User talk:JoeJShmo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

November 2023

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Duro Bag Mfg, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Cjse23 (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I've edited before, just was trying from a new device and it looks like the display wasn't showing the right info, perhaps lag.JoeJShmo (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome! Let's share a nice cup of tea with biscuits.

Hello, JoeJShmo, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Cjse23 (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

January 2024

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Menachem Meiri. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments belong on the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and may respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi JoeJShmo! I noticed your contributions to Talk:Gaza genocide and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

I've noticed that you've expressed an interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Unfortunately, due to a history of conflict and disruptive editing it has been designated a contentious topic and is subject to some strict rules.

The rule that affects you most as a new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to the Arab–Israel conflict unless you are logged into an account and that account has extended confirmed rights (automatically granted when an account is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits).

This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.

The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well.

Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to you being blocked from editing.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 19:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 19:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Warning

@Kashmiri I have no wish to bother you on your talk page so I'm addressing you here. In regards to my earlier comment on your talk page, I intended that message as a warning to you to be more careful in the future. It is not an opinion that the dual-loyalty trope is anti-Semitic, it is an accepted fact. Your lack of admission to wrongdoing was already concerning. I would like to believe this was a one time mistake, and your continued denial on the matter is truly unfortunate. All the best.

JoeJShmo^💌 09:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Your patronising tone is out of place. I do not wish to engage with you. Please do not ping me. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Your response saddens me. It's worrying that an editor who won't show remorse for such a serious mistake is so active in the Israeli-Arab space. Simply avoiding problems may be tempting, but immature. I don't ask for engagement, I only hope you privately take my words to heart. Take care. JoeJShmo^💌 15:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Contentious topics alert for all pages related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 11:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Despite the alert about the Arab-Israeli conflict you have posted in an area where you are not allowed to post

Do not do this again. This covers all pages related to the area, discussions, personal talk pages, etc. Doug Weller talk 11:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Doug Weller: Someone already reverted the reply I assume you're referring to, which I posted a few days ago, so I already understood from that that replying on talk pages is also not allowed (which was unclear at first). This warning is unnecessary. As per your other warning above in regards to post 1992 politics, care to specify what you're referring to? I've edited an article on Trump's legal issues, but that page isn't protected. Also, I would've expected you to revert my edits there. JoeJShmo^💌 15:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@JoeJShmo I reverted the reply. American politics does not have the restrictions that the Arab-Israeli conflict area has. And please note that most pages in that area probably are not protected, so that technically you could edit them but that would be against the restrictions which would probably result in a block. Doug Weller talk 15:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller I hope the page I'm referring to is not restricted for me, as I've edited extensively there and no one's said a word, though I wouldn't mind if you clarified its status. Also, if you weren't referring to my edits there, why did you post a separate notice on my page in regards to American politics specifically? JoeJShmo^💌 15:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@JoeJShmo You were posting in the area, so I gave you a routine alert, nothing special. Different topic areas, different restrictions. Always good though to read the top of a talk page. Doug Weller talk 15:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. JoeJShmo^💌 16:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@JoeJShmo: And yet despite Doug's comments above and despite the warning banner, you again engaged in a discussion on a restricted page[1]. Are you asking for a community sanction? — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Kashmiri. As I'm sure you noticed if you looked at that page, I assumed that because I was the one who requested the edit in the first place (which is allowed), I was allowed to respond. If I was wrong, I would've appreciated if you would've assumed good faith and had let me known in a more respectful manner. JoeJShmo^💌 20:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Of course I assumed good faith, otherwise I'd have gone straight to WP:AE to report your breach of sanctions. For the avoidance of doubt, non extended confirmed accounts are allowed only to post edit requests on (talk) pages under sanctions, preferably using the {{EPER}} template, but not to engage in further discussion. Rest assured that more experienced editors will take up your initial suggestion if they believe it to be an improvement. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

"Are you asking for a community sanction" doesn't seem like a logical thing to say to someone who didn't realize he was breaking the rules, but I digress. I'm not sure what you mean by 'for the avoidance of doubt etc.'; is this something against the rules or not? Or perhaps it is unclear, in which case I'd ask @Doug Weller or someone with more information to clarify. Either way, thank you for bringing this to my attention. JoeJShmo^💌 22:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

