dawkins and Hitchens are reacting out of hate? They should be removed as well then.

(4) You have removed references to research studies made by more than the Family Research Institute. You've also removed (a) the Freund, Heasman, Racansky, and Glancy study, (b) the Erickson, Walbek, Sely study, (c) the K. Freud and R. I. Watson study, (d) the United States Army, Office of Judge Advocate study, (e) the Archives of Sexual Behavior study. Please explain your deletions on the Talk page of the Catholic sex abuse cases page. joo (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removing legitimate studies is not good practice. There need to be very good reasons for such actions. Xandar 21:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Xandar, Dvd-Junkie has removed the references again. joo (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Applewhite[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Monica Applewhite, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.socon.ca/or_bust/?p=6376. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Monica Applewhite[edit]

A tag has been placed on Monica Applewhite requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Xtzou (Talk) 14:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Monica Applewhite[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Monica Applewhite, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.socon.ca/or_bust/?p=6376, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Monica Applewhite saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! VernoWhitney (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted Dr Monica Applewhite. Still awaiting her reply on this. joo (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

catholic sex abuse cases[edit]

Hey,Joo, I just wanted to give you a heads up. I'm just going to up and delete IP 71's recent new section, which of course would include your responses to it. I feel like deleting his attempted soap boxing on the talk page instead of feeding him might be better. No hard feelings against you.Farsight001 (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, Farsight. No problem. joo (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Catholic sex abuse cases. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.Additionally, please remember to sign all your posts.--Morenooso (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Catholic sex abuse cases. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Morenooso (talk) 10:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Haldraper_deleting_relevant_materials_despite_other_editors.27_objections I've tried to engage Haldraper in discussions but to no avail. joo (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Morenooso : WP:NPA says, "Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." I've presented evidence. joo (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm going to report Haldraper on WP:ANEW joo (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. And as per the affected talkpage, I told you that I would go there when I am ready. I am not to that point just yet and will do on my own time and volition. Is that understood? --Morenooso (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, understood. I've just reported him there. joo (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, you have a responsibility to let the other editor know in a private manner on his talkpage that you took him to that noticeboard. --Morenooso (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do that. What's the tag to put? While edit warring itself is a problem, it's important to consider whether the editor has good reasons for the reverts. Haldraper has been changing his reasons all the time. E.g. First he moved Applewhite's quote into the Inaccuracies section. Then he wrote that her quote is not about inaccuracy. Then he put an OR tag above Applewhite's quote. And that tag asked for references. When I've sourced enough references to support Applewhite's quote, he removed all the references saying that a quote do not need references. Then he moved Applewhite's quote into the Inaccuracies section and deleted Jenkins quote about only one pedophile among thousands of priests there. Surely, this kind of behavior deserves some censure/action? joo (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion about you is taking place at WP:ANEW[edit]

Please see this DIFF as actions concerning your edits are taking place at that noticeboard. --Morenooso (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if this was me, I would take a moment to reflect upon this situation. You may not have been fully aware that your actions too could be considered to be edit-warring. And, while you may disagree either with my analysis or post, you may want to consider that as per the generic 3RR advisory substitute warning given to you that you have a responsiblity to be considerate of your edits and reverts as they may affect other editors. Be fully prepared as edit-warring is a bright line that most NEUTRAL admins will not tolerate. If this was me again and got blocked (I do not know you will but you should be prepared for just about anything), take it as a WP:COOL off and take some time off to clear your head and not think about the matter. --Morenooso (talk) 11:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for censure usually is not a good move but I could be wrong. And potentially, you could be adding more fuel to the fire so to speak. I would advise a low, humble approach and profile. --Morenooso (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A low, humble approach and profile sounds just like what someone in my church would advise. :p I'm going to sleep now. Thanks for the advice. Appreciate this. joo (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears an admin has reviewed the WP:ANEW report. Now is the time to maintain a low profile. --Morenooso (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your post of diffs[edit]

