User talk:Sir Joseph/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Sir Joseph. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Barnstar
|
The Civility Barnstar | |
| For keeping your cool and remaining polite.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC) |
????
Hello, could you explain your action? (Undid revision 702775179 by Rurjf ) [1] --Rurjf (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- 1) The edit was against consensus. The specific wording was worked on for quite some time, as you can imagine. 2) To edit in the Israel/Palestine Conflict area the high and mighty powers that be ruled you need to be here 30 days and 500 edits. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
1) false, could you show when? 2) Not an "I-P" article Cordially --Rurjf (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- While the article is not IP, the sanctions apply "broadly" for whatever that means. Look at the talk page. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- This[2] is the reverted edit. It can be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 since it is after all directly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Sir Joseph's revert was proper. If you disagree you can go to WP:AE and have them review or WP:ARCA and request for a clarification.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- In such ambiguous case, there isn't any proper a limitation. No reasons to revert without motives.
--Rurjf (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- No reason necessary, it's the one power we mere mortals on Wikipedia can enjoy without sanctions. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- There is nothing ambiguous about it. Your edits are with out question related to WP:ARBPIA. If you disagree then by all means go to WP:AE and make your case how exactly it does not fall under this.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Misusing warning templates
Hi. You're allowed to remove posts from your talkpage, a freedom I see you have taken full advantage of recently. But please don't inform people you have done so by posting the template {{uw-vandalism1}} on them, as you did here. You've been editing Wikipedia for 10 years, I do believe you know that's not what those templates are for, and that it's offensive to use them for such a purpose. It's not much like "moving on",[3] but more like stoking the fires. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 16:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC).
- I don't understand, I told him twice on my page to stop posting on my page, he continued to post on my page, and I reverted without doing anything about it. He then continued to post on my page, so I then wanted to let him know more strongly to stop so I put a template, which is what I've seen people use that template. I didn't want to report him for that. What should I have done? Sir Joseph (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Used humanspeak. Not templatespeak, and especially not a vandalism template intended for newbies. And even apart from the provocative stuff about experimenting in the sandbox, you have now told CT "if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page". Yet that's what you're supposedly trying to prevent. Don't use a template unless you're prepared to take ownership of what it says. A lot of the time that means don't use a template at all. Bishonen | talk 17:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC).
- Well, I don't want to deal with him at all, look at how he is acting on the Sander's page, other people are starting to call him out on his behavior. I removed my talk page stuff not because I was hiding evidence, as you are aware, it's all there, I just wanted to get on with why we're here and move on with life. I don't appreciate being called a troll, I don't appreciate being ignored, etc. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Has it occurred to you that perhaps other Wikipedia editors don't appreciate you treating them as you did here? Please listen to what Bishonen is telling you about moving on vs. stoking the fires. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with that comment, you said I have no idea what makes a Jew. You're the one being pedantic. When someone says they're Jewish, they mean religion. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- WP:CIR. If you refuse to accept the fact that sometimes when someone says they're Jewish they mean a members of an ethnoreligious group originating from the Israelites/Hebrews of the Ancient Near East, they you need to be topic banned from all pages relating to Jews or Judaism. I am going to give you one last chance to look up the meaning of the word in whatever reference work you prefer and then to start calmly, rationally discussing why it is that the reference work has a completely different definition of "Jewish" than you do. If you refuse, I am going to go to WP:AE and seek a topic ban forbidding you to edit any page related to Jews or Judaism. Your choice. I am not saying this to anger you or threaten you, but rather to protect Wikipedia from you inserting incorrect information based upon your incorrect understanding. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- When Bernie Sanders says he's Jewish, when his press kit says he's Jewish, when the news says he's Jewish, when everyone in the world says he's Jewish, they are not talking about ethnoreligious groups, they're talking about his religion. As an aside, can you name one person who means they not a member of the Jewish religion when they say they are Jewish? Sir Joseph (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- How about a list? --> List_of_Jewish_atheists_and_agnostics -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 21:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- When Bernie Sanders says he's Jewish, when his press kit says he's Jewish, when the news says he's Jewish, when everyone in the world says he's Jewish, they are not talking about ethnoreligious groups, they're talking about his religion. As an aside, can you name one person who means they not a member of the Jewish religion when they say they are Jewish? Sir Joseph (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- WP:CIR. If you refuse to accept the fact that sometimes when someone says they're Jewish they mean a members of an ethnoreligious group originating from the Israelites/Hebrews of the Ancient Near East, they you need to be topic banned from all pages relating to Jews or Judaism. I am going to give you one last chance to look up the meaning of the word in whatever reference work you prefer and then to start calmly, rationally discussing why it is that the reference work has a completely different definition of "Jewish" than you do. If you refuse, I am going to go to WP:AE and seek a topic ban forbidding you to edit any page related to Jews or Judaism. Your choice. I am not saying this to anger you or threaten you, but rather to protect Wikipedia from you inserting incorrect information based upon your incorrect understanding. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with that comment, you said I have no idea what makes a Jew. You're the one being pedantic. When someone says they're Jewish, they mean religion. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Has it occurred to you that perhaps other Wikipedia editors don't appreciate you treating them as you did here? Please listen to what Bishonen is telling you about moving on vs. stoking the fires. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I don't want to deal with him at all, look at how he is acting on the Sander's page, other people are starting to call him out on his behavior. I removed my talk page stuff not because I was hiding evidence, as you are aware, it's all there, I just wanted to get on with why we're here and move on with life. I don't appreciate being called a troll, I don't appreciate being ignored, etc. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Used humanspeak. Not templatespeak, and especially not a vandalism template intended for newbies. And even apart from the provocative stuff about experimenting in the sandbox, you have now told CT "if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page". Yet that's what you're supposedly trying to prevent. Don't use a template unless you're prepared to take ownership of what it says. A lot of the time that means don't use a template at all. Bishonen | talk 17:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC).