"For the avoidance of doubt" just means I think to make sure you understand. WP:Edit request is what you need to follow. Doug Weller talk 07:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, @Kashmiri: WP:Edit request does not state anywhere explicitly whether further replies on a user's own edit request are banned. However, it strongly implies that the idea of replying on a user's own thread is indeed allowed: simply open a new thread... to discuss the edit you want and try to reach consensus. Kashmiri, I will assume you were unaware of this. However, in light of the above, I would advise to refrain from warning editors in the future against such actions, until you can confirm with the community that such actions are actually against the rules.

I currently have a thread open in WP:Village pump (policy) raising this question, currently with 0 replies. JoeJShmo^💌 07:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@JoeJShmo The ER advice is drafted with protected pages in mind, where editors are technically blocked from editing articles but are able to discuss at Talk at will. ARBCOM 30/500 sanctions, however, restrict non-EC users from engaging in discussion beyond posting edit requests, and the ER information page doesn't overrule that. I agree it may be confusing to new editors, though. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Thanks for the clarification. I'm still not sure how clear it is that the allowance for edit requests shouldn't logically further allow for responses within that edit requests, so I hope no-one will take issue if I continue to engage in non controversial discussions within my own edit requests on ECP pages, such as that Mossad one (a riveting and exciting edit suggestion on using the word 'the' :). JoeJShmo^💌 08:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

It's there, otherwise Talk pages would be flooded with newly registered accounts (so-called single-purpose accounts) inceasingly arguing their point of view. The sanction system came out of a real need. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe you're confusing the regular talk page restriction, which exists, and the specific example of a user responding on their own edit reques, which not only precludes the POV spamming concern, but is also not clarified in the policy. See the page I linked above; opinions have been divided so far. JoeJShmo^💌 13:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Not as divided as you think, there is an element of (EC) editorial discretion involved, in any case whatever is done in any particular case, you literally have no standing to argue about it. Selfstudier (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey Selfstudier, thank you for dropping by. The aggressive tone is not necessary, please be cordial. I agree with you that editor discretion is important; that's why I assumed no-one would take issue with a discussion on grammar in this instance. I suppose my presumptions that editors will apply good judgement could be proven wrong, but I sure hope not. :) JoeJShmo^💌 13:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Selfstudier was simply stating the situation as it is, not being aggressive. Maybe blunt, but it's better to be blunt than vague. In any case I think the last reply to your question at the Village Pump is sufficient, "If the decline is at all an indication that the change itself is opposed, further replies from the IP could not reasonably be an edit request, since edit requests are for uncontroversial changes." Doug Weller talk 14:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I suppose combining cordiality and clarity can be a challenge for some. Regarding that reply, I still would've assumed most/some editors would allow for simple responses to non-arguments that blatantly oppose policy, and again, I don't see a real consensus towards that view yet either way. Perhaps there will be more responses to come. JoeJShmo^💌 14:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@JoeJShmo I don't want to be rude, but has it occurred to you that sometimes you might come over as passive aggressive? Doug Weller talk 14:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

In all honesty Doug, I just try to do my best to keep a civil tone without letting others' breach of cordiality go unnoticed. I'd rather not encourage those kind of tones. My ideal discussion would be totally civil- I really do appreciate the fair manner of your remarks. JoeJShmo^💌 15:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but sometimes it's better just to shrug it off. Which can be hard at times but hopefully you won't experience the worst. Doug Weller talk 15:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I hear you. Thanks. JoeJShmo^💌 16:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is JoeJShmo. Thank you. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for casting aspersions after warnings against personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey @ScottishFinnishRadish I understand you made the move you believed was appropriate. I would like to let you know, however, that I posted the comment I believe you found issue with, before I'd seen any warnings on casting aspersions. In light of that, and with the assurance that I will refrain from such actions in the future, I kindly request an unblock. As an aside, may I ask why a certain user's accusations that 'I only warned them for a certain behavior because they reverted an edit I made' does not fall under the same rule? JoeJShmo^💌 12:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPA covers casting aspersions, and your frequent aspersions about their motive in reporting you more than covers their statement about your own motives. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: I understand. I didn't realize casting aspersions was regarded as a personal attack, so that's on me. Of course, I apologize and would appreciated an unban. I assure you I will cast no further aspersions. Also, can you elaborate on your statement "more than covers"? I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Note: upon further review, your warning of NPA was precisely what I was referring to. I hadn't seen that comment before I repeated the accusation in question (it was just 2 minutes earlier). JoeJShmo^💌 12:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

