User talk:JoetheMoe25

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from

]

You currently appear to be engaged in an

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to

talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Oprah Winfrey. 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. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regards,

I have undone you edits at

If you note from the table in the article, we have been able to identify Reliable Sources for only 18 of the 20 DLs reported captured/killed. If you have Reliable Sources for the missing three DLs that you could add to the table, we could then, on the basis of simple arithmetic, move towards changing the 20 captured/killed into the 21 that you support.

Please note that the reverting of your edits is not intended towards you personally, but intead is intended to maintaining the integrity of the article. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in editing Wikipedia. Your edit to

Glad to see you do have an account. You should stick to this account instead of your IP address. --Kirbytoo (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. It's a shared household/JoetheMoe25 (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

JoetheMoe25 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

did not not abuse multiple accounts. I intend to use a new username. If you look at my usernamec MickeyMantle42, you will see I did not even make new edits

Decline reason:

not only did you abuse multiple accounts, it is quite evident that you are Mamalujo.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

I see you still have the habit of capitalizing every word you type in regards to titles. USA Today is not the only source. Shihri's survival has been cofirmed. He mentions events that have taken place after his reported death. An AQAP source confirmed Shihri was wounded but survived the drone strike. The family mistakenly believed that Shihri died. He didn't. He was in a coma but recovered.

http://shuaibalmosawa.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/shihri-back-from-the-dead-his-latest-audio-recording-interview-with-aqap-source-on-his-injuries-and-condition/

Your Ad Hominem arguments also fail because you insisted that Shihri died last September. He didn't. The Yemeni articles were correct about his survival back then too. When it comes to famous al-Qaeda leaders, their deaths are only confirmed when we have access to a corpse or the group makes an official marytrdom statement or "rahimahullah" comment like with Abu Yahya al-Libi and Abu Zaid al-Kuwaiti respectively. --151.236.17.86 (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, his survival has not been confirmed. The AFP source referenced even noted that it was not clear when the audio was made and also contradicted an inaccurate claim by the Associated Press's Cairo office that al-Shihri was referring to a February protest by making it clear that no specific dates where mentioned in the audio tape and that such protests have been occurring in Saudi Arabia on sporadic basis throughout the past year. The conferences and planned discussions al-Shihri mentioned in the audio tape where also scheduled long before the recent report of his death. The Al Qaeda has a history of denying leaders are dead until they find replacements. They even released a video recording of Abu Yahya al Libi last summer and hinted he was still alive, but did not confirm his death until September.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, you were still wrong about DNA proving Shihri was dead. This guy is a vampire. I'll believe he's dead when we find his corpse. Anyway, looks like terrorists attacked Boston. Jesus. --173.169.84.59 (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The DNA report was false. I think those two brothers were lone wolves too.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? This is what you said (using your IP) back in September.

"A forensic exam, which includes DNA testing, already confirmed he was killed. Ive also done research and that story of his alleged survival has yet to be repeated anywhere outside the Yemen Post too."

--173.169.84.59 (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that term can apply to the New York Post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/18/ny-post-boston-suspects-bag-men-front-page_n_3109052.html?utm_hp_ref=media

--173.169.84.59 (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. Please be patient the next time you think about reverting these comments.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, then please let me comment on a Long War Journal article from November 2011 that could qualify as yellow journalism.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2011/11/al_qaeda_only_has_two_hvts_lef.php

Some of those leaders were already dead (e.g Marwan Suri, Rashid Rauf, Abu Haris). Others are or were actually in Iran and not in Pakistan as the website claimed (e.g Saif al-Adel, Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah, Mahfouz Oud Walid and Sulaiman Abu Ghaith). Mahsood Azhar is not even a member of al-Qaeda. He's the head of another group. Finally, Hamza Bin Laden is a minor member of the group.

Also, congratulations on proving Saad Bin Laden was killed. Zawahiri himself confirmed his death last September. I would have congratulated you earlier but you were blocked for half a year.

http://ojihad.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/al-qaida-confirms-sa%C2%B4ad-bin-laden-is-dead/

--173.169.84.59 (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.75.72.25.92 (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JoetheMoe25. You have new messages at Talk:Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism.
Message added 01:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jayjg ^(talk) 01:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, it would be helpful to know why you cited the claim to Karl W. Giberson's Saving Darwin, when the book appears to say nothing about this. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was cited in the book. Read it for yourself. It is even listed here.[1]JoetheMoe25 (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hosni Mubarak may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks,

