Jump to content

User talk:Sir Joseph/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Rabbis

In regards to diff, while I agree finding 30 people with rabbinical ordination in some grocery stores is quite easy, I contest that finding said rabbis buying gefilte fish in said store is easy. Canned/jarred gefilte fish is horrid - I never buy that stuff (nor chrain, which is never sharp store bought, though grinding chrain by one's self is not for the weak kneed).Icewhiz (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

True, although, I might have been referring to rolled fish, which might be acceptable. Although a real heimish rebbe would make gefilte fish from scratch and not even buy the rolled fish. I'll let you in on a secret recipe though, my mother in a pinch, would use the jar stuff and re-heat with sugar and onion and it would come out and tasting good, not as good as the homemade stuff of course, just not as terrible as straight out of the jar stuff. Speaking of grinding chrain, I actually used to grow my own in my backyard, and that stuff when fresh is strong, not for the weak of heart. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I am in the not sweet gefilte fish camp - no sugar.Icewhiz (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

"Cullen"?

Re your edit at ANI. Paul August ☎ 20:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

thanks, meant Oshwah. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! That brings back the memories. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Legobot (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Sir Joseph,

News
Discussions of interest
  • Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
  • {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
  • A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
  • There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
Reminders
  • NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
  • Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
  • copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
  • The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

My Cellphone Company's IP is globally blocked

Hi, apparently my Cellphone company's IP has been globally blocked by Schniggendiller and in the edit message I am told to go to metawiki and go to Schniggendiller's page, but his page is protected so I can't request an IP block exemption. So, can I request an IP Block exemption here? Otherwise I can only edit while on wifi. Thanks. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Schniggendiller: pinging Schniggendiller just in case this works globally. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello Sir Joseph. Sorry for the delay, wasn't online for a while. Is your block still effective? Then, perhaps it's possible to adjust the IP rangeblock. But I need to know your IP adress or range. You can send me an email if you don't want to disclose this information here. Sorry for the trouble caused :-/ Regards --Schniggendiller talk 14:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think the block is active, I was able to login in today. Thanks. It was the block you put in yesterday, the only thing I noticed was that it was an IPV6 address range. If it happens again, I'll email you. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Alright. Happy editing then :-) Regards --Schniggendiller talk 15:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Michel Bacos

On 28 March 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Michel Bacos, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

197.250.230.117 (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Companion (Doctor Who)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Companion (Doctor Who). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Kosher wine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I don't know which one of you is right, but you both need to stop reverting and take it to the article's talk page. shoy (reactions) 18:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, although the other editors have been blocked as socks, which brings 3RRNO into play. GoldenRing (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of 2017 albums

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of 2017 albums. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Sir Joseph. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Bishonen | talk 20:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, responded. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Voodoo Doughnut

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Voodoo Doughnut. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposed amendment (April 2019)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Proposed amendment (April 2019). Legobot (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

AN

I’ve closed the block review you requested: we do not ordinarily do third party block reviews when an editor has talk page access and knows how to appeal their own block. If they want to appeal it again, they are free to use the normal means. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with your close. They are basically a new editor, someone who hasn't edited in a long time and were chased away. I am bringing the block to the AN for a review/endorsement. As you said, we don't normally do it, but I think this was a case of admin overreach and should be addressed. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
They already have appealed the block themselves, another administrator reviewed it, and declined to unblock. They clearly know how the process works. I don’t have any opinion on the block itself, but except in the most unusual circumstances, we don’t consider third-party appeals, and you not liking PhilKnight’s decline isn’t really justification for skipping what would ordinarily be five more appeals by the blocked user (2 on-wiki and 3 in UTRS.) You were basically jumping to the very end of the line without any of the normal process playing out, which I think is bad for the project, even if done in good faith.
The other reason is that there’s an open ANI thread about this, and I think splitting it isn’t a great idea. Since the block came from ANI, however, it’s likely appropriate to discuss it there since the issue hasn’t been closed at ANI. I factored this into my closing, but I’ll update the comment at AN to direct people to the ANI thread if they have an opinion. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
My issue is that it was a bad block to begin with. So what is he supposed to appeal? It's a terrible thing that in order to be unblocked you need to grovel and admit wrongdoing even when you didn't do anything wrong, and in this case, it's clear, at least to me, that he did nothing wrong. Whatever, it's just another day in Wikiland. (and the ANI thread is not about him, it's about the page and it was made clear that there was not going to be an unblock. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Agree with you Sir Joseph. The blocking admin hasn't really ever edited at ANI before, and has been nearly absent from the site for the last 6 years. The reviewing admin writes that KeithCu can't assure he will follow policy, but doesn't actually point to where any specific policies were NOT followed. How should inexperienced editors know Wikipedia's policy on Breitbart? Now Keith's in the classic trap where he has to bow down, grovel, and kiss feet for something that he probably didn't understand anyways. Pretty poor showing by our admins. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I've been in the same boat, by ex-admin Coffee, who blocked me and incidentally turned down an unblock request, which is against policy, but I also had to grovel and basically lie, and then get unblocked, just to placate these people. It's a shame because what I end up doing is just unwatching tons of pages because I don't want to deal with the hassle. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Here's a funny read. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
My archives is like that as well. Good times! I was also listed as a persona non grata on his take page and was one of the secret users he listed on his secret list that you could only view if you knew how to edit source a certain way. He had that for a short while until he was told to take it down or be blocked, IIRC. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on WP:DR

There is a discussion here on WP:DR to which you have been named as an involved person. Please check it out.Davidbena (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Simplified ruleset