They are still Jewish. They might not be practicing, but just like Bernie when his press kit says "Religion:Jewish", they're Jewish. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- I want to make sure I understand you correctly. In your view, it would be fitting and logical for people on that list to have an infobox that lists their Religion as both "Judaism" and "Atheism"? (As an aside, it would seem to be helpful to use the terminology "their religion is Judaism" instead of "they are Jewish," since that's more precisely the subject at hand -- or do you fundamentally disagrre with that?) -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 21:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- There was an RFC that said Atheism should not be in the infobox for religion. Also, Sanders is not an atheist. I think if someone were an atheist, that person might have more leeway to not have Judaism in their infobox, but in this case we have clear evidence that Sanders identifies, and that is the key word, as Jewish. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. I believe you are saying that saying "he is Jewish" has exactly the same meaning as saying "his religion is Judaism," and likewise saying "his religion is Judaism" has exactly the same meaning as saying "he is Jewish." Am I understanding you correctly? -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 21:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- OK. That goes a long way toward explaining why you and other editors are clearly talking past each other. I can clearly see that other editors in these discussions define the terms differently. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 21:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- But again, all this is a philosophical discussion because the policies we have to go by are all based on what the future loser identifies as, and he identifies as Jewish. In the real world, there are indeed tons of atheist Jews, secular Jews and others, the Jewish religion is interesting like that. If someone converted to Reform Judaism, that person would not be Jewish under Orthodox or Conservative, but if an atheist Jew had a kid and that kid grew up and decided to become religious, that kid would be welcome into Orthodox and Conservative as a 100% Jew. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- There are two relevant policies. The first is to go with reliable sources. The press kit is a primary source with unclear authorship, and at the same time we have reliable secondary and primary sources that address this topic. The second policy is to go with how the individual self-identifies. The only source where the self-identification of "Religion: Jewish" is seen is in the press kit; the other sources conflict with the simplicity of that assertion. When we have conflicting sources, the policy is to go with the more reliable ones, the more recent ones, and and consensus among multiple sources. In that respect, the press kit stands alone and gets trumped by the others, don't you agree? -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 21:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Alas, if you are a person who believes that saying "he is Jewish" has exactly the same meaning as saying "his religion is Judaism", then you would necessarily see the multiple reliable sources that say that Bernie Sanders is Jewish as supporting the claim that Bernie Sanders' religion is Judaism. And if you refuse to look up "Jew" in a dictionary and reject any comments by Wikipedia editors saying that they are not the same thing, then you will never agree that only source where the self-identification of "Religion: Jewish" is seen is in the press kit. To you, every source that says that he is Jewish is a source that says that his religion is Judaism, and there are a lot of sources that say that Bernie Sanders is Jewish. I see only two ways out of this dilemma: [A] Sir Joseph gives in and looks up "Jew" in a dictionary, or [B} Sir Joseph gets topic-banned from all articles relating to Jews or Judaism. I am waiting to see how this play out before going to AE and requesting [B]. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- You seem to be hung up on the fact that Jews are an ethnoreligious group, so perhaps copying and pasting a sentence from the lead of that article will shed some light for you: "An ethnoreligious group (or ethno-religious group) is an ethnic group whose members are also unified by a common religious background." That would mean the Jews are a group whose members are also unified by a common religious background. Is there anything else I can help you with? Sir Joseph (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- You could read these:
- * http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Jew
- * http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Jew
- * http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/jew
- That would be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Those sources are not reputable, perhaps MW is, I would use the OED if any (I wouldn't use a dictionary to define what a Jew is anyway) and that one proves that Sanders is Jewish, in any event, I still can't believe you are trying to say that I can't say Sanders is Jewish. Please don't post on my talk page anymore, I can't deal with this stupidity anymore. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- You seem to be hung up on the fact that Jews are an ethnoreligious group, so perhaps copying and pasting a sentence from the lead of that article will shed some light for you: "An ethnoreligious group (or ethno-religious group) is an ethnic group whose members are also unified by a common religious background." That would mean the Jews are a group whose members are also unified by a common religious background. Is there anything else I can help you with? Sir Joseph (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Alas, if you are a person who believes that saying "he is Jewish" has exactly the same meaning as saying "his religion is Judaism", then you would necessarily see the multiple reliable sources that say that Bernie Sanders is Jewish as supporting the claim that Bernie Sanders' religion is Judaism. And if you refuse to look up "Jew" in a dictionary and reject any comments by Wikipedia editors saying that they are not the same thing, then you will never agree that only source where the self-identification of "Religion: Jewish" is seen is in the press kit. To you, every source that says that he is Jewish is a source that says that his religion is Judaism, and there are a lot of sources that say that Bernie Sanders is Jewish. I see only two ways out of this dilemma: [A] Sir Joseph gives in and looks up "Jew" in a dictionary, or [B} Sir Joseph gets topic-banned from all articles relating to Jews or Judaism. I am waiting to see how this play out before going to AE and requesting [B]. