User talk:Joeboy
 | This user may have left Wikipedia. Joeboy has not edited Wikipedia since 15 April 2023. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
- Wikipedia Policies and guidelines
If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
Tip: you can sign your name with ~~~~
snoyes 16:44, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The appropriate use of word "Claim"
[edit]It is one thing to use the word "claim" when only one pov and only one version of events is available, it is completely different to use the word when multiple conflicting versions of the same story are being presented. In the former case you would indeed be correct, since using the qualifier there would only innappropriately lessen the impact of a what is being conveyed due to someone's pov. In the latter case however (which is where what we are arguing over would fall under) it is important to add a level of ambiguity to all of the versions of events in order to underscore the level of uncertainty that exists, if we used more concrete words it leads the reader to the conclusion that the article is simply stating that that particular version is what indeed happened, which means the article takes a pov, which is something an encyclopedia should never do.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I should also let you know that you are in danger of violating the 3RR rule on the Rachel Corrie article, if you revert one more time you could be blocked from editing wikipedia.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Moshe. Firstly thanks for reminding me of the 3RR rule, which to be honest I probably would have broken if you hadn't reminded me.
- Regarding the dispute over saying/claiming, you seem to be trying to create an alternate set of rules to the ones at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Claim . Do you think those rules doesn't apply here for some reason, or do you simply think the rules are wrong? The rules cite exceptions where the use of the word would be valid. Clearly this case is nothing like those exceptions, so the rules would seem to me to apply here. If you think the rules are wrong, then surely this is not the way to challenge them. --Joeboy 18:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- First of all, that is not a policy, it is a guideline, they are different things. A guideline is basically a suggestion and their pages really written with the same level of detail as the policy pages and are much less developed since they are not supposed to be followed to the letter. I also know for a fact that precedent dictates you add qualifiers when there are multiple conflicting versions of events.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Recent edits seem to have made the point moot, wrt this particular edit. If you disagree with the guidelines at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid I would suggest raising it on page's discussion page. Thanks, --Joeboy 07:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Or maybe I could just apply it by a case per case basis exactly how I have been doing and what makes the most sense.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- If the existence of dissent is a good reason to use the word 'claim' rather than a more neutral word like 'say' then that seems like a fairly major omission in the guidelines. So we don't have to go through this dispute again, why not try to correct the guidelines so that they cover such cases? --Joeboy 08:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
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) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Joeboy. 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.
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]Hello, Joeboy. 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)