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Simplified ruleset. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:User access levels

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User access levels. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of suicide crisis lines

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of suicide crisis lines. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

1rr and BLP

You broke the 1RR and BLP at Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. Kindly self-revert. nableezy - 21:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I've hatted the discussion again. Going around calling people terrorists and citing egregious nonsense from the Canary Mission seems like a great way to get yourself topic banned, and the originator of that thread was blocked for more or less exactly the same claim. Just drop it, please. Nblund talk 21:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
On top of that, you appear to have claimed that I have funded terrorism against Israel. I'm Jewish by heritage. I removed the edit because it was an obvious sock with nothing but trolling posts. Please be more careful. O3000 (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I didn't mean you, obviously, sorry for the confusion. And everything from Canary Mission is of course sourced, and the Forward and Algemeiner and the MFA is sourced as well. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean with a comment like this? How would Americans react if foreign soldiers invaded the US? Would you wish them welcome? Somehow, I don't think so, Huldra (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. If only the Palestinians truly wanted peace, they could have had it many years ago. Sadly they don't. They'd rather continue killing people. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
No thanks for repeating a favourite Zionist "talking point", but you didn't answer my question, Huldra (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Canary Mission's primary MO is doxxing BDS supporters, it's basically entirely composed of external harassment. Maybe ask at the RS noticeboard if you don't want to take my word for it, but I wouldn't touch that site with a 10 foot pole for anything BLP related. Algemeiner and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs maybe have a bit more credibility, but they've still got some obvious editorial biases, and the term terrorist should be generally avoided unless we have really rock-solid sourcing from a bunch of outlets.
Sincere advise: you should probably cut out the inflammatory rhetoric and just focus on article content if you want to be productive in this area. It's going to make it hard for other editors to view you as fair minded as long as you're dishing out hot takes. Nblund talk 22:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

AE

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Sir Joseph. – bradv🍁 01:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party

Are you purposefully testing the limits of your topic ban? That article is ARBPIA extended confirmed. El_C 03:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I've added the edit notice, just so there's zero confusion. El_C 03:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I did not see that, so sorry, I've been editing that article for a while it's been on my watchlist so I was just undoing an edit that is clearly labeled "blog" and now I'm being told "not a blog". Sir Joseph (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
It's just that Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Labour_Party#Labour_views_on_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict_and_antisemitism is so key to the article, so you can see why I raised the issue, I hope. El_C 04:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

Per this discussion you are banned from all pages and edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, for three months. This is subject to the usual exceptions but I would advise you against using them. This sanction may be appealed to administrators at WP:AE, to the editing community at WP:AN or to the arbitration committee at WP:ARCA or by email. GoldenRing (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing:I'm not trying to Wikilawyer, I'm trying to not get banned, so I wish to clarify. I never said awareness, I said warning. As per, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Standard_discretionary_sanctions , "Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning." I did not receive an initial warning. Further, are you now saying my talk page is under the IP conflict area broadly construed? I think that is a far stretch to say that a user's talk page is under a topic area. Sir Joseph (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
And just for the record since Nableezy said Huldra only said armed civilians, which wouldn't make a difference, she did not say that, she said civilians. Sir Joseph (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
The topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, is under standard discretionary sanctions. You have not only been warned in the past but repeatedly sanctioned. I have blocked Huldra and started a site ban discussion; I hope you realise that to comment further on on the block or ban proposal it would itself be a violation of this ban. GoldenRing (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
This is not a violation of the ban to seek clarification and to explain and you also don't understand. Also, it is covered under BANEX. And as usual, ARBCOM rulings are confusing. DS applies to pages broadly construed, not edits. @BU Rob13: has said that my talk page falls under "broadly construed" and that's why he felt he wanted to go down the route of issuing a DS sanction. You can only issue a DS sanction on a page for an edit where the page itself is broadly construed to be under any form of ARBCOM sanction area. I'm asking you if my talk page is under some sort of sanction area. If so, how am I supposed to operate for the next three months? Sir Joseph (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I didn't mean this is a violation of the ban, but that commenting on Huldra would be; I have clarified this above. On the scope of DS, you are simply wrong. The meaning of "broadly construed" is defined at WP:TBAN; the example given is that "Weather" includes discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia, for instance a deletion discussion concerning an article about a meteorologist, but also including edit summaries and the user's own user and talk pages (including sandboxes). In the same way, "the Arab-Israeli conflict" includes discussions on your talk page related to the conflict. This definition is explicitly referred to in the definition of discretionary sanctions. GoldenRing (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, but I asked from the beginning, how can you apply DS to my talk page. I'm not talking about TBAN which applies all over Wikipedia, but DS only applies to pages broadly construed, yet my edit which you are applying the three month TBAN for was on my talk page. That is what I want to know, how can you say my talk page is under a DS sanction area broadly construed. From: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Standard_discretionary_sanctions "All Arab-Israeli conflict-related pages, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions." If my talk page is now under sanction, what now? Sir Joseph (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

You are not listening. I have already linked the relevant text above, but I will quote it as well. From WP:AC/DS#broadly.construed: When considering whether edits fall within the scope of discretionary sanctions, administrators should be guided by the principles outlined in the topic ban policy. The definition of DS explicitly states that the TBAN policy controls what is and isn't "broadly construed" to fall into a topic area. GoldenRing (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