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- There are two relevant policies. The first is to go with reliable sources. The press kit is a primary source with unclear authorship, and at the same time we have reliable secondary and primary sources that address this topic. The second policy is to go with how the individual self-identifies. The only source where the self-identification of "Religion: Jewish" is seen is in the press kit; the other sources conflict with the simplicity of that assertion. When we have conflicting sources, the policy is to go with the more reliable ones, the more recent ones, and and consensus among multiple sources. In that respect, the press kit stands alone and gets trumped by the others, don't you agree? -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 21:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- But again, all this is a philosophical discussion because the policies we have to go by are all based on what the future loser identifies as, and he identifies as Jewish. In the real world, there are indeed tons of atheist Jews, secular Jews and others, the Jewish religion is interesting like that. If someone converted to Reform Judaism, that person would not be Jewish under Orthodox or Conservative, but if an atheist Jew had a kid and that kid grew up and decided to become religious, that kid would be welcome into Orthodox and Conservative as a 100% Jew. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- OK. That goes a long way toward explaining why you and other editors are clearly talking past each other. I can clearly see that other editors in these discussions define the terms differently. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 21:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. I believe you are saying that saying "he is Jewish" has exactly the same meaning as saying "his religion is Judaism," and likewise saying "his religion is Judaism" has exactly the same meaning as saying "he is Jewish." Am I understanding you correctly? -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 21:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- There was an RFC that said Atheism should not be in the infobox for religion. Also, Sanders is not an atheist. I think if someone were an atheist, that person might have more leeway to not have Judaism in their infobox, but in this case we have clear evidence that Sanders identifies, and that is the key word, as Jewish. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your support
|
Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award |
| Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC) |
Draft prod idea
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Draftprod. Any thoughts? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
18:33:53, 8 February 2016 review of submission by Willharriett
- Willharriett (talk · contribs)
Dear Sir Joseph, I am requesting a re-review because the person I am writing about is absolutely notable and the references are very strong. Fleming doesn't have just one reason to be considered notable, but quite a few. Fleming designed and created characters for the WWE that have millions of fans and had an effect on pop culture with toys, posters, t-shirts sold all over the world. The reference that was used in the article is the actual page on the WWE website that shows Fleming's design concepts and original drawings with his "FLEMING" signature on them, and they actually zoom in on his signature on a couple of them to make sure he gets the credit! There is no better source than the official website of the WWE showing Fleming's actual drawings/designs.
Fleming is also notable due to his FOUR CHESLEY AWARD nominations! He wasn't nominated just once for possibly the highest honor in Fantasy/Sci-Fi art, but FOUR times! According to Wikipedia one of the major guidelines for being notable is "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". The references are the official announcements and posts by year, category and piece that Fleming was nominated in (and are absolutely independent of him). These nominations alone according to Wikipedia make him notable!
A THIRD reason and possibly the biggest one is his federal lawsuit that he won on copyright infringement against A major retailer HomeGoods, and a large licensing company ATI. For a single artist to go up against two monster retailers and WIN a case like this has a HUGE effect for all artist nationwide and possibly worldwide! That is why the Boston Globe one of the countries most reputable newspapers put him on the cover story in the business section a few weeks later. The reference used is the author, date and title of the article that was published by the Boston Globe that is completely independent of Fleming and what better source is there than a newspaper of that reputation? As a backup and another reference, I used the article that Art Business News published soon after the trial called "Artist Vs. Goliath". The title says it all....no? Once again, Art Business News is a very strong source and all info about the article was listed.
Lastly, Fleming has done work for the biggest companies in the world for Comics and gaming! There are artists that are listed on Wikipedia that passed as notable for just working in one genre of the market alone?For example, Wikipedia has some artists that have just worked for Magic the Gathering passed as notable. Fleming has done that along with a multitude of other things.
