User talk:Joseph setorius

Caesar LaMonaca Jr.

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Caesar LaMonaca Jr., and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Ceasar LaMonaca Jr.. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

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. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Hackleman

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Martin Hackleman, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.banffcentre.ca/faculty/faculty-member/2836/martin-hackleman/.

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications 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.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reported to AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nicknack009 (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently responding to this incident, as I didn't have time before. joseph_setorius ☊ ☼ 17:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit archived material. If you wish for the issue to be reopened, you may do so at the current WP:ANI. Thank you. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...well I already did Voidwalker...and spent an a good hour doing so...now all of my content is gone!! I am sorry if I wasn't supposed to do that...or that it wasn't the correct procedure. But now you have erased all of my added material! Where is it...or can it be retrieved? And how do I add my "side of the story" or concerns for the article? It really stinks you did this without asking or saying something to me BEFORE You did this. Anyway you can help me access the material you deleted? joseph_setorius ☊ ☼ 18:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC) I really can't believe you just did that...[reply]

It is right here. However, I would advise not leaving it there on the archive page. If you want, you can bring it up with Nicknack009, however I would suggest leaving your arguments at Talk:Druid, where there is at least an open discussion. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 01:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OH Thanks Voidwalker!! I guess I don't really understand some Wiki procedure then. If a person beings up a point of discussion about you, why can you not respond in that very discussion? And what is the correct way to have the talk that is already there linked with what I wanted to add? My point was not to keep beating the argument to death, but to resolve it. How might I do this? I followed your link...but I guess I don't really understand what I am supposed to do. Why would I start another subject for the same topic? Does an administrative discussion become closed after a certain time? If so...why are you still able to edit it? It seems if someone makes a complaint about you...you ought to be able to respond to the "charges". joseph_setorius ☊ ☼ 19:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's the thing, the discussion happened, nothing got done, and then the discussion got archived. Now, nearly 3 weeks later, you are finally able to respond. However, I don't think, even had you responded to the thread not long after it opened, there would not be much of a change in the end. Perhaps the only difference had you engaged would be that someone would have closed the thread a primarily being a content dispute, and not really needing resolution at ANI. (The issues resolved on ANI are primarily behavioral issues).

On to answering your questions. First off, you should be able to participate in discussions about you, except in this case, you were unavailable due to something on your end. At ANI they usually do not take action unless the accused responds to it (unless it is a serious issue). They can keep the thread open if it is a big deal, but since no-one did, one can think that it was not.

For the reply that you added, I've restored it in a collapsed section, for record's sake.

If you want to start a new thread/topic on ANI, you could, however I wouldn't recommend it. Instead, I would suggest following the process of dispute resolution, and ask for additional outside opinions (not from an administrator's noticeboard, these are primarily for instances involving administrators, or requiring intervention from them).

Administrative discussions are automatically archived after a period of three days with no new responses. It is generally accepted that if no one takes interest in three days, the incident is not really that big of an issue that it requires administrator intervention. As far as the archives themselves are concerned, one generally should not edit archives. Very few people actually actively go through archives, except to point to closed discussions where an issue had been resolved by community consensus and action to support what they are doing. (For example, if an editor is community banned by a discussion on ANI, one can revert their edits citing the closed discussion). Archives are not protected, and you we can still edit them. However, when users edit the archives (especially to change a close), others revert their changes, and often the archive is protected to prevent abuse. To clarify, what you did was not abusive. It was just a mistake, and that is OK.

To conclude:

When a discussion is archived, it is not meant to be discussed further. It is essentially closed, unless one un-archives it. (Such action is probably unnecessary in this case).
To resolve the current issue, you should continue discussing on the talk page. If you feel this is not working, you may follow the dispute resolution process.

If you need further help, let me know, otherwise, you can ask at the help desk, the teahouse, or just use {{help me}} followed by your question. Cheers -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Druid, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. I'm not sure what you were doing here:[1] but you've been reverted. I will also remind you of WP:NPA for this edit:[2] and to sign your talk page posts using four tildes: ~~~~. Comment on content, not what you believe other users' motives to be. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Druid. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Seeing that you were verbally abusive to another user not long ago:[3], I'm raising this to a level two warning. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm raising this to a level two warning" ? What does that even mean? joseph_setorius ☊ ☼ 17:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are warning templates that are used to warn editors about the nature of their edits. There are four levels, representing the nature and repetition of the offense. Users are usually blocked after repeating their action after a level 4 warning. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corbie, I looked at the two versions on your link. I didn't notice this before. I think what happened is I pasted my signature, when I meant to copy something that you had written. This was unintentional. I didn't mean to, nor was I trying to alter your text. Sorry for the mistake. Probably just hit CTRL+V when I wanted CTRL+C. Just to let you know, whatever disagreements we might have, I an not the kind of person to maliciously edit stuff on your page, mine, or on article talk pages. --joseph_setorius ☊ ☼ 19:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]