DS applies only because of an ARBCOM ruling. That ruling is here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Standard_discretionary_sanctions That ruling only mention pages, not edits. Without the ruling that DS applies, the AC/DS would be irrelevant. So my concerns still stand. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I stated that, to the extent your talk page includes edits explicitly about the topic area, that falls within the topic area. That does not mean unrelated content on the page could result in DS, but it is common sense that one can't flee to user talk to start stirring up issues in a DS-covered topic area. ~ Rob13Talk 14:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for replying and I'm not trying to wikilawyer, but that is not what DS says. It says that pages that are broadly construed as part of the subject area are subject to sanctions. "All Arab-Israeli conflict-related pages, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions", I think this should get some ARBCOM clarification because like many other ARBCOM rulings it is contradictory, DS also says you need an initial warning, which I did not get, an alert is for something else. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
That ruling says pages "broadly construed". "Broadly construed" at WP:AC/DS points to the topic ban policy. The topic ban policy makes very clear that any page with content regarding the topic area is considered "broadly construed". At least for the duration of the time there was content about ARBPIA on this page, the discretionary sanctions applied. ~ Rob13Talk 15:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Again, that's contradicted by the actual ruling of ARBCOM, that authorized the DS, that said "All Arab-Israeli conflict-related pages, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions" that is the justification from ARBCOM to apply DS and TBAN in the ARBPIA area. It then says you can apply guidelines if you wish to apply AC/DS TBAN policy to see what is broadly construed, however you can't overstep the ARBCOM ruling that only AI conflict related pages are part of DS and my talk page is not. To say it is is broad overreach. Whatever, it's clear that ARBCOM rules are not clear and nobody cares and it's dependent on who is the person interpreting and who is the person being interpreted against. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
The ruling outright links to WP:AC/DS, which sets the interpretation of what "pages broadly interpreted" means to be incredibly broad. You're welcome to take your own interpretation of this to WP:ARCA. I imagine the rest of the Committee will be about as impressed as I was with both the original comment and the subsequent wikilawyering. ~ Rob13Talk 16:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Sir Joseph. I just saw this. Without commenting to the substantive merits of this sanction, I'd like to point out that WP:AC/DS#auth.conflict explicitly states: "Where there is a conflict between any individual provision authorising standard discretionary sanctions for an area of conflict and any provision in the standard discretionary sanctions procedure, the provision in the standard procedure will control." Therefore, any provision of the remedy that directly authorizes standard discretionary sanctions has no effect if it conflicts with the standard procedure (which does not require a "warning" and indeed has a very technical definition of "awareness", and also specifically defines the area of conflict by reference to TBAN's "broadly construed" language). It seems, therefore, that regardless of the interpretation of the "initial warning" provision or any other provision of the remedy that you find supports your argument, the standard procedure controls. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the basis of this ban, and if you want my honest opinion on if and how you should appeal it Id gladly give it. And to that point, the argument you are making will not work, and may well result in a harsher sanction for wikilawyering. Sort of like the last one. nableezy - 05:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Nableezy that should you appeal, you should not appeal on the technicality of DS applying (or not) to user talk pages - such an appeal will go no where good. Should you appeal, you should focus on the AN discussion on Huldra, clarify what you meant by "Palestinian" in diff, and show that this is a common opinion. AN and AE were clearly at odds here. Icewhiz (talk) 05:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
That mostly will not work. nableezy - 05:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I would recommend not to mention Huldra at all, because a reviewing admin will simply say WP:NOTTHEM. I would also recommend not trying to argue that your comment was correct or justified, because there are many editors with an opposing POV who will chime in and you will not persuade them. I think the only way an appeal would be successful is to acknowledge that the comment was not ideal, chalk it up to the heat of the moment (and it was a somewhat heated conversation), and pledge to be more careful in the future. Even though the sanctions in the circumstance were really unfair, and could be incorrect due to technicalities, no reviewing admin would care or be sympathetic. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I am thinking about how best to proceed on this. I realise it's not an answer, but I wanted you to know I'm not unaware of the problems and am not ignoring this. GoldenRing (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