I have worked very hard on this article because I believe Fleming truly deserves and has earned a Wikipedia page and for the public to be aware of his accomplishments. I truly hope you agree and decide that the references are trustworthy, independent, and adequate for notability. Thanks and have a great day. Willharriett (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Willharriett
Please comment on Talk:Emily Dickinson
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Emily Dickinson. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Precisely
Know that Wikipedia is not some beis medrash, it's open to all. Chesdovi (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly, you may think you're doing a favor to your cause, but others will see and use you as a pawn in their game. Do yourself, but more importantly do us a favor and tone it down. Stabberstinians and Rammerstinians don't need you as fodder to help them. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Your non-neutral POV-pushing is so blatantly obvious, why haven't you been blocked? I shall have to take this up with the powers that be. Chesdovi (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Having an opinion is allowed, you're the one editing in a non neutral manner, especially one giving fodder to one's enemies which is especially stupid. It's not against Wiki policies to have an opinion. Go speak to the powers that be, that is the common MO among the anti-Israel Wiki editors when they come upon an editor they can't chase away to try to have that editor blocked. Besides, the Satmar Rebbe forbids internet usage, so who is the one being intellectually dishonest here? You should be the one off the internet. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- I do try to edit neutrally. I really appreiciate it when others point out my erroneous pointy edits. What I don't like is having to contend with intolerant editors who dismiss out of hand the views and opinions held by other human beings. But that's expected from passionate nationalists who exist on Wikipedia to join the long and arduous fight against their "enemies". Chesdovi (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Stay off my talk page. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- I do try to edit neutrally. I really appreiciate it when others point out my erroneous pointy edits. What I don't like is having to contend with intolerant editors who dismiss out of hand the views and opinions held by other human beings. But that's expected from passionate nationalists who exist on Wikipedia to join the long and arduous fight against their "enemies". Chesdovi (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Having an opinion is allowed, you're the one editing in a non neutral manner, especially one giving fodder to one's enemies which is especially stupid. It's not against Wiki policies to have an opinion. Go speak to the powers that be, that is the common MO among the anti-Israel Wiki editors when they come upon an editor they can't chase away to try to have that editor blocked. Besides, the Satmar Rebbe forbids internet usage, so who is the one being intellectually dishonest here? You should be the one off the internet. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Your non-neutral POV-pushing is so blatantly obvious, why haven't you been blocked? I shall have to take this up with the powers that be. Chesdovi (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Western Wall
Regarding [4], I suggest you start a discussion at the relevant talk page. Chesdovi (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
1) I told you to stay off my talk page. 2) It's on you to discuss on the talk page, if you are the one making major changes to an article. 3) Have you ever edited Wikipedia under another name? Sir Joseph (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- I only saw your territorialist note after I had posted my previous note. But I understand and will not launch any rammings or stabbings against your page in retaliation at my expulsion from it. I will stay off your land, I mean page, sorry. After all, it is yours. But I will not have you attempt to dispossess me from the main space. That would be POV cleansing which is frowned upon. The only problem is, you don't seem to always reply at talk, hence my latest edit at anti-Zionist stronghold of Meah Shearim. I do not generally take kindly to editors who edit in order to obtain the upper hand against good faith editing, hoping to keep material they are repulsed by off Wikipedia for as long as possible. Had I rejigged the sections at Western Wall without adding a sub-section associated with anti-Zionsim, nothing, I presume, would have triggered the alarm on your pro-Zionist radar warning system. Chesdovi (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
You violated the 1RR at that page. Kindly revert or I will file a report. Thank you. nableezy - 00:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, youve violated the 3RR on that page, besides the ARBPIA 1RR. nableezy - 00:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- saying captured is a nnpov because then it opens up the page to a view of the wall being recaptured. That is why the neutral term of sovereignty is being used. Israel does exercise sovereignty over the site. A while back there was indeed a back and forth over this exact term, captured/re-captured and consensus was just to leave as exercised sovereignty which is a neutral term. We should try as much as possible to use terms that minimize edit wars, and let's try to have at least one article on Wikipedia that doesn't need to have IP conflict. This is about the Western Wall, not the IP conflict, it's a religious article, it has a bit about the conflict but it's mostly about the site and let's leave it at that. Let me know if you still want me to revert. I think the goal of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia not to aimlessly follow rules, and putting in weasel word, I think you should just leave be, the way it is now is fine and neutral. It means exactly what you want it to mean without the pov connotation. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- sovereignty is a term that says a state has legal title to that territory. That is not the case with Israel and East Jerusalem. Captured is simple fact, soveriegnty is contested minority opinion. Your view on what is neutral doesnt really concern me, and honestly I wish I had seen this response prior to you being blocked for the 3RR vio. Would have made things easier on me. nableezy - 16:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- saying captured is a nnpov because then it opens up the page to a view of the wall being recaptured. That is why the neutral term of sovereignty is being used. Israel does exercise sovereignty over the site. A while back there was indeed a back and forth over this exact term, captured/re-captured and consensus was just to leave as exercised sovereignty which is a neutral term. We should try as much as possible to use terms that minimize edit wars, and let's try to have at least one article on Wikipedia that doesn't need to have IP conflict. This is about the Western Wall, not the IP conflict, it's a religious article, it has a bit about the conflict but it's mostly about the site and let's leave it at that. Let me know if you still want me to revert. I think the goal of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia not to aimlessly follow rules, and putting in weasel word, I think you should just leave be, the way it is now is fine and neutral. It means exactly what you want it to mean without the pov connotation. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Debresser, can you take a look at the Western Wall page? Chesdovi is on one of his edit sprees. WOW! Looking at his most recent edits, I think he just got a job working for Al Jazeera. The PA I am sure will most likely try to contact him in the future. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel. Could you please give your opinion on whether or not Palestine should be considered a separate sovereign entity from Israel? Many thanks Spirit Ethanol (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Just got an e-mail update from the JTA about this pastor. I have added two references, but frankly I feel uncomfortable about even typing what he said. Perhaps you could expand it?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Western Wall Source