The talkpage is not the place for this. In addition, admins will review WP:ANEW and all the contribs of the editors involved. You're not helping yourself in my humble estimation. Even on WP:ANEW, address content and not the other editor by name. That could be viewed as a WP:NPA. --Morenooso (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know we are not supposed to post diffs in the talk page. Okay, won't do that again. As for WP:ANEW, I cannot describe what happened without naming the person who did them. How do you do that? joo (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On WP:ANEW, guess what? It's going to be like a tennis match with only two people involved. Everyone else, unless there is a post by a different editor, can figure out who the tennis players are. That may be the place for diffs but even that can be dicey because an editor could be viewed as now edit-warring there if you catch the drift or analogy. In essence, you've made your case, now move on as somebody in a blue uniform might say. As for the talkpage, editors should be looking or have the article under Watch and reviewing history diffs. Wikipedia doesn't need a replay on the talkpage unless it's really a slow day with a "Z" in it. I don't think any of the days of the week have a "Z"; ergo, no. --Morenooso (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since Huey45's report on ip71 has been archived without any discussion or resolution, I have my doubts really about how admins resolve (or don't resolve) reported problems. I'm going to post my report on my talk page then. Plus I've reported him at WP:ANI and WP:Editor assistance and yet so far no action has been taken. :( joo (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It can take as much as a week to review all the edits, contribs, warnings, talkpages, article, article talkpage, etc. No admin is in a rush to judge unless an extraordinary situtation exists as obvious edit-warring or vandalism. Admins are subject to review of their actions. Just like an editor, who values being able to edit Wikipedia, they enjoy that privilege and being able to administer Wikipedia. They don't want to be under review because they acted in haste. That was part of my editted posts (just the admin review post about why the article admins *possibly* were not engaged) and perhaps not clear to you. And each new post to WP:ANEW will set back the final judgment. As you can see if you have that page under Watch, which makes the section below unnecessary IMHO or would be better as a separate userpage, admins have begun editting the headers. In fact, one new admin editted the talkpage which indicates he/she *may* have felt some action was necessary. You can what was editted out which should a reminder and big hint to you. The best advice I can give is to be very mellow. With the article under dispute, I would make no more than two edits to it in any 24 hour period to avoid a 3RR situation. Granted, if you were to make "pure new edits" that do not revert material than you could probably edit it at will. Still, because edit-warring is being discussed at WP:ANEW, editting-at-will is not a good idea IMHO. Additionally, I would surmise that the majority of your edits come mostly to this article. It's better to have a wide variety of edits or articles contributed to but again that that may be my opinion. --Morenooso (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One week is very long. I need to KIV the issues on my Talk page then. Frankly, I have no hidden agenda. And I don't believe in putting on a show of being interested in other articles. Still, tahnks for the advice, Morenooso. joo (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that Haldraper has edited the disputed section and text again, is he blocked by now? Or is 3RR merely a warning? joo (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disappeared/Archived incidence reports[edit]

Just checked WP:ANI and found that my report and Farsight's comment have disappeared without the issue being resolved. Good thing I've captured screenshots of what other editors have said about Haldraper's behavior. joo (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The report is still on WP:ANEW in the section you created it in unless you started a report somewhere else I don't know about. History never is gone on Wikipedia unless deleted by an admin. Even then, admins can still call up deleted articles and their history. You can see the WP:ANEW history by clicking on the History tab which is this DIFF. Then to see the history per your last post or that of the responding editor, you find the last time stamp that corresponds to what you are looking for. In your case that is May 6 at 00:27. Clicking on that time stamp will bring up the info you posted ala this HISTORYdiff. You can always set your report up in a userfile on your userpage which is much better.
To set up a userfile, on your userpage user:Joo, type [[/anyfilename]]. This will create the file, anyfilename there which is blank. The go to the WP:ANEW board and click the Edit tab as you did to create the section below. Copy all the info and then paste it into anyfilename on your userpage. Save and watch and you will have the info where you can retrieve it with minimal clicks. --Morenooso (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Until the case is resolved, it should not "disappear" or be archived. Open reports are left open until an admin makes a determination. And if I'm not around, you could ask the admin that has been posting on the article talkpage about its status but I wouldn't do that if I was you. One of the reasons I told you about editting other articles is that admins can get to know you. I have had several situations lately where a serious accusation or two were made against me. I looked on my Watchlist to find an admin I knew. Then I went on the admins' talkpages, explained my concern, asked them to review the situation and said, "Block me if true." I would rather get blocked (not really) by an admin I know versus an admin who gets to know you because he/she is blocking you. There is no good block in my mind but again, if I had to be blocked, I'd rather have it done by someone I know. I've done this four times in the last month. Know how times I got blocked? Zero! On the converse side, I'd told these admins I expect no quarter and them to be fair which I pretty know they will be. If it's a blockable offense, they're going to do it and my asking to be blocked will only expedite the matter. Fortunately, I'm still editting. --Morenooso (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a userfile you just archived into. Maybe I'm blind. --Morenooso (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed. I am blind. --Morenooso (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are on my user page. Was editing (and not saving yet) just now. Thanks for the instructions on how to do this. btw, it's not like I can't wait for Haldraper to be punished. But he apparently needs to face some consequences before he'll adjust his disruptive behavior. joo (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know as I haven't see the edit. It is in bad form to ask about another editor being blocked especially as some of your edits have been called into question. While this is your talkpage, I am sure others are watching it. I would think that the admin who editted your talkpage is now watching the article to help determine what will be done in terms of whatever needs to be done. My best advice to you is to lay low, do no more than two edits a day and do not revert anyone. --Morenooso (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about 3RR? Hasn't Haldraper violated 3RR by now? Still nothing has happened? joo (talk)
Again, I don't know. I haven't reviewed the article as I have several irons in the fire (articles that I have under Watch that need attention. I really don't have time to play policeman on that article because a number of editors post stuff to it like dogs overscenting a pole. That's why it's hard for admins to wade through your report and make a determination - so much stuff happened, is happening and IMHO going over-the-top. On disputed articles, I tend not to revert because I could get sucked into the 3RR action if that determination is made. You really need to relax. Let the admins do their thing. Complicate the matter by continuing to edit the article (don't know if you have), make accusations at different noticeboards (which from your userpage appears you have) and you just throw the initial determination further and further back. I'll be real honest with you. I had a long day today and I am only focused on articles that matter to me or that pop up current in my Watchlist. Csa isn't in my top 500 right now. Sorry as I have over 1900 articles on Watch. --Morenooso (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1900 articles! Is this a full-time job? joo (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page etiquette[edit]