GoldenRing, I'll be here waiting. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't get my head around the technical details of this, and I think Sir Joseph could have responded to the charges in a way that would have led me to argue against the ban (had I known of the discussion). However, looking at it now I see Sir Joseph responding with things like "as Golda Meir famously said, 'Peace will come to the Middle East when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us.'". Everyone should ask themselves how long an editor would last if they wrote the same thing with "Arabs" replaced by "Jews". This is utterly unacceptable; hence, no sympathy from me. Zerotalk 12:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Not quoting the part she prefaced it with in a later press conference,'’We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. (We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.’) Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
The difference is that I never said anything, I quoted someone who said something. Also please note what Nishidani added, says a lot of the mindset of the difference. I also note that all of you are free to comment yet I know that I can't comment even on my own talk page so please stop commenting about this. I don't need some admin coming by and blocking me. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
You didn't write "Golda Meir said X", you wrote "as Golda Meir said, X". Anyone reading the whole diff can easily see that you are quoting Meir with approval. It is also congruous with your other unacceptable statements like this slur on a whole culture. Zerotalk 04:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Who really cares though? Why does it matter if he believes this? I certainly dont care. Yes, he should be warned for soapboxing. So too should Huldra frankly. And the end. We do not need the thought police here. Just shut up about how you feel and just talk about the articles. I can guess what Sir Joseph thinks of settlers. He may well be able to guess what I think of them. Oh no, two people on the internet think opposite things. Who cares. All that matters here is that discussion, and a whole bunch of others, have devolved into these completely pointless discussion of personal views. Huldra has no reason to ask whether or not Sir Joseph thinks settlers should be considered legitimate targets. Sir Joseph has no reason to say that the Palestinians love killing more than they love their children. None of those things belong on a Wikipedia talk page. Sir Joseph's problem is that in too many discussions he brings up these personal beliefs. And that should stop. And, even though you did not ask, that is how you should appeal. Acknowledge that you have violated WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAPBOXING and promise to try not to violate those in the future. And yes, actually do so. And I say all this as somebody who thinks you, SJ, should have been blocked for the BLP violation edit-warring. It didnt even matter if you disagree with it being a BLP violation, a good faith BLP objection was made, that is the end of it until there is a consensus that it is not a BLP violation. The very first time you reverted me you should have been blocked. But this ban is based on some misguided notion of enforcing a litmus test on personal beliefs to edit in the topic area. And that, to me at least, is incredibly unwise. nableezy - 09:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Given the large-scale mess I made last week, I have rescinded your topic ban and re-opened the AE discussion for another admin to deal with as they think just. GoldenRing (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • thank you. Although, once an AE is closed, can you reopen an AE? Sir Joseph (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    Procedurally there seems to be a lot of grey area, and in general the whole handling of this stinks. Removing your sanction was an AE action, which El C has seemingly overturned, against policy. There have been past arb com cases that held that closing with no action is a valid AE action, if I remember. Additionally, they didn’t even bother to notify you or log it, so who knows if it’s even in effect. I find it peculiar how many admins jumped in to advise sanctions for you, but are silent in the exact mirror case currently at AE. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I have no idea what you're talking about so I can only go by what GoldenRing told me. As to everything else, yes, I agree with you. This place stinks. I can say 2+2=4, and there will be an AE action against me. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
what he's talking about. @El C: you probably need to inform Sir Joseph of your action. nableezy - 18:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
My oh my, of course that's not allowed. 1) you can't re-open an AE action that is already closed. That is ludicrous, can you imagine the craziness if we allow admins and editors to relitigate days/weeks/months, plus that can as we see here with El_C extending my TBAN, a TBAN can effectively never expire, if an AE action can be reopened whenever an admin wants, and a TBAN can be extended. This doesn't make sense and doesn't seem fair. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I actually can't recall this happening before. Obviously an editor can't unilaterally re-open an AE because they don't like the result; but in this case it was the closing admin who vacated his sanctions [1], and also said "I'm rescinding my topic ban and leaving this for another admin to deal with". It appears that El_C has agreed with GoldenRing's original close [2]. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Do you think an admin can do that? IF you say an editor can't do that why can an admin do it? Once an AE action is closed, it's closed. To me this is anarchy. We can't have admins going back to AE actions and deciding to reopen past actions, and on top of that extending TBANS, and I might point out, as of now, the TBAN is rescinded as per GoldenRing, but the fact is that I think this whole thing is out of process, and yes people say I like to wikilawyer or game, but we're talking about ARBCOM and AE and there is a process for a reason. You can't just go around opening and closing and reopening and extending and reclosing. Talk about wikilawyering. And yes, I do agree and I want to reiterate my agreeing with Mr. Ernie. I do think there is a shocking bias. From the AE to the AN thread to the current AE. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
All GoldenRing did was undo their close. The AE request was then open, and El_C closed it. Nothing there violates any of the AE rules on overturning sanctions. nableezy - 19:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Right, and once an AE action is closed, it's closed. We can't have these things being able to open and close and reopen and close. This is not some anarchist courtroom. This AE action was decided on and you need to live with that. GoldenRing then rescinded his Tban because it was not a good Tban. You can't reopen a 4 day old closed case. What about a week old case? A month? A year? Should we go back and extend a month tban? Sir Joseph (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Youre not paying attention, after GoldenRing undid their close the AE was not closed. It was open. GoldenRing did not close the AE as no sanction, they simply left it open. nableezy - 19:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I am paying attention, I am saying you can't undo a close four days after you close an AE. That is not proper nor fair. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
If he hadn't undone his close you'd still be topic-banned anyway, so effectively nothing has changed. That's not to say I agree with it. Black Kite (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
No, he posted on my page that he rescinded the topic ban, so the topic ban is rescinded. That is in keeping with procedures. He then went an reopened the AE action to have another admin take admin action which is not allowed and then El_C apparently re-issued the TBan from today supposedly, which doesn't make sense. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but he couldn't rescind the topic ban without re-opening the case, because otherwise he'd be closing the AE with consensus for no action, which there wasn't. That's the point. Black Kite (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
No, admins rescind TBANs all the time. That is one of the ways of a TBAN going away. He posted on this page that he is thinking of this AE kerfuffle and he rescinded the TBAN. The fact is that he closed the AE with a TBAN and then he rescinded the TBAN, he then out of policy reopened the AE which is a separate issue which is out of policy. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Once an AE action is carried out, there’s a specific set of procedures for undoing it. That wasn’t followed here. Only the enforcing admin can unilaterally undo their own AE action without any sort of consensus. Goldenring places the original ban with consensus, then unilaterally vacated it. Those are both ok. El_C is not allowed to overturn the removal of the ban without a new consensus. The new sanction is clearly in violation of the defined procedures for AE. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

