User talk:Joseph77237

File:Information.svg Hello, I'm Jdcomix. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to :Criminal law have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Jdcomix (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

:What's the point of asking to contribute if everything is deleted by lying about the absence of reliable sources? So what's the point of the Wikipedia Charter being voted on these days? Joseph77237 (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

::It looks like this was the edit in question. It appears you added the incomplete sentence "The versari in re illicita", which does not make sense. The removing editor did not claim the reason was lack of reliable sources, only that this edit was not constructive. Perhaps this is not the change you intended to make to this article? -- Beland (talk) 08:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Information orange.svg Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources{{#if:Strict liability|, as you did with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strict%20liability&diff=1231813697 this edit] to :Strict liability}}. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Materialscientist (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

:I put the sources, but you deleted everything anyway. Not having administrative powers in Wikipedia, I stop contributing: I worked on it for 2 days, and you deleted everything in 30 seconds, citing untrue reasons: the sources are cited in the notes. 95.75.78.144 (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

:I put the sources, but you deleted everything anyway. Not having administrative powers in Wikipedia, I stop contributing: I worked on it for 2 days, and you deleted everything in 30 seconds, citing untrue reasons: the sources are cited in the notes.

:the sources are all academic as well as ministerial; Is deleting without justification a game against Wikipedia contributors? Joseph77237 (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

::Looking at Special:diff/1231813697, I don't see any sources for the paragraph you added, either. What do you mean "the sources are cited in the notes"? I would expect inline footnotes in this new paragraph every sentence or two, but there are none, and there are no Harvard-style parenthetical citations, either. Are we missing something?

::BTW, accusing another editor of lying or playing games could be considered a serious violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. No worries if you hadn't heard about that guideline before; in my experience conversations here go a lot more smoothly if when I first respond I assume what looks like an inappropriate revert is simply a misunderstanding we need to work out. If someone really is behaving badly, either my good behavior encourages them to be reasonable and revert themselves, or they make it clear to me and other editors that their edit was unjustified and it gets reversed (and if they are seriously disrupted they get reported to administrators with a longer paper trail). Sometimes I learn that I was missing something and I was in the wrong, and it's nice to avoid accusing or insulting a fellow volunteer who is just trying to be helpful when I'm the one who has made the mistake. -- Beland (talk) 08:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

What's the point of asking to contribute if everything is deleted by lying about the absence of reliable sources? So what's the point of the Wikipedia Charter being voted on these days???!!! Joseph77237 (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Praeterintention. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has too many problems of language or grammar.

I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page.

When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

:for me the article is complete. Then do what you want with it. Joseph77237 (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

:I don't think I'm compatible to contribute if the article is judged wrong: it is objectively correct in all the points of the Wikipedia pillars. I will certainly not wage wars of edits in Wikipedia without impartial judges who judge on the merits. I have better things to do than to be bullied in Wikipedia. goodbye. Joseph77237 (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

:hi, can you check the Praeterintention entry?: I've finished fixing it: simplifying it further means giving the user wrong information, and from tomorrow I can't intervene.; if there is any problematic

:aspect highlighted in red. good morning

:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Praeterintention Joseph77237 (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

In Wikipedia shouldn't the Wittgenstein principle apply: "whereof one cannot speak, one must remain silent"...or rather, if one is not competent on a subject, one cannot judge? Otherwise, to be a doctor one should not have a degree!; or is Larry Sanger right?: <<... contributors have failed to understand the many problems that plague Wikipedia, from its management problems to its often dysfunctional community, from its frequently unreliable content to a series of scandals. Although Wikipedia is a rather useful and incredible phenomenon, I am now certain that it can no longer be fixed.>>. L. Sanger Joseph77237 (talk) 05:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article :"qui in re illicita versatur, tenetur etiam pro casu" has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unclear topic; title most likely corresponds to concepts of Fault (law) and felony murder rule, both of which already have pages. The abbreviation "Versari in re illicita" given in this article also already exists as a page and is a redirect to Fault (law). I suspect the length of this title makes it unlikely to be useful if turned into a redirect page itself.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — nmael ^talk 16:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