Have you even bothered reading the source?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- The Goren one? Yeah, I did. It's very ambiguous. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- The material sourced was ambiguous. The source itself is quiet detailed and goes beyond Goren simply saying that Jews had only prayed at the western wall for 300 years. It documents and reliably a a notable minority point of view covering not only the western wall but also the temple mount.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Star Alliance
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Star Alliance. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
February 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bernie Sanders. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
You wasted no time in getting the article back to your preferred version after full page protection was lifted. You then exhibited edit warring behavior by reverting immediately, despite an administrator's warning on the talk page regarding WP:DS. As to this issue, there is no consensus as of yet. You ignored this fact and decided to act unilaterally. No, you haven't violated 3RR, but note that edit warring behavior doesn't necessarily mean reaching and violating 3RR. If someone comes along and reverts your revert at the article, you would be wise to not revert them as I will file an AN3 report if you do. Please discuss to reach consensus rather than edit war. Thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Signature colouring
Your signature gives a green link to your talk page, I think. As you probably know, red-green blindness is quite common, affecting up to 10% of male people in some parts of the world, and several percent in other parts. I suffer from a relatively mild form of red-green blindness, and at first I saw the link as red, making me think it was a new editor without a talk page, and then I thought "hang on, I'm almost sure I have come across Sir Joseph before, years ago, and he is a well-established active editor", so I checked, and realised what was going on. It didn't actually matter to me on this occasion, but it is possible that it might significantly mislead some editor some time, so perhaps you might consider changing the colour of the link to something other than green or red. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
WikiCup 2016 March newsletter (update)
Along with getting the year wrong in the newsletter that went out earlier this week, we did not mention (as the bot did not report) that 
Cas Liber (submissions) claimed the first Featured Article Persoonia terminalis of the 2016 Wikicup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
I'm hereby extending your current topic ban from Bernie Sanders and all related pages and discussions to six months, counting from 29 February. Your original one-week ban was for violation (addition of contentious content without firm consensus edit warring) of the discretionary sanctions already in effect at Bernie Sanders: "You must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits, must not engage in edit warring and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page." This extension is for that as well, plus for your battleground demeanour and repeated indications that you intend to continue the same behavior because you were right all along. That's why the ban needs to be longer. Note that you are not being "punished" for "daring to appeal" "like in Soviet Russia";[5] your repeating that over and over does not make it any truer. I have topic banned you to keep the topic of Bernie Sanders from disruption; not to punish you, and not because you appealed the original ban.
Note that the ban covers all discussion of Bernard Sanders and/or his Jewishness, on all pages. Please click on WP:TBAN and read what "topic banned" means. Feel free to appeal this ban, but it applies from now until it's lifted or expires. That means that in an appeal, in whatever forum, including my talkpage, you can freely discuss the reasons you were banned , but not go on and on about content, such as Bernie Sanders's Jewishness, because that is covered by the topic ban. You were banned for conduct, not for being either right or wrong about content, so continued arguing about it is irrelevant to the ban. Compare what you were told here by EdJohnston and Laser brain; I endorse everything they said there.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision. It has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions. You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | talk 09:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC).
Western Wall Category
Hey, could you please remove the insulting and absurd "islamic holy site" category, added by an obvious muslim provocateur, to the Category:Western Wall. 104.162.193.17 (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Blocked
Edit warring to restore a topic ban vio when you are appealing the ban? Be serious. Antisemetic commentary nearly made it two weeks. You have been blocked before and know the drill. For the sake of clarity this is arbitration enforcement. Spartaz Humbug! 22:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- huh? Could someone please explain why I was blocked? Sir Joseph (talk) 22:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- [6] and then not self-reverting following the explanation that talk pages are covered. nableezy - 22:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Bishonen already clarified that it was a misunderstanding. The ban said article not page at first, if spartaz would look at timestamps he'd see that. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- SpartazPlease look at my page history where bishonen revered a comment about my talk page comments and supposed ban violations. You'll see the ban was modified by Coffee after my edits. Please unblock me.Sir Joseph (talk) 23:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- I had already unblocked you when I edit conflicted with your message. I agree that the original restriction was defective and did not cover the talk page. Coffee That was pisspoor. Please note that should always refer to pages not articles as it is extremely rare that the real issue is not talk page behavior. I also consider myself trouted. Spartaz Humbug! 23:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- How is the edit claimed as the culprit above anti-semitic, anyway? LjL (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's not, that was the supposed edit after a topic ban. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Is this a little off? Or am I reading too much into it? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&type=revision&diff=707673226? Sir Joseph (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding your request that I stay off your talk page, request denied. I am not going to let you use this page as a place to attack me where I cannot respond. You have called me antisemetic. Please show, with diffs, which of my edits you are referring to, and exactly which words of mine that you claim are antisemitic. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- When did I call you antisemitic? Now get off my talk page, again. You don't like not being able to respond? How do I think I feel when you post your ramblings? You need to stop stalking me. That is your problem. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- As long as you talk about me here, I will reply here, so you might as well stop asking. You called my edits antisemitic here.[7]and Bishonen, one of our most respected admins, commented on it here.[8] --Guy Macon (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Can you not read? See what I wrote above. Last warning. I told you to stay off my talk page. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please see WP:USERTALK. You can't "ban" people from your talk page. We generally respect requests to stay off, when there is not a legitimate reason to come back. So, perhaps stop giving Guy Macon reasons to come back? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Can you not read? See what I wrote above. Last warning. I told you to stay off my talk page. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- As long as you talk about me here, I will reply here, so you might as well stop asking. You called my edits antisemitic here.[7]and Bishonen, one of our most respected admins, commented on it here.[8] --Guy Macon (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- When did I call you antisemitic? Now get off my talk page, again. You don't like not being able to respond? How do I think I feel when you post your ramblings? You need to stop stalking me. That is your problem. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding your request that I stay off your talk page, request denied. I am not going to let you use this page as a place to attack me where I cannot respond. You have called me antisemetic. Please show, with diffs, which of my edits you are referring to, and exactly which words of mine that you claim are antisemitic. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Is this a little off? Or am I reading too much into it? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&type=revision&diff=707673226? Sir Joseph (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's not, that was the supposed edit after a topic ban. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Spartaz Since you hatted some of the AE stuff, can you hat Guy Macon's list of diffs, since that is not part of the complaint since there was no violation of the block. I feel many people are reading His list of diffs and are thinking I violated the TBAN and that might be one reason why they are proposing a six month extension. Otherwise I have no other reason for it other than filing an AE appeal. Thanks. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- You did vio the tban ("topic" still means topic, even though you got off on a technicality) and every time you mentioned Sanders and the Sanders article you continued to violate your topic ban. You seem reasonably intelligent, therefore, I find it dubious that you are still claiming to not understand what a tban really means. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, the ban notice on my page when it was first posted was defective. It was then modified. I've never been tban before and I read the notice. It specifically said article, and the notice said if it says article unless it says otherwise, it needs to say explicitly. Why do you think I was unblocked by Spartaz? Read above. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- You were unblocked because the blocking editor didn't pay attention to the chain of events and shouldn't have blocked you to begin with. It had nothing to do with what the admin imposing the tban did or didn't do. But, I have to say that while I generally will give editors benefit of the doubt (also known as AGF) when it comes to explanations, I don't believe your explanation that you didn't understand what a topic ban is and that it doesn't include the talk page. I don't believe you because you've been here a while and know how things work around here. I also don't believe you because, from the get-go, you have been looking for loopholes to get out of the tban and are blaming everyone and everything but yourself. In my extensive experience with human nature, people who do nothing for their defense other than look for loopholes and blame others are typically guilty. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, as I've said earlier, I've never been blocked before and the ban said article and I read the section and it said everything else must be said explicitly. And the whole point in blocking is to avoid disruption so why should it include a talk page and posting to the talk page is indeed what we want to encourage. So why should it be blocked? As for loopholes, you can disagree but if something is not illegal then it's legal. My defense was in my first paragraph. I satisfied to what I thought was the requirement for posting my edit why I felt my edit was not a violation and why I should not have been blocked. I certainly don't see a reason for a six month extension. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- You were unblocked because the blocking editor didn't pay attention to the chain of events and shouldn't have blocked you to begin with. It had nothing to do with what the admin imposing the tban did or didn't do. But, I have to say that while I generally will give editors benefit of the doubt (also known as AGF) when it comes to explanations, I don't believe your explanation that you didn't understand what a topic ban is and that it doesn't include the talk page. I don't believe you because you've been here a while and know how things work around here. I also don't believe you because, from the get-go, you have been looking for loopholes to get out of the tban and are blaming everyone and everything but yourself. In my extensive experience with human nature, people who do nothing for their defense other than look for loopholes and blame others are typically guilty. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Arbitration Enforcement word limit
Hi, Sir Joseph,
In the bright pink box at the top of the page you'll see Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. This word limit includes your responses to other editors and you've gone way, way over 500 words. Please adjust your statement and responses to meet this word limit in the next day. It's generally better for the author to edit their statement rather than have an arbitration clerk or admin do the editing for you. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 21:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- How am I to answer individuals if I have to keep to some limit when they can just continue and pile on? For some reason daring to appeal a block is now grounds for an extension and I don't think that's fair.Sir Joseph (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Liz I modified my section but I still don't know why they are talking about a six month ban. What did I do other than go to ae appeal? And also coffee is involved.Sir Joseph (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sir Joseph, I can't read the minds of other administrators but I'm guessing that some of them see disputes, identify an editor(s) they think is primarily responsible for the disruption and think if they remove him/her from the situation temporarily, the disruption will end. It's not the call I would make but I think I'm involved in this debate as I have expressed an opinion on how I think it should be resolved (accepting Sanders' self-identification that he is Jewish). I'm baffled why this has turned into such a big debate.