SJ, I already told you I disagree with the sanction. But you are playing a game here and it wont work. If you want to appeal then do that. Id support it. But the game you are playing, and that Mr Ernie is egging you on in, is silly. GoldenRing did not just say that he rescinded the ban. What GoldenRing said was they rescinded the ban and re-opened the AE discussion for another admin to deal with as they think just. You can keep ignoring that last bit if you want, but that makes moot Mr Ernie's claim about AE actions cannot be overturned. Nothing was overturned by any admin. GoldenRing undid their close, they did not close it as no sanction. The AE thread was open and could be closed by any admin. El_C then closed it. Nothing in that sequence has anything to do with the specific set of procedures for undoing it. I told you that the ban is bs, and that you should appeal, but if you trying to argue that the technicalities dont allow such and such you are going to fail. It is not only pointless, it damages your position. I seriously dont get how that point was not been driven home after you had a sanction enhanced for lawyering over it. Argue based on the merits, not on the legalities. Because a. youre wrong on the legalities, and b. that argument, even if it were right, is doomed to fail pretty much anywhere on WP. nableezy - 20:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that appeals based on technicalities, regardless of their merit, are usually poorly received. I’m just trying to point out the bureaucratic nonsense that’s occurring here. FWIW I gave my advice for an appeal above, which I believe still stands, irrespective of whatever happens procedurally. It's still poor form that El_C hasn't bothered to notify you of your new sanction nor log it. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, El_C should notify SJ of the sanction and should log it. But your comments here have largely been wrong as a matter of fact. GoldenRing reversing their close is not an "AE action" and the line El_C is not allowed to overturn the removal of the ban without a new consensus is just wrong. Flat out wrong. nableezy - 20:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry we disagree about that. And for someone who claims to be against the sanction you sure were vocal at AE, posting more than anyone else in the thread. I missed where you said you didn’t think a sanction was necessary. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Well thats just all sorts of special. nableezy - 20:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I think I've said it a million times ARBCOM is a messed up place. What is needed is a working group of people to totally redo the entire AE sanction area from the top down. Right now it's a total mess and full of contradictory rules and just bad, bad environment where defending yourself against rigid guidelines is called wikilawyering by some. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Making an argument based on what you think are cracks in the rules is called wikilawyering by everyone. Ive tried to help you here, you dont have to listen to my advice though. nableezy - 20:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for forgetting to inform you that I re-closed the AE accordingly. That's my bad. El_C 00:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, GoldenRing said "pending another admin closing" — I closed it. There's nothing about needing a new admin consensus. Naturally, I interpreted the existing one. El_C 00:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@El C:And I feel like I'm pulling teeth here but since apparently people claim I'm wikilawyering, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO NOTIFY ME OF MY TBAN WHICH YOU DIDN'T AND YOU STILL DIDN'T. More importantly, why is the NEW TBan from today? How is that fair? Sir Joseph (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Why are you shouting? You are informed. And a few days don't really make a difference when we're talking about three months, but you can count it from May 10 if it is really that important to you. Note that some admins favoured "a topic ban with a possibility of appeal after 3 months" — which I could have closed with, but chose not to. El_C 00:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm shouting because I'm pissed off. That's why. Firstly, a few days does matter, you know as well as I do that someone will do a gotcha. Secondly, no, you didn't notify me. Telling me that you closed the AE is not saying that I'm TBANNED for three months. If you play in the AE area there are strict guidelines that have to be followed. For me that's not called wikilawyering, it's called following the rules. And I am upset because I see how my AE had all the admins lining up as you say to ban me, but suddenly for Huldra, who said similar stuff, suddenly they're mostly all absent, and when GoldenRing blocked her, everyone attacked GR and forced him to unblock her and made him apologize to her. Talk about bias and double standard. Again, my comment was a direct response to Huldra's comment. That I'm TBANNED but not her is preposterous and shows a terrible bias on Wikipedia's part. And I would appreciate you fixing the date on the AE and the logging. Thanks. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Enough. The matter is closed. Feel free to appeal it in any venue you see fit. But I think you are being petty. In regards, to Huldra, admin consensus has yet to form about what sanction, if any, is to be applied. So there's no point about me commenting on it at this stage. El_C 00:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Good, I look forward to seeing your unbiased opinion on the matter in that AE action. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
To eliminate any doubt as to whether "notice" was given: El_C has closed the recent AE thread, enacting a three-month topic ban. This is your notice. This topic ban is in effect. I would further like to warn you about your comment immediately above. As you are topic banned from this area, you are not permitted to comment about actions toward other editors involved in the topic area related to their edits there. Your comments above about Huldra violate your topic ban. You are welcome to comment on your own sanction to appeal it, but please be sure you restrict your comments to your sanction, not the sanctions of others. ~ Rob13Talk 02:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, but we'll see how it goes and then we'll take it from there. I know how you say you have to restrict comments to only your own sanction, but when there are two identical sanctions but not two identical repercussions, then I do think it's fair in a discussion to discuss both AE actions and possible reasons why. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
You are certainly welcome to think what you wish. You are not welcome to comment on Huldra's sanction, however, whether or not you agree with that fact. Focus on yours, please. ~ Rob13Talk 12:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I've always thought that extending TBANs to one's own talk page, at least a matter of course, is stupid. Zerotalk 10:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello Sir Joseph,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

  • Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
  • Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News
Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Murder of Anastasiya Meshcheryakova

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Murder of Anastasiya Meshcheryakova. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

TBAN for me

Hi. I saw that you mentioned a TBAN for me and I really do not know what I said to receive a ban? First of all, I have never spoken anything antisemitic and I think that calling every argument antisemitic and every source that the other part doesn't like "far-right" and "non-reliable" is not fair. Don't you think that we should try to find some way to figure the problems out? I've been on Wikipedia for over 10 years and I've never been banned before (as far as I can remember but it's easy to check) and I do not think I expressed anything that should be seen as antisemitic. I hope that you will accept further discussion. Tashi Talk to me 15:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Orthodox Judaism