:I spent days contributing and Wikipedia administrators enjoy bullying contributors, with false reasons: 1) Qui versari in re illicita, tenetur etiam pro casu, is an article present in all global Wikipedias: just do a simple search;

:●https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qui_in_re_illicita_versatur,_tenetur_etiam_pro_casu

:● https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A5llande_till_annans_d%C3%B6d

: 2) Praeterintention has suffered the same fate, despite a basic and synthetic elaboration;

: The problem with Wikipedia is that the law of the jungle reigns: and in the jungle you can't work: there are only do-nothings. Joseph77237 (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

::I add: but aren't there administrators in Wikipedia who decide who is right or wrong?: in an impartial manner. Joseph77237 (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

:::Hi Joseph77237,

:::I'm sorry that you've had some experiences on Wikipedia that have been frustrating.

:::Unfortunately, the presence of similar articles on other language's Wikipedias is not itself a reason to have one here.

:::There appear to exist several articles on the English language Wikipedia that cover the same themes as the "qui in re illicita versatur, tenetur etiam pro casu" article; specifically, Fault (law) and Felony murder rule. It may be worth considering whether those articles could be improved with the topics referenced in "qui in re illicita versatur, tenetur etiam pro casu" rather than making a new article for the phrase alone.

:::If you still disagree, you may stop the proposed deletion process by removing the {{Proposed deletion/dated ... }} tag from the article per the proposed deletion policy. If the tag is not removed, the article will be reviewed by an administrator (I am not an administrator) in 7 days; the article may or not be deleted depending on the reviewing administrator's assessment. If the tag is removed, the article may still go through the Articles for deletion process, which would allow for a period of public discussion before a decision is made.

:::Thank you — nmael ^talk 22:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

::::I had already done it:

::::1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule

::::2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability

::::Your colleagues have ALWAYS deleted IGNORING THE REASONS EXPOSED WITH AUTHORITATIVE BIBLIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES. Wikipedia co-founder L. Sanger is right: <>. In the world of civilization and democracy, before killing the work of others, you go to check and ask for explanations, and then after a process of cognition you decide to kill the work of others. In Wikipedia the opposite happens: first you kill the work of days without the necessary checks. Joseph77237 (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

:::::This article was a Proposed Deletion. You can prevent PRODs by removing the PROD tag from the article. You can also challenge a PROD tag on the article talk page. If you believe this deletion is not uncontroversial, you can request its restoration by making a request at WP:REFUND. Just know that it can be tagged for a future AFD deletion discussion. This will be a week-long discussion where you can argue against or for the deletion of an article. Guidelines and policies on Wikipedia can seem complex as they have been developed over 23 years but there is usually a way to appeal an article deletion.

:::::If you ever have questions about policies and guidelines, please bring them to the Teahouse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that hundreds of your recent edits at Preterintention did not have any edit summaries, although [https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Preterintenzione&action=history&offset=&limit=20 your edit summaries at the Italian article] are fine. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

{{Edit summary field/OOUI}}

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting {{myprefs|3|check={{int:tog-forceeditsummary}}}}, and then click the "{{int:saveprefs}}" button. If you are having problems writing the edit summary in English, write it first in Italian and then use automatic translation to translate it into English if you want. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

: Thank you for including edit summaries in your last two edits. Mathglot (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Joseph77237, while your contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, the language at Preterintention appears to be a mix of acceptable phrasing and gobbledygook. Starting with the very first sentence, which I cannot make head nor tail of:

• Preterintention in criminal law is a legal institution representing a specific factual context

What?? After reading that, a reader knows almost nothing more about preterintention than they did before they read it. I already know what the term means because of its use in French criminal law as {{lang|fr|dol dépassé}}, but your lead sentence gives almost no sense about what it means or what the article is about.