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Defense of Marriage Act, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike McCurry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more confident of his death if Obama, James Carney or John Brennan confirmed it like they did with Abu Yahya al-Libi, Atiyah Rahman, Baitullah Mehsud and Anwar al-Awlaki.--Nemesis928 (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then/JoetheMoe25 (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I was wrong. AQAP lied when they said he was alive. I apologize for not believing you. I was trying to be 100% sure because I remember Hakimullah Mehsud coming back from the dead in a video to order the death of Colonel Imam who was kidnapped almost three months after his reported death. Bill Roggio was right about him being alive for once. By the way, can you please fix Rashid Rauf's death date? His death is no longer alleged. His family confirmed his death. --98.221.96.139 (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your recent work, especially on LGBT rights in the United States. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2012 Benghazi attack may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks,

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Kathleen Willey page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

• 1st, the source I used for that change is dated, 15 June 2014. If you had scratched a little you would have found it. That source had been used for changes in the Syrian civil war map, so its not unreliable.
• 2nd, the source you give for Tal Afar states clearly that the claim of fighting in Tal Afar is made by the own Iraqi authorities. If we are going to give the parts of the conflict the reason, we must also agreed on every territorial claim by ISIS or the KRG, verified or not. That could be applied to Saqlawiyah too, so look for reliable sources instead of Iraqi government mouthpieces.
• 3rd, you are talking about Saqlawiyah when the sourced change I made was on Karmah. If you have a newer, reliable source that states that Karma is under Iraqi gov, its OK, if not stick to the rules.
• 4th, its funny to see someone who uses Iraqi gov. mouthpieces as sources & only made unilateral edits in favour of one side asking for neutrality, better look on yourself, dude...--HCPUNXKID 17:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you look for some type of revenge or something like that, as you try to portray the other (in this case me) as someone with bad faith, POV-pusher, etc..., of course with no proof. I dont know what do you refer to with that issue about "Iraqi sources". What is logic and every WP editor with a little experience knows is that in war issues you cannot use a source from one of the sides to back that side alleged advances. Mainly because that could be agit-prop instead of reliable information, as can be seen on the case of the Syrian civil war. And in the Iraqi case, that applies to pro-Iraqi gov. sources, to pro-Kurdish sources & to pro-ISIS sources, that means, for all sides of the conflict. And unless you elaborate more what you are trying to express, that template will be erased soon, as templates of that type must be added with an elaborated explanation of the reason of its inclusion.--HCPUNXKID 22:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before deleting content as yo did at

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the
  Martin Luther King, Jr. page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help
  )

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. 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. Theroadislong (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8 billion years ago." - not just apes and humans. Your link is just more evidence. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you don't seem to know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. A

reliable mainstream academic sources and merely summarize and paraphrase their main points. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I know the definition quite well and that's what Darwin presented. It is only proven that people evolve in the mind and not the genes. For all we know, Darwin could've exaggerated to protest against Queen Victoria's pro-Anglican policies. Your opinion that I presented an uneducated opinion is remarkably silly.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The study of evolution did not end with Darwin, there's been over 150 years of scientists since, and the overwhelming majority have found no better explanation than evolution, have conducted experiments that only succeeded because evolution is true, and found empirical evidence in fossils and genetics. Please actually read something about the topic instead of blathering with almost complete ignorance.

The mere existence of mutation completely disproves your claim regarding DNA. Or were you implying that evolution is something that happens within a generation? No one evolves in their life time for the same reason that no one inherits their granddaughter's eyes - mutation (and so evolution) occurs over generations of reproduction. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the message on my page: you're citing a colloquial usage from a general reference against the proper usage assembled from in-depth academic sources focused on the subject. See the E. coli long-term evolution experiment. Evolution has been proven, you're just sticking your head in the sand. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that is not accurate. These scientists only were adding their contribution to Darwin's theory and did not prove anything. The human traits thing was also long explained by Gregor Mendel. Many scientists and layman would also like to believe that the CIA killed JFK, but they still refuse to accept the truth. Please get your head out of the cloudsJoetheMoe25 (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, because you refuse to learn, I'm going to just leave it at this:

Wikipedia only summarizes

try to "fix" mainstream academia's mistakes. You cannot change that, and attempts to do so will get you banned or even blocked because there's no point in everyone wasting their time cleaning up your mistakes. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

It's funny how can you claim I "refuse to learn." I'll going to keep laughing all night.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We dont "compromise" on

Sorry, but you fail to understand BLP. Until there is an actual reliable source making the claim, it will not go in the article. And since the only source is a biased reporters third hand claim, this particular story will never be reliable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoetheMoe25 (talk • contribs) 22:25, November 4, 2014‎

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Zsa Zsa Gabor may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 30, 1990<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/17/us/zsa-zsa-gabor-fast-facts/ Zsa Zsa Gabor Fast Facts] CNN.com accessed April 25, 2016</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

I am sure you have sources that he has already taken office and not just going to take it at midnight as every reputable media says. Would you please go to the talk page of the article and show these sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the The Ultimate Warrior page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