My apologies for disturbing you. I'm somewhat frustrated with the relative deadlock (though I do have a majority, and a third editor already removed some of the controversial edit). Could you please return to the talkpage, and do you perhaps know anyone who'll be interested in participating? AddMore-III (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

VM AE

Please do not edit closed requests. At any rate, I suspect you'll get your chance to have your say when the case appears before the Committee. El_C 18:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't, you closed it the same time I was editing. And I am sure I will get my say, but I am disappointed in the decision, as several admins pointed out VM's actions were actionable, but you decided to pass the buck. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
That's unfair. I was the only one engaging this particularly complex request. But I already said it may be more suited to Arbitration. Once three other admins refused to engage it at all, referring it instead to the Committee, I went along with their consensus (I was already 50-50 on it, anyways). That is not passing the buck. El_C 18:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I know, I'm talking about the other admins, but even Sandstein said that his actions were actionable. What isn't fair is that VM is probably the number one visitor at AE in all topics, both as instigator and defendant. You can look at the silly case he brought against me for a BLP violation for saying a politician lied. And yes, to me, he does seem to get away with things that others don't. And while it may not seem like passing the buck, it's now on to ARBCOM where it's yet another forum to discuss these things and make it into an even more formal matter, where it's not just discussing DIFFS but now discussing everything. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I hate to be a busybody, but how is accepting an AE-defendant's request for ArbCom, where he clearly hopes his actions will get lost in the deep bureacracy, not "passing the buck"? He's been blocked seven times for similar actions that Icewhiz laid out. VM’s been the subject of an average two AE requests per year he's been editing Wikipedia, almost never resulting in action or an action and immediate overturn. It's a clear indef block situation. He should have been indeffed before VM even had a chance to make a statement. Batvette got an indef TBAN within hours of a report filed against him, and he had nothing in his background. VM had seven blocks in his background, and not only wasn't indeffed, but he asked for and received an ArbCom case. Why? 2600:1012:B02D:FA7B:C0DB:1443:6B08:E5E (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Hey there User:Hidden Tempo. How's that wacky reddit group treating you? They banned you from there yet or no?Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I already cautioned the filer that the length of their request may work to their detriment. I'm not surprised that that ended up being the case. And while they did initially shortened it per my suggestion, soon thereafter it began to grow again. I think it just exceeded the limitation of the AE format. El_C 18:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
That may be true, the problem is that if he had only done one or two, the response would be "I'm not seeing a pattern, let's give a warning and see what happens." So I can see why he wanted to lay out all the diffs. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
That may well be true — it's counter-factual, so I don't know. Indeed, AE may suffer from inherent limitation when it comes to established editors. El_C 18:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Since he likes to complain about frivilous AE actions, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive224#Sir_Joseph, that's one for the books. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Criticism of Huawei

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Criticism of Huawei. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration Amendment Request archived

This is a courtesy notice that "Reopening Closed AE Actions" at ARCA has been archived. You may view the final discussion here. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Black Hebrew Israelites

My intent with that rewording on the African-American Jews article was to get rid of the problematic sentence "but are not recognized as such by other Jews". 'Other Jews' suggests that Jews and Black Hebrew Israelites are both Jewish. Perhaps my rewording wasn't the best, but the sentence as is could use some change. Thanks. Best ~ Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I would actually get rid of the whole sentence maybe. They are not the same as black Jews and the sentence is not referenced. But, I agree with you that it needs work. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice of arbitration

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 15:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't troll

Sir Joseph, could you please provide some explanation of your own superiority to "the masses" of which you speak so contemptuously?[3] Or, alternatively, please stop trolling. Bishonen | talk 19:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC).

I'm not trolling. I don't feel superior. I don't think requiring one to wait for evidence is called trolling. We haven't seen any evidence and right now all we have is, yes, everyone lining up for WMF's head. Even in Fram's own version, he received civility warnings from WMF. As I said, Wikipedia won't collapse if we wait a bit to hear from WMF. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your help at Kosher locust

Hi there Sir Joseph,

And thanks for your help at Kosher locust! I deeply appreciate that. Anyway, I was still wondering if you could have a final look at a certain source in the Yemenite tradition section (ben Maimon, n. d.; the last paragraph)? There are still a few parameters without any input, such as |title= , |date= , |publisher= , and |trans-chapter= , and I was wishing that perhaps you could help with those?

I believe a lot of the information for the empty parameters is available at the main page[4], as well as at a Mishneh Torah chapter[5]. It's just that, with the transliterations of Hebrew no Google Translate will help, and even the very machine translations I take rather cautiously.