The next time you address an entire thread to a user, instead of to content, I will delete it. Instead for saying, "Why did Joe Doe delete this?", I recommend you use a more edit-oriented question like, "Why was this material deleted?" If you have issues with the behavior of specific editors then raise it on their user talk pages or on the appropriate noticeboard. See WP:TP and WP:TPG.   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback: Noted. Morenooso has already pointed this out to me. However, I have already raised the issues on Haldraper's talk page and a few noticeboards. Nothing has happened yet other than various warning notices. In fact, Haldraper did it again. He reverted my last edit. And no action apparently has been taken against him although I've seen the 3RR notice on his talk page several times. joo (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After going through Haldraper's talk page, I see that he has a history of 1) deleting stuff, 2) making improper edits esp. on Catholic pages, and 3) Not discussing. He has been blocked twice. This time however, nothing seems to have happened to him. joo (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion for you[edit]

You may wish to visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism and see if there is an article you might be interested in building. You have great edit skills and easily could build a desired article or two. Plus, there are articles in Stub status on Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Assessment that you could flesh out and possibly make into a full-featured article. If click on the table to the lower middle right, you will what Stub articles are available for editting that can be developed by someone with your skills. Plus there might be an Eastern perspective you could bring to Catholic or Christian articles concerning Papal or Church relations in your geographic area. Take a look. You may find something that you could do wonders to. If you do, please let me know and I will follow your work (in a good way). Cheers.--Morenooso (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This URL shows Stub class High interest articles waiting to be developed further. 16 exist. I bet you could knock one out in one hour flat. --Morenooso (talk) 04:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Morenooso, so far my experiences on Wikipedia has been negative. I'm not motivated to do more on Wikipedia, especially with people like Haldraper around - who delete whatever they don't like and refuse to discuss properly. And it's quite ironic, isn't it? You say that I have great edit skills. Haldraper already has a history of improper deletions and edits and of being blocked twice. Yet, so far it seems to me that both you and the other admin had been busy warning me (and not Haldraper). Plus the status of my WP:ANEW report is now Stale. If you were in my shoes, would you bother to edit another Wikipedia article? joo (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I too was in your shoes. I felt blunted and stepped away from Wikipedia for almost a year. But, I realized I wanted to be a part of this project. I hope you will want to stay which is why I have been trying to give you tips. I am sorry if my advice has been bad or ill received. --Morenooso (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your tips, really. :) joo (talk) 11:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, look at you with your user page!!! Get involved with those wikiprojects. I still think you could find some stub articles in the various wikiprojects, bring them out of stub status and maybe get a DYK nomination. --Morenooso (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not now. A few months later maybe. joo (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Morenooso, why can't I see any Edit button on the Catholic Sex Abuse Cases article? joo (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, from the Discussion page, I see that the article is now locked for all editors. joo (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Joo/Haldraper report on WP:ANI[edit]

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Nobody Ent 13:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Joo/Haldraper report on WP:ANEW[edit]

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Nobody Ent 13:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Joo/Haldraper report on WP:Editor assistance/Requests[edit]

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Nobody Ent 13:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joo/Haldraper report on WP:ANI[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your user subpage at User:Joo/Haldraper report on WP:ANI may not meet Wikipedia's user page guideline. If you believe that your user page does not violate our guideline, please leave a note on this page. Alternatively you may add {{Db-userreq}} to the top of the page in question and an administrator will delete it, or you can simply edit the page so that it meets Wikipedia's user page guideline. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Joo/Haldraper report on WP:ANI[edit]

User:Joo/Haldraper report on WP:ANI, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Joo/Haldraper report on WP:ANI and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Joo/Haldraper report on WP:ANI during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joo&oldid=1092089852"