User talk:JoePeschel

April 2014

Hello, I'm Jackmcbarn. I noticed that you made a change to an article, April 10, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to May 9, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 22:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Hello, I'm Redsky89. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Redsky89 (talk) 04:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

edits on days of years

Please do not put "short story writer" or "novelist" as a description leave it as author (because it is the same thing) even if it is what is said on their page we do not want the descriptions to be too wordy just keep it simple that way that we had it. if you change it were just going to have to put it back. Redsky89 (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello we have a format for those pages so please follow it. if don't you will be reported and you will be blocked from editing so please give good faith when you edit. and yes plays are written by playwrights and poems are written by poets but short stories and novels are stories written by author. I have been editing these pages for 3 years now I know what I'm doing. Redsky89 (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"We"? It's you making the poor decision to use inaccurate descriptions. If you intend to report me for improving those descriptions, go ahead. I know the difference between "novelist," "short story writer," and "author." After three years, you should know, too. Why would you report me for improving those descriptions? --Joe JoePeschel (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: DR/N case

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Edgar_Allan_Poe.23On_the_precise_description_of_Poe_and_Others In the "How do you think we can help?" section, could you please provide a diff link in reference to your explanation please? DRN Volunteers are notoriously lazy at looking through page histories (though I speak only for myself really) due to the often protracted lengths of said histories. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Science

You are invited! Join us remotely!

World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Science

Dates: 8 to 29 November 2015
Location: Worldwide/virtual/online event
Host/Facilitator: Women in Red (WiR) in collaboration with Women scientists: Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you!
Sponsor: New York Academy of Sciences
Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR in parallel with a "phyisical" event during the afternoon of Sunday, November 22 in New York City. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in science to participate. As the virtual edit-a-thon stretches over three weeks, new participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in the field. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome.
RSVP and learn more: →here←

--Rosiestep (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Allison Amend2.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Allison Amend2.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted content borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

If you wish to participate in the 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]

Gay Talese

Hello, JoePeschel. Regarding the article Gay Talese, I suggest you review WP:BRD. When your changes to an article are disputed, the appropriate way of dealing with this is to discuss the issue on the article's talk page, not to repeatedly try to over-ride other editors through edit warring, as you have done. I do not agree with your changes at Gay Talese. In particular, I do not consider it an improvement to say that Talese was "journalist for the New York Times" rather than "writer for the New York Times". Despite what you seem to think, "writer" is the more specific and helpful term. I've every intention of reverting your changes again, unless you can establish consensus for them on the article's talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, “author” and “writer” are not “in general synonymous. ” If English is your second language, I can understand why you would not understand the distinction among the words. The changes I have made are indeed constructive. There is a tremendous difference between being described as an "author" and being described as a "writer" or a “journalist.” Notice that poets are described as poets in Wikipedia; playwrights are described as playwrights, not authors. The reason: the word "author" is imprecise. I aim to be constructive and precise, and terse in my descriptions. I put a lot of work and thought into my entries. So please refrain from reverting my corrections.

Thanks. JoePeschel (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a deliberately rude comment, and as such ill-advised - as anyone with enough experience of Wikipedia could tell you. Your comments unfortunately do not discuss the specifics of the issue. I am aware that there is a difference between calling someone a writer or author, on the one hand, or a journalist, on the other, but I see no way in which that supports your position. Calling someone a journalist for a newspaper has no advantage over calling them a writer for that newspaper, rather than the reverse, as "writer" gives a clearer explanation of what he actually does. To repeat it, I am going to revert you if you cannot establish consensus for your changes. It is of course irrelevant how much work you put into your changes at Gay Talese; you still need to establish consensus for them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made no “rude comment,” deliberate or otherwise. What did you think was rude?

I do discuss the specifics of the issue. The issue is the imprecise wording of the lede sentences. To reiterate: “author” and “writer” are not “in general synonymous, even though you contend they are.

I have replaced “author” with “writer” because “writer” is more precise—an author could be an author of anything, including, a poem, a novel, a law, etc., as I’ve said before.

I have replaced “writer” with a “journalist” because “journalist” is even more precise than writer and it avoids the redundancy of using “writer” again. When you write a lede graf, you transition to more specificity in the subsequent sentences.

By the way, I am a freelance writer and journalist. What are your qualifications?

--Joe JoePeschel (talk) 03:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The word "writer" is not more helpful or more "precise" than "author". It does nothing to indicate what someone is a writer of. It is unnecessary to call Talese a "journalist" for the New York Times rather than a "writer" for the New York Times, since if someone is a writer for a newspaper, that of course means that they are a journalist. The repetition of the word "writer" becomes a problem only because you needlessly changed "author" to "writer". If you are a freelance writer and a journalist, that is nice for you, but it is completely irrelevant to Wikipedia. You will find that trying to use real-world qualifications as a way of settling disputes will get you absolutely nowhere, especially because, but not only because, there is in general no way that these can be verified. If your arguments were actually convincing, you would have no need to appeal to your qualifications. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

“Writer” certainly is more precise than “author.” I’ll explain again. Please try to follow. An author can is broad and vague term that acts as catch-all for the creator of almost anything whether it’s written, for instance, a novel, poem or short story, author also refers to the originator of things like laws, guidelines, or rules. “Writer” is more precise than “author”

The terms “writer” and “author” are each variously ambiguous to different degrees. They are general terms, nonspecific, and hence imprecise. Note: the Oxford English Dictionary’s (OED) definition of writer:

1 a. A person who can write; one who practises or performs writing; occasionally, one who writes in a specified manner

and the OED’s definition of author is even broader:

1. The person who originates or gives existence to anything

It’s easy to see that “writer” is more a specific description than “author,” since an “author” could be the originator of a law or an even idea, while a “writer originates something in writing.