Thanks a lot in advance! :-)

Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Jayaguru-Shishya, could you be a bit more specific, which source do you want me to look at? As an FYI, I found a better source you might want to use. At [6] There is an English and Hebrew text available to use. I just remembered that this is a newer text and they are starting to use this site on some pages, it's also more intuitive and it's hyperlinked so you can get from one text to another, if you are wondering how the law is derived, etc. @Davidbena: you should be aware of this site as well, since it's a good resource for refs. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Sir Joseph Source number 10: ben Maimon, Moses. "Ma'achaloth Asuroth" הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק א. משנה תורה להרמב"ם [Mishneh Torah of the Rambam] (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Mechon Mamre. 1:21-22.
Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
So it's the same link, [7], I'm just not sure how to answer the title and publisher, since it's not really published, it's an online text. But it should be the same as the prior links as on Davidbena's talk page. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
For title= , perhaps you could help to provide romanization of the Hebrew title, משנה תורה להרמב"ם? And for the trans-chapter= , an English translation of the Hebrew: הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק א, romanized: Ma'achaloth Asuroth? There's also one more parameter I didn't notice to ask before, that being edition= . If my navigation through Google translate module was any successful, it should be on the very front page: מהדורת מכון ממרא (תמוז התשע"ז)
Moreover, as for a web edition of a primary source, I think publisher= and date= should be located at the front page as well. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Title = "Rambam's Mishneh Torah" Chapter = Laws of Forbidden Food, (Chapter 1). Date would be "2017" would be my best guess since that is the copyright. Edition would be "Mechon Mamre" the rest of the text is the Hebrew Date which I don't think you need. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. How about the romanization, similar to the source number 13? W.r.t. to that one, the English translation (trans-title= ) is The Yemenite Kitchen - Hawaij, Love and Folklore, the Hebrew title (script-title= ) המטבח התימני: חואיג׳, אהבה ופולקלור, and the romanized title (title= ) Ha’mitbah ha’temani.
I know, those can be rather confusing at times. :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "חואיג׳" is, I think it's a spice, but I'm not sure how to romanticize it, I'd probably put it as same as you have it in your translation. The rest I'd put in as, "Mitbach HaTeimani: Hawaij, Ahava V'Folklore" Sir Joseph (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Sir Joseph, that one was already translated and romanized (The Yemenite Kitchen - Hawaij, Love and Folklore, Ha’mitbah ha’temani, see above). What still needed romanization was משנה תורה להרמב"ם. But thanks still! :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd put that as "Mishneh Torah L'HaRambam." Sir Joseph (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Israeli wine

That edit falls under your topic ban. Would be wise to self-revert. nableezy - 18:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism is allowed to be reverted, that falls under banexception. Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Exceptions_to_limited_bans Sir Joseph (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I will leave it up to @El C: if he says it should be reverted, then I'll revert, but to me that is obvious vandalism of the article. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Whether the place is called the Land of Israel or Palestine is unequivocally not vandalism. You should self-revert. nableezy - 21:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Of course it's vandalism by an IP. What you're doing is wrong. I'll revert because I'm not in the mood of being dragged into another AE battle, but I hope @El C: will chime in. What you are doing is disgusting. Pure disgusting. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Ok. Good luck with that. You may want to actually read WP:Vandalism before your next rant, specifically WP:NOTV. Ill give you a hint though, something not being to your personal liking does not make it vandalism. nableezy - 21:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, good luck on your future stalkings! Sir Joseph (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Uh I edited that page 6+ years before you. Sort of like the claim of vandalism, that is likewise bogus. As you are oh so sensitive of "casting aspersions", kindly do not continue making false accusations. nableezy - 21:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Not exactly vandalism, but it is some ARBPIA nonsense. I just compromised and went with "region" and "area" because we can say wine was made in the Land of Israel and we can say it was made in Palestine (region) — either choice results in ARBPIA unhappiness for one of the sides (and I'm not a fan of balance-via-slash, as I find it to be both artificial and hindering readability). In fairness, though, this is about Israeli not Palestinian -wine, so Land of Israel is probably more topical. But I think my solution eliminates that conflict altogether, so we just don't have to deal with it further. Indeed, just swithcing to Palestine per se., as the IP did, when referring to Israeli wine, does come across as a sort of provocation, so I can understand the frustration this arises. Still, best not to engage while the restriction is in place (someone else can always attend to this). Self-reverting was a good idea. El_C 22:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

POV is not vandalism. WP:NOTV specifically says NPOV contraventions are not vandalism. nableezy - 23:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Office actions

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Office actions. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello Sir Joseph,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:FRAM

Your topic ban applies to any comments related to the ARBPIA topic area. nableezy - 17:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Adam Brooks (wrestler)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Adam Brooks (wrestler). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Detention camps

I would like to thank you for standing up to these people such as pinchme123 who are saying the border camps are concentration camps. I have been trying to use logic to show them im correct such as proving that they don’t meet the definition of concentration camps but to no avail. Thank you once again Sir Joseph Hurledhandbook (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

insight

Hello Sir Joseph, I hope things are going well. I need assistance understanding this user. I'm considering preparing an ANI thread about their actions toward another user.] They have been as brusque in dismissing my concerns.   Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Beit Shemesh

An article that you have been involved in editing—Beit Shemesh—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. תנא קמא (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Legobot (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Main Page

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Main Page. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

topic ban

This is the last time I am going to warn you about abiding your topic ban. You may not discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict anywhere on Wikipedia, including on Nishidani's talk page. The end. Once more and I will request that the ban be enforced and reset. nableezy - 20:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