- Thanks for modifying the length of your statement. Actually, appropriate word limits is a discussion that is currently being debated by the arbitrators but at this point, I think it's best to adhere to the guidelines. Any changes that might be made are at some point in the future and they might decide to stick with the guidelines as they are right now. Liz Read! Talk! 16:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Liz thank you for replying, firstly, Coffee posted in the uninvolved section if that means anything. So, what am I to do? Why should I be banned for six months? If you look at the ANI report Guy filed, others have pointed out a possible boomerang, or just pointed out his own actions, and I would ask to read the Encyclopedia Britannica free online for Sanders and see what it says, but again regardless, what policy did I violate to warrant an extension and if I do get a ban extension isn't that an overreach of admin powers? I'm just baffled and perplexed and perhaps that's why Malik said the things he said because quite frankly I'm at my wit's end at this point too. Coffee says I'm not dropping the stick, but that was yesterday at around 2 PM, even though yesterday at around 2 PM I wasn't technically banned from the talk page due to his faulty ban, All this was due to his faulty ban template. And editors here have to walk on eggshells around admins because they say the wrong thing some admins block them. But I don't deserve to be banned for six months, I didn't do anything to deserve it. If anything Guy should be blocked. Look at his edits. He makes up policy (not a .PDF file of unknown origin) and bullies other editors into following his way, he owns the page and doesn't let any other editors edit unless they follow his opinion. If people are worried about the reputation of Wikipedia, it's because of him, not because of Malik and myself. And you can still share that it would not be your call, that is allowed.Sir Joseph (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- If you think I have violated a Wikipedia policy or otherwise misbehaved, file a report at WP:ANI with your evidence, or stop posting accusations. I really don't want to have to go to ANI or AE again with you. Please stop this behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Liz thank you for replying, firstly, Coffee posted in the uninvolved section if that means anything. So, what am I to do? Why should I be banned for six months? If you look at the ANI report Guy filed, others have pointed out a possible boomerang, or just pointed out his own actions, and I would ask to read the Encyclopedia Britannica free online for Sanders and see what it says, but again regardless, what policy did I violate to warrant an extension and if I do get a ban extension isn't that an overreach of admin powers? I'm just baffled and perplexed and perhaps that's why Malik said the things he said because quite frankly I'm at my wit's end at this point too. Coffee says I'm not dropping the stick, but that was yesterday at around 2 PM, even though yesterday at around 2 PM I wasn't technically banned from the talk page due to his faulty ban, All this was due to his faulty ban template. And editors here have to walk on eggshells around admins because they say the wrong thing some admins block them. But I don't deserve to be banned for six months, I didn't do anything to deserve it. If anything Guy should be blocked. Look at his edits. He makes up policy (not a .PDF file of unknown origin) and bullies other editors into following his way, he owns the page and doesn't let any other editors edit unless they follow his opinion. If people are worried about the reputation of Wikipedia, it's because of him, not because of Malik and myself. And you can still share that it would not be your call, that is allowed.Sir Joseph (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Liz I modified my section but I still don't know why they are talking about a six month ban. What did I do other than go to ae appeal? And also coffee is involved.Sir Joseph (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Planning to close your AE appeal
Please see see my proposed closure here. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- The AE appeal is declined. Your one-week ban from the topic of Bernie Sanders on all pages of Wikipedia is still in force until 7 March. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
I'm hereby extending your current topic ban from Bernie Sanders and all related pages and discussions to six months, counting from 29 February. Your original one-week ban was for violation (addition of contentious content without firm consensus edit warring) of the discretionary sanctions already in effect at Bernie Sanders: "You must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits, must not engage in edit warring and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page." This extension is for that as well, plus for your battleground demeanour and repeated indications that you intend to continue the same behavior because you were right all along. That's why the ban needs to be longer. Note that you are not being "punished" for "daring to appeal" "like in Soviet Russia";[9] your repeating that over and over does not make it any truer. I have topic banned you to keep the topic of Bernie Sanders from disruption; not to punish you, and not because you appealed the original ban.
Note that the ban covers all discussion of Bernard Sanders and/or his Jewishness, on all pages. Please click on WP:TBAN and read what "topic banned" means. Feel free to appeal this ban, but it applies from now until it's lifted or expires. That means that in an appeal, in whatever forum, including my talkpage, you can freely discuss the reasons you were banned , but not go on and on about content, such as Bernie Sanders's Jewishness, because that is covered by the topic ban. You were banned for conduct, not for being either right or wrong about content, so continued arguing about it is irrelevant to the ban. Compare what you were told here by EdJohnston and Laser brain; I endorse everything they said there.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision. It has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions. You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | talk 09:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC).
- Jimbo should have blocked you for longer. You are not an asset to this project.Sir Joseph (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Kendrick7
Kendrick7 I'm currently blocked from editing Wikipedia due to a block by Coffee. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Until tomorrow? You'll live. :) Soon we can all get back to being happy clams. -- Kendrick7talk 22:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
The following sanction now applies to you:
You are hereby topic banned from editing any page relating to Bernie Sanders for 1 week.
You have been sanctioned for direct violation (addition of contentious content without firm consensus edit warring) of the discretionary sanctions already in effect at Bernie Sanders: "You must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits, must not engage in edit warring and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page."