If you keep saying things like I was only giving context to the situation to users that may have been confused by your motive in raising a complaint, considering the spectacularly uncontroversial nature of the discussion in question. I'd love to assume good faith and think that you are a regular in raising complaints in Arb over questionable, minor, and harmless possible violations of policy, but your history shows otherwise. then someone saying that your behavior was likely influenced by your interactions with them isn't really an aspersion, is it? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: It definitely shows that I thought this complaint was revenge for a previous warning I had given them. However, I am unclear as to how that indicates any ulterior motives regarding the previous warning itself.

Note: regarding the 'history' statement, I'm not sure why anyone would've assumed something other than I had checked their history after they filed the complaint to see if they regularly do this, which is exactly what I did. JoeJShmo^💌 12:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: In light of WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS, I am formally requesting a ban (or whatever you deem appropriate) of user Kashmiri. See diff [2]. If you don't want to be bothered, I don't mind asking another admin, I just thought I'd ask you first since you were involved. Just let me know. Thank you. JoeJShmo^💌 13:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Not a personal attack. Comments were focused on your conduct and what is displayed in the edits you made. —C.Fred (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@C.Fred I'm having difficulty differentiating between this user's comment and my own; I raised a parallel issue with the user in question and was made aware that was against policy. JoeJShmo^💌 21:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

So it looks like this is the text in question from the diff you mentioned: I'm not sure that it helps you to mention here your uninivited comments on a several month old discussion on my Talk that you were no part of, and you waded in solely to accuse me of anti-Semitism (as you also did below), unconnected with ongoing editing and most likely as a revenge to my first revert of your CT violation. Are you certain this presents your ability to collaborate and follow Wikipedia standards in a good light?^{[emphasis added]} There are three parts of that, which I italicized, that I'm identifying that you might have taken issue with:

1. you waded in… It looks like this is a good-faith allegation that one of your comments contained an accusation of anti-Semitism. As I follow the thread, you acknowledged and apologized for that.
2. most likely… This is the closest there is to paralleling your conduct in that they tried to read a motive into your conduct. However, I don't see this as anywhere near the same category of conduct.
3. Are you certain… This is purely focused on your conduct and is asking you to take a look at the edits and think how others will perceive them—and perceive your ability to edit in compliance with guidelines and in a collegial manner.

Blocks (and, for that matter, bans) are not punitive: they are preventative. I do not see where Kashmiri poses any (measurable) risk of future disruption to the project, so there is no need for administrative action toward that user. —C.Fred (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to #2, which I thought of as directly parallel to what I had said. (i.e. Reading a motive into conduct). JoeJShmo^💌 00:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Ban

@The Wordsmith: @Red-tailed hawk: In light of WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS, I am requesting a ban of user Kashmiri. See diff below. [3]

Full disclosure: I'm relatively new and unaware of the exact extent of every policy. However, I was recently banned in the same discussion for such behavior, and this user was not. The admin involved chose not to respond to discussion about the reasoning, so I'm going to you. Sorry for the bother! I would understand if this behavior in context simply didn't merit a ban, but in that case I'd also kindly request an unban. Thanks! JoeJShmo^💌 21:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

When your block expires, you're welcome to file your own report and it will be considered on its merits. Be as specific as possible with your evidence and try to remain focused on policy rather than a general sense of fairness. But realistically, I don't see anything that looks immediately sanctionable. Keep in mind that historically, newer editors who file cases against others in WP:CTOP areas (especially when their own policy knowledge is limited, as you acknowledge) don't often get the outcome they're looking for. My advice would be to not file a formal request unless you're sure it is ironclad, edit some more in non-WP:ARBECR areas for a while to get extendedconfirmed, and generally try to get along with people on the other "side" of an issue.