The language is very stilted in many places, and a lot of it is difficult to follow. Looking at your Talk page comments, it looks like your English competency is advanced beginner or intermediate. Maybe this is reflected in the article, or maybe you are using machine translation in part without being able to verify the output, as the quality of the writing is sometimes okay, sometimes deficient to the point of near incomprehensibility. Are the early versions a translation of the Italian article? Perhaps you should ask for help by English native speakers at WP:WikiProject Law, as the article needs significant copyediting to bring it up to the standard required at English Wikipedia. Mathglot (talk) 07:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

: I notice you made another 38 updates to the article since I last wrote, and one of them improved the lead sentence, so thank you very much for that. Your responsiveness is commendable, as is your diligent attention to sourcing. I believe a lot of issues still remain at the article, however, most of them having to do with the comprehensibility and cohesion of the article, as it all seems very dense and opaque to me. (Repeating my earlier disclaimer: any opacity or difficulty I experience is unrelated to the use of arcane legal jargon, with which I am comfortable, as long as the surrounding English makes sense.)

: I have to be honest with you, and tell you that I am thinking about whether drastic action is needed at the article to bring it up to encyclopedic quality standards, including the possibility of seeking consensus at the Talk page to cut it way back, possibly to just a couple of paragraphs. so that it can be built back up again from scratch. I know you have been working very hard at the article, and your last couple of changes responding to my concerns have been improvements, for which I thank you. But it isn't enough.

: Maybe just enlisting some native-English copyeditors to go through the whole thing, and smooth out the wording so there is a clear, comprehensible, cohesive narrative might stave off drastic action; I don't know. Unless you can see the concerns and have a plan to improve them, you might want to consider slowing down or stopping work at the article to save wasted effort, because there is a real possibility it may be severely reduced in size. I know that won't be greeted happily, but that is kind of where we are. Nothing is going to happen right away, and if you think you can turn the article around and make something good out of it, please do. In any case, I am just another editor, and I cannot tell you what to do or how to spend your time, but I wanted to be honest with you about current status. The rest is (mostly) up to you, I think. Mathglot (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::the word preterintention had been changed by another user, but it was completely wrong in content: it can be confused with guilt, recklessness, intention: just go unpublished in time and have a law graduate read it; at the moment I have put the quotes of the doctrine cited: the preterintention is a very technical institute that cannot be written by any law graduate, and even less by someone who is not a graduate.

::Have a good day. Joseph77237 (talk) 10:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::: Thanks for your comment, but I think you are missing the central point. Your comments about what level of prior knowledge or expertise is required to edit this article is an entirely separate issue, and if you wish to comment on that, you are more than welcome to add a new section at Talk:Preterintention to detail your concerns about that.

::: However, I don't know if you understand the gravity of the situation yet with the article. What *this* discussion is about, is an attempt to make it clear to you that there is a level of problems at the article that are so serious, that the article is in danger of either being deleted entirely, massively reduced in size to what we call a "stub" consisting of just a few sentences, replaced by a redirect, or merged into another article. I think you have very limited time left to avoid one of these eventualities; perhaps a week, maybe two. One way to avoid this happening, is to remove the article from mainspace where it is now, and work on it in WP:Draft space, or move it to a Userspace draft. There, the article will be pretty much immune from being deleted for at least six months. Please let me know if you want assistance on moving it to Draft or into your User space. If not, the clock is ticking. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Preterintention, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guilt. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 19:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Joseph. May I ask you what your interest in Wikipedia is? Looking at your [https://guc.toolforge.org/?user=Joseph77237 global contributions], I see updates to the Preterintention articles at German, English, Finnish, Icelandic,

Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, and Somali Wikipedias, and Wikidata, and almost no other articles. What is your interest in this topic, and do you plan to improve other articles at Wikipedia? Do you speak all those languages? All of your German edits have been reverted, and you have been indefinitely blocked at it-wiki. What is your plan, here at en-wiki? Mathglot (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:1) on ita.wiki the administrators claim that technical law can be written even by illiterates; 2) on German wiki: they rejected the list of essential readings on praeterintention; 3) on Sweden wiki: they rejected Kai Ambos' text on Swedish preterintention. Joseph77237 (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portale:Diritto

:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Law

:Obviously I am a 47 year old lawyer, and I have only written about praeter intentionem because I did my PhD thesis in Corsica at Corte in 2008-2009 on preterintention in all civil law and common law countries: that is why on Wikipedia I have written ONLY about preterintention. Greetings. Joseph77237 (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Joseph, thank you very much for the explanation. I suspected something like what you described, so it does not surprise me at all. Ironically, your deep knowledge about preterintention is probably hurting you more than it is helping, and making it more difficult for you to be an editor in good standing here. I have seen more than once cases of experts in their field getting kicked out of Wikipedia, like the Ph.D. professor of Holocaust studies writing here about The Holocaust because they relied on their deep knowledge of the subject, and forgot that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; we are not the place to find voluminous or minutely-detailed information about a topic, just the most important points, simply stated for a broad, general public.