That also includes your last two edits on this page. nableezy - 20:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
You can't have a discussion on antisemitism and then throw in the word Israel and then decide I can't talk about antisemitism. Do you not get how unfair that is? And that does kind of prove the point of antisemitism in Labour, how the UK has nothing to do with Israel, yet suddenly to condone antisemitism, you need to draw in Israel into the topic. Shameful. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, why are you violating your ban? This edit is ARBPIA par excellence. Did you think the ban didn't t apply to quotes, because I assure you it does. El_C 20:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Would you like me to revert that antisemitic quote then? Sir Joseph (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I removed the antisemitic quotes for now. I'm not in the mood for drama. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Good. And you need to tone down all the other ARBPIA chatter, also. You're allowed a slip up or two, but that's it. El_C 20:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
El C this has not been one or two slip-ups, and repeatedly calling another editor's comments antisemitic with no demonstration of that is a straightforward personal attack, beyond the obvious topic-ban issue. He again did so in the comment you responded to. If I recall correctly you are of the position that corrupt is a personal attack worthy a block, is antisemitic with zero evidence not? nableezy - 20:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Nableezy, I am not aware of that having been said. El_C 20:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Well the quotes are still right on this page in the thread you are responding to User:El C, but sure Ill give you diffs. Edit summary here. Response to you here. Edit summary here. Again responding to you here which you responded to. All this in reference to what Nishidani wrote here. nableezy - 20:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, I don't recall calling him corrupt. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
That's in reference to something (someone) else. El_C 20:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
You misread my message. I said if corrupt is a personal attack worthy of a block is antisemitic not? nableezy - 20:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say he's antisemitic. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
You said what he wrote is. Thats not as clever as a game as you think it is. nableezy - 20:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not a game, that's how it works, and it's true. His comment is antisemitic. It's also not a violation of policy. Smart people sometimes do stupid things, calling someone stupid is a personal attack, saying a smart person did something stupid, is not. One is on the action an one is on the person. Regardless, I am an American citizen, I am not sure why you keep defending his statement, is it to trap me again to bring me to AE? And note how he doubled down at his talk page. Shameful. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
El C I hope I dont need a diff for the above. nableezy - 20:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Bulleted list item

Block

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for flagrantly violating the topic ban and labeling the comments of a user who you are in dispute with "antisemitic". Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 20:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

El C, please explain how the comment is not antisemitic. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Uh that would be on you to explain how it is. nableezy - 20:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
What I think about the comment isn't relevant. You just violated your topic ban in a way that isn't at all benign (or a simple slip up). Please reflect on that. El_C 20:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
You said I labeled the comments of a user I'm in a dispute with as "antisemitic", and prior to that, you said it's OK to slip up a few times, so which is it? How is telling a Jew in the USA that he can't complain about antisemitism in the USA, not antisemitic? Sir Joseph (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
At no point did Nishidani say that. nableezy - 21:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Please stay off my page. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
That was before I reviewed the evidence. Again, not a simple slip up. El_C 21:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
But what about the "antisemitic" part? You said it's irrelevant what you think about the comment, yet you blocked me for it. Further, I don't think 60 hours for a first violation is fair, that is not the usual first step. Especially towards the end of the ban. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I blocked you also for the ARBPIA-hostile way you went around labeling the comment of another user whom you were in dispute with "antisemitic." The length of the block is at my discretion. I think 60 hours —somewhere between one day and one week— is actually quite fair and lenient considering your last block. El_C 21:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Antisemitism has noting to do with ARBPIA, firstly, secondly you still never told me why that comment wasn't antisemitic. If I say the comment was antisemitic, and I believe it was, should we just punish people for mentioning it just because someone labeled the comment antisemitic? And you want me to label it in a "non-hostile" way? I just said it's antisemitic, what should I say? Sir Joseph (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Antisemitism has everything to do with ARBPIA, when you connect it as such. Please don't make me revoke talk page access. El_C 21:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Written before I noted the block notice.
I just noticed this. SJ. You are radically misreading our conversation, but, that can't be helped. To assert on zero evidence I am anti-Semitic, because you repeatedly misconstrue an argument, is a severe WP:AGF violation, as you should know. But it is so profoundly errant to make that inference on the basis of a nuanced argument that tries politely to clarify something which perplexes you that I can hardly feel offended. I'm sorry for you that an attempt to elucidate commonplace misprisions like this never gets anywhere, other than confirming a preconception.
Nab/El C,. Could you kindly just ignore this. Thousands of violations are made that are never reported, because a lot of people just prefer to ignore them. That's been my practice. What we see at AE and ANI is just the tip of the iceberg. I think SJ was on a fishing expedition, but it would be very poor behavior on my part to have permitted the angler to bait the whopping Murray Cod I can be, and have Isaac Walton's spiritual heir drown in the AE version of the Murray as I flipped downstream. I'd distinctly prefer this not to be reported, and since I am the presumed 'victim' (bah!) I hope due consideration is given to my feelings in this regard.Nishidani (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I never said you're antisemitic, I said your comment was, and I wasn't on a fishing expedition, please try to AGF, that is not the first time you claimed this. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Please do not continue to violate the ban. Please limit usage of this talk page while blocked to an unblock appeal only. El_C 21:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
And other participants: please go do something else, as well. El_C 21:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm OK with that, but how did my comment violate any ban? Sir Joseph (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
How did it not? You linked antisemitism with ARBPIA in a quote that explicitly mentioned the "West Bank" and "Gaza"! El_C 21:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
You said please do not continue to violate the ban. I didn't. My comment said, "I never said you're antisemitic, I said your comment was." That has nothing to do with ARBPIA. Please don't try to link antisemitism to ARBPIA. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
And I would still love for you to explain how that comment is not antisemitic. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Enough. The whole incident is related to ARBPIA when you bring the "West Bank" and "Gaza" to it. Last warning. Limit yourself to an unblock appeal throughout the duration of this block, or talk page access will be revoked. El_C 21:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
you know I had a headache one time and i took a st Josephs and in about fifteen minutes my headache was gone ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Was racing in circles the cause of that headache, ~mitch~? Atsme Talk 📧 23:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sir_Joseph/Archive_10&oldid=1255512658"