You reverted changes made by me that have been discussed by administrators and previous reversion resulted in an editor serving a ban. The reason given by you "the truth must be told" is not an acceptable reason by Wiki standards. I'm not often in disputes so I'll have to look up getting administrators involved again over the same subject. I explained in great detail what is wrong with the USA today article on the talk page. My advice would be to object their, not by reverting what has already reached consensus. Jackhammer111 (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your drama makes me laugh. The facts are the facts.15:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Please stop continuing to remove

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:JoetheMoe25 reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: ). Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Talk:Lochtegate, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. [2] Toddst1 (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Lochtegate. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Laser brain (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see you have been blocked for a week, as I do believe there's a need to include a mention of the USA Today investigation in the

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Racism in Israel. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Your edit summary included a personal attack. Please stop or I will report you at the appropriate noticeboard. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not question a judgement I made from observation. Your pathetic Black Power bitching will also get you nowhere fast. I've dealt with editors like you in the past and I am certainly not intimidated by your threats.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 01:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep it up. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Repeated personal attacks from JoetheMoe25. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've been here a long time, and I usually wouldn't give someone of your tenure a templated warning, but nevertheless, here it is:

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being

]

October 2016

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your New Left rhetoric does not intimidate me in anyway.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 03:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:JoetheMoe25 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: ). Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And please note that had I not blocked you for making personal attacks, you would almost certainly have been blocked for your edit warring at Racism in Israel. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016

: Voting now open!

Hello, JoetheMoe25. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry for my revert at the Ben Gurion article. I searched for the wrong term and missed that it is in the article. Debresser (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

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

Please carefully read this information:

The

discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here

.

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

Specifically, there is a one-revert per day limit on these articles. If your edit has been reverted, take a few minutes to discuss it on the talk page.

Assume that other editors believe they have a good reason for reverting you, so explain why you think they are mistaken rather than edit-war. “WarKosign” 06:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Just saw this by chance, and decided to add a little warning to please take this serious, because sanctions are swift and quite merciless in this area. Debresser (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on David Ben Gurion

Talk:David Ben-Gurion#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April_2017--Nimbleron88 (talk) 05:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017, John F. Kennedy

Kindly read

WP:ANEW. Thanks. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Jane O'Meara Sanders

I see that you made a revert on this article to restore the original wording. Please join in the discussion at the

talk page, and do not make any more edits to the article while discussion is ongoing. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

You don't intimidate me one bit. Sometimes the truth hurts, but we got to accept it.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Labour Party

You appear to have exceeded 3RR (three reverts in 24 hours) on this article and if you continue to edit war I will report it to the

edit-warring noticeboard. TFD (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, but the edits had different characters and I did not click the undo botton to that limit. Hence, I did not revert like you wish.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

João Lourenço

Please be more careful with your edits and use the preview function to see the result. Also check the grammar when you make changes to text. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the left-hand side of a infobox is made up of pre-programmed scripts, which generate a specific result. Always use the preview function so you don't end up with something like "Succeeded by José Eduardo dos Santos" again. If you are not sure, ask for help. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked temporarily from editing. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

--John (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Please also take some time to read
  WP:BLP. AusLondonder (talk) 10:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Your recent edits pertaining to Lee Harvey Oswald

Hello JoetheMoe25,

You recently added content about Oswald's trip to Mexico to several pages. For example, you wrote at Lee Harvey Oswald, "A CIA cable recorded on November 23, 1963 and declassified in 2017 revealed that Oswald was staying in the Soviet and Cuban Embassies during this trip and that a CIA agent who worked in the Soviet Embassy as a Russian translator was able to identify him due to his poor ability to speak Russian."

First of all, you should not be using a primary source like the cable itself as a reference here. Instead use a secondary source like an academic expert or a reporter writing about the cable. Secondly, you are not accurately representing the contents of the cable. Oswald visited the Soviet and Cuban diplomatic compounds. He did not "stay in" those places, as his visits were brief. And the CIA translator was not working in the Russian embassy. The CIA translator was translating wiretapped communications.

Please remove this material unless you can properly reference it and correct it so that it is accurate. If you do not do so promptly, I will revert all of it. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An edit is not an email and yes it was based on exactly what the cable said. No more nonsense please.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the spell checker typo and meant "edit" not "email". Sorry for that.

No, the cable does not say Oswald was "staying in" those diplomatic compounds and does not say that the CIA translator was working in the Russian embassy. Where do you get that? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does say so and that he was at the Cuban Embassy with a woman named Silvia Duran when he called to the Soviet embassy and noted how he just stayed there and gave them his address. Duration of the stay, however, does not always mean overnight, a word which I did not use.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit better reflect what the cable actually says. Thanks. Please try to find a secondary source that analyzes this cable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Herbert Marcuse. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem on October Revolution

Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web page http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/bolsheviks-revolt-in-russia. Copying text directly from a source is a

copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]