:: Because I have lots of experience here and have seen this happen multiple times before, I can pretty much predict with a fair level of likelihood what is about to happen here. I very much hope I am wrong, because with your legal experience, I would like to see you remain here and become a valued editor. But it cannot be by continuing on your current path. I won't sugarcoat things: in my opinion, your situation here at Wikipedia is dire, and in need of immediate action.

:: What I think is most likely is that first, your preterintention article will be drastically cut back, merged, redirected, or even possibly deleted, although I think deletion is unlikely, because the topic is WP:Notable. After that, you will either get frustrated or angry and leave Wikipedia on your own accord, or you will keep banging your head against the wall here, until an administrator blocks you, very possibly under principles of WP:DISRUPTION or not being here to build an encyclopedia, and that will be the end of your Wikipedia career.

:: The first (cut back of the preterintention article) is probably inevitable, unless you perform a miracle of editing in the next week or so. But the second is not inevitable, and depends on your wishes and especially your actions. If you continue here the way you have up till now, I am nearly certain that you will end up indefinitely blocked from editing at English Wikipedia, but it does not have to be that way; it is largely up to you to avoid that by changing your behavior very significantly. I just don't know if you have the will or ability to do that.

:: I know how to guide you out of this mess, and I think it is worth my time if it helps you remain in good standing as an editor here, but I don't want to waste words and effort or minimize the difficulty of what will be required of you, unless you indicate that you are willing to listen and to make major, major changes to the way you edit here at English Wikipedia. For starters, it will probably involve abandoning the preterintention article for a few years and working on other articles. Secondly, it will probably involve making edits exclusively to the Talk pages of articles using Edit requests to influence how the article is written by other editors. These would be very major changes to your editing pattern so far, and will likely not come easy to you. If you are willing to try engaging in a completely new way of dealing with Wikipedia, I will try to guide you.

:: Let me know if you are interested in this offer. Mathglot (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portale:Diritto

:::Wikipedia rules say that legal entries are technical and must be written by technicians

:::😂 Joseph77237 (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::but don't worry: you can even distort the entry for me: I won't be offended. I'll just point out that 99.9% of Wikipedia's legal entries are full of technical errors: what's the point of a user consulting a wrong legal entry???, regards. Joseph77237 (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::: Every Wikipedia project has their own rules. Linking Italian Wikipedia here about who may write an article about law is completely irrelevant here, at English Wikipedia. I assume your response means you are not interested in being mentored in the ways of English Wikipedia. I wish you all the best, Mathglot (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::1) link to ita.wiki = the administrators of ita.wiki violate their own rules with impunity: they do what they want in contempt of the 5 pillars;

:::::2)for long quotes: in my opinion, they certify to the user that what is in the entry is right and not wrong.

:::::Regards. Joseph77237 (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.asilvering (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:For your convenience: WP:ANI#Joseph77237 is WP:NOTHERE. -- asilvering (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Joseph, I Hope you are well. This notice is important, and you should not ignore it if you want to keep editing at Wikipedia. In case you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (known as "AN/I" for short), it is a discussion forum where possibly questionable editor behavior is discussed among other editors and administrators, to see what, if anything, needs to be done about it. Blocks are a possible outcome. Italian Wikipedia does not have the same noticeboard; as far as I know, the closest one on it-wiki is :it:Wikipedia:Utenti problematici but do not rely on any rules of it-wiki that you may be familiar with; the only WP:behavioral guidelines and policies that matter here are those at en-wiki. Mathglot (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)