Poets are described as poets in Wikipedia; playwrights are described as playwrights, not authors. Novelists are novelists.

So, the lede sentence should correctly use “writer,” not “author.” The second sentence should get even more specific, as any good lede graf should. So, I’ve replaced the “writer,” not only to avoid repeating the word “writer,” but because it is more specific. A journalist is that subset of “writer” who reports and comments for newspapers and magazines.

Judging from your comments about “real-world qualifications”—I take it you have none? A consensus of people who don’t know what they’re talking about is useless and detrimental to Wikipedia. My qualifications are easy to verify. You can start on my talk page.

--Joe JoePeschel (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of the differences between "writer" and "author" that you suggest above have any relevance to the article Gay Talese, and nor does any suggest that the former has any advantage over the latter. If Talese were primarily a novelist, then it would be helpful to identify him that way rather than by calling him an "author", but there is no pertinent difference between "writer" and "author". This discussion could continue endlessly, but there is no reason for me to respond further when you have nothing relevant or cogent to say. Your qualifications are irrelevant, regardless of whether you like or accept that. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No relevance to the article? Are you deliberately being obtuse? I’ve explained the relevance again and again to you. I’ve explained the advantages again and again to you. There is an important difference between “writer” and “author”: please re-read my explanations above. That you think my arguments are neither relevant nor cogent only suggests your lack of expertise on the subject.

So, again, please refrain from reverting my corrections.

--Joe JoePeschel (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have done nothing except make comments that are irrelevant, insulting, or both. I suggest that you raise the issue of the wording of the lead at Talk:Gay Talese, that being the way that disagreements are dealt with on Wikipedia. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have made relevant comments, despite your assertion to the contrary. You need to read my arguments again so that you understand them. To make the reading easier for you, I’ve pasted them those comments below.

No, “author” and “writer” are not “in general synonymous. ” If English is your second language, I can understand why you would not understand the distinction among the words. The changes I have made are indeed constructive. There is a tremendous difference between being described as an "author" and being described as a "writer" or a “journalist.” Notice that poets are described as poets in Wikipedia; playwrights are described as playwrights, not authors. The reason: the word "author" is imprecise. I aim to be constructive and precise, and terse in my descriptions.

I do discuss the specifics of the issue. The issue is the imprecise wording of the lede sentences. To reiterate: “author” and “writer” are not “in general synonymous, even though you contend they are.

I have replaced “author” with “writer” because “writer” is more precise—an author could be an author of anything, including, a poem, a novel, a law, etc., as I’ve said before.

I have replaced “writer” with a “journalist” because “journalist” is even more precise than writer and it avoids the redundancy of using “writer” again. When you write a lede graf, you transition to more specificity in the subsequent sentences.

“Writer” certainly is more precise than “author.” I’ll explain again. Please try to follow. An author can is broad and vague term that acts as catch-all for the creator of almost anything whether it’s written, for instance, a novel, poem or short story, author also refers to the originator of things like laws, guidelines, or rules. “Writer” is more precise than “author”

The terms “writer” and “author” are each variously ambiguous to different degrees. They are general terms, nonspecific, and hence imprecise. Note: the Oxford English Dictionary’s (OED) definition of writer:

2 a. A person who can write; one who practises or performs writing; occasionally, one who writes in a specified manner

and the OED’s definition of author is even broader:

1. The person who originates or gives existence to anything

It’s easy to see that “writer” is more a specific description than “author,” since an “author” could be the originator of a law or an even idea, while a “writer originates something in writing.

Poets are described as poets in Wikipedia; playwrights are described as playwrights, not authors. Novelists are novelists.

So, the lede sentence should correctly use “writer,” not “author.” The second sentence should get even more specific, as any good lede graf should. So, I’ve replaced the “writer,” not only to avoid repeating the word “writer,” but because it is more specific. A journalist is that subset of “writer” who reports and comments for newspapers and magazines.

If you revert my corrections again, I will simply continue to change those corrections back to the way I had them. I consider your reversions near-vandalism.

--Joe JoePeschel (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, if you actually consider my reversions of your edits vandalism, then you are perfectly free to report them as such at WP:AIV. I would be quite unconcerned if you did this. You would probably be warned for wasting administrators' time or filing a frivolous complaint. There is no point in your repeating things you have already said, as I've seen them before, and have already been unmoved by them. You removed part of my comments with your post above, but I won't make an issue of it (except to note, for the benefit of third parties, that the article L. Ron Hubbard is a featured quality article, and isn't written the way you think articles should be written). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your comment about vandalism—again you ignoring or misreading what I actually wrote. I said “near vandalism.” When you reverted my first correction you referenced it as “unconstructive” or “vandalism.” If I removed part of your comments, it was accidental. Go ahead and put it back in. But it doesn’t look like any of your comments have been removed.

--Joe JoePeschel (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, JoePeschel. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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

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

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