I've seen from your other contributions that you generally stay civil and make reasonable arguments; you could be a great asset to Wikipedia. I also appreciate that your request here was made politely and seemingly in good faith; I've seen a lot worse from newer editors getting blocked for the first time. Our policies and guidelines are a Byzantine mixture of explicit, implied, and historical norms that are sometimes on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard". They can be tricky even for experienced editors. If you have any questions about them, you can always reach out to me on my talk page and I'm happy to help explain the less obvious parts. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll take your advice thanks for the help! It's too bad it seems that for some it comes down to knowing policy well enough to stay clear of it in effect but not in spirit, but I understand there's not much to be done about that. JoeJShmo^💌 17:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Might I ask why you've chosen to ping the two of us here, and not, say, ScottishFinnishRadish? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I was talking to him about it but he stopped responding so I assumed he's busy. It's all good now though wordsmith cleared it up. I chose you because you are some great admins from what I've seen! Thanks JoeJShmo^💌 01:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Lists of executive actions

Your edits are causing harv/sfn no-target errors. You need to copy over any sources called by references in the text you are excerpting from other articles. You can see what I did to fix the errors on one article here. DuncanHill (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Stopped for now. thanks for letting me know I'll try to figure it out and fix the problem later JoeJShmo^💌 19:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

So I ended up simply turning the sources into references. I also noticed that there was a note that needed to be copied, so I made a separate transclusion of the summary notes and added it to all the articles (so if someone wants to add another note there won't be an issue). JoeJShmo^💌 04:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

ARBECR breach

This is a breach of WP:ARBECR. Last time for mentioning this, you are confined to making edit requests only in the topic area, nothing else. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

If you violate ECR again you will be blocked from editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

See User talk:Nableezy#Reverting my edit JoeJShmo^💌 13:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

Until you obtain extended confirmed rights, which ordinarily occurs when you have made 500 edits and have had an account for 30 days, you are hereby topic banned from making any edits that relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict (broadly construed) anywhere on Wikipedia. This includes requests on talk pages, discussions in the "Wikipedia" namespace, and contributions to anything anywhere else on Wikipedia that reasonably may relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

You have been sanctioned pursuant to a discussion at AE. Please note that any future violations will lead to escalating blocks; please find something else to productively edit about in the meantime.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM

Please read, thank you. starship.paint (RUN) 09:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Uh huh, claiming to fix POV and then introducing it, from my perspective, recent editing seems WP:CPUSH at a minimum, good idea if that were dialled back. Selfstudier (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever introduced POV, I believe I only removed POV. Please don't throw around accusations without evidence. JoeJShmo^💌 10:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Look at where you change stated to claimed. Selfstudier (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Why are we giving more weight here to the doctor than to the Israelis, where we use the word claim/claims? I do realize I may be missing something, and I'll be slower to make such edits in the future, but what's the reasoning here?* JoeJShmo^💌 10:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

starship.paint didn't point to the use one way or another, generally it's a bad idea to use claim, claims, claimed and its especially a bad idea to change stated to claimed in the way you did here while "claiming" to fix POV. You could have changed "Israel's claims" to Israel's statements. "what it called Israel's "false claims"" is OK because that's in quotes and attributed. Etcetera. Selfstudier (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah. Didn't realize I should've went the other way around. Thanks for letting me know. JoeJShmo^💌 10:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

No you should have not. You should not have touched that article, or the entire topic area for that matter.

Also, you need to stop challenging others. If an experienced editor approaches you about a mistake you made – and there have been several cases of that in your short editing history – it's quite immature to always challenge them: No I did it right, no policy is wrong, no it's other editors.

Wikipedia is a huge collaborative project to build a global encyclopaedia. You're welcome to join the effort. But for this, you first need to learn and respect its rules, and also respect other editors and their experience. Your constant challenges consume a lot of community time that could have been spent elsewhere more productively. I advise you to rethink your attitude. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)