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- From one person walking through the DS minefield to another, focus on conduct, not content. Only offer proof that you're right about the article if it's directly relevant to why you didn't do anything wrong (i.e. if you were accused of adding unverifiable content, show sources). Instead, explain why your actions aren't disruptive, etc. I had to dig through your statement to find anything that pertained to that. Good luck today, and, if not, good luck next week. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- You are in violation of your topic ban with this edit:[10] See WP:TBAN. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, article means article, not talk page. And didn't I tell you to stay off my talk page? Sir Joseph (talk) 19:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, topic ban means topic ban: please click on the link. Coffee may have accidentally used the wrong word (article instead of page); I've alerted him. Bishonen | talk 19:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC).
- I've updated the topic ban to reflect this. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Why would I be banned from editing the talk page? What purpose does that serve? Sir Joseph (talk) 19:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've updated the topic ban to reflect this. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, topic ban means topic ban: please click on the link. Coffee may have accidentally used the wrong word (article instead of page); I've alerted him. Bishonen | talk 19:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC).
- No, article means article, not talk page. And didn't I tell you to stay off my talk page? Sir Joseph (talk) 19:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- You are in violation of your topic ban with this edit:[10] See WP:TBAN. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- EDIT CONFLICT: Some topic bans cover talk pages and some don't. Take it from me, though, this stuff isn't obvious unless you've spent months watching WP:AE.
- As to why you were banned, you'd have to ask the admins for their reasoning (but let me warn you: they hate that), but did any part of the complaint against you involve talk page conduct? If it was only about the edits made to the article, then my guess is that topic bans are meant to be at least partially punitive. You're being punished, maybe as a deterrent against making edits similar to the one that inspired the ban in the future. Since your ban was for one week, it might be meant as a sort of time-out for you to cool down. I'm just guessing, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Right, because what better way to get consensus than to have one more person chased away. The whole point of Wikipedia is to use the talk page, if you're blocking someone from an article that is one thing but to ban someone from the talk page serves no purpose. Especially if I'm posting sources to back up my claims. I don't get it. And if there's one thing I learned on Wikipedia is never question admins, although I've never dealt with Coffee before but the fact that he modified the ban to add the talk page is bad, he could have left it the way it was. To spend some time to add in a talk page ban is just wrong.Sir Joseph (talk) 19:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Topic means topic. Talk pages are, of course, connected directly to the topic. 6k+ edits and you have to be told this? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- It was one thing when you were just WP:REHASHing the same comments over and over again, it's another thing when you've begun to now make veiled attacks at other editors and are claiming that they're backing some form of antisemitism. That sort of behavior is absolutely unacceptable no matter what the topic is. So the only reasonable course of action was to correctly clarify the ban so that you would be deterred from continuing to act in such a manner. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not the first one to bring up antisemitism on the talk page. Perhaps you're not sensitive to it but even an admin mentioned the word "troubling" in the RFC as well. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)At a guess, Sir Joseph, having this particular topic ban cover the talk page (but notice that topic bans normally do, per WP:TBAN, and I'm sure Coffee intended it from the start) serves the purpose of reigning in your relentless and exhausting rehashing of the same points and the same phrases ad nauseam on article talk; compare my comment at AE. Darkfrog, please stop trolling and fanning the flames at least until you have taken the time to click on WP:TBAN. I know it's hard; nobody likes to read what it says, it's much nicer to guess; but please click all the same. Bishonen | talk 19:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC).
- That's not appropriate, Bishonen. Of course I've read TBAN. Informing another editor that there is an unwritten etiquette at WP:AE isn't trolling. Do you want him to annoy people unnecessarily? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Of course she doesn't want that, Darkfrog. I do think what she's trying to say, however, is that you should butt out and worry about your own current issues being discussed at AE. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry about recommending you to click on WP:TBAN, Darkfrog24. I have now discovered that you have an appeal of your own at AE, where all the admins who have commented agree that you're having a lot of trouble understanding your own topic ban. So I'm sure you've read WP:TBAN. Maybe it isn't so easy to understand as I thought. However, I don't accept you as any kind of expert on appropriateness, after your foolish comments on this page. You had indeed much better butt out. Bishonen | talk 22:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC).
- Dude, come on. That's not civil. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Acroterion Just out of curiosity, is the above comment appropriate in your opinion? Sir Joseph (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Darkfrog24's comment? I would like for Darkfrog to stay out of contentious areas so he doesn't cross the bounds of his own arbitration enforcement action. Acroterion (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Acroterion Just out of curiosity, is the above comment appropriate in your opinion? Sir Joseph (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Dude, come on. That's not civil. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry about recommending you to click on WP:TBAN, Darkfrog24. I have now discovered that you have an appeal of your own at AE, where all the admins who have commented agree that you're having a lot of trouble understanding your own topic ban. So I'm sure you've read WP:TBAN. Maybe it isn't so easy to understand as I thought. However, I don't accept you as any kind of expert on appropriateness, after your foolish comments on this page. You had indeed much better butt out. Bishonen | talk 22:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC).
- Of course she doesn't want that, Darkfrog. I do think what she's trying to say, however, is that you should butt out and worry about your own current issues being discussed at AE. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's not appropriate, Bishonen. Of course I've read TBAN. Informing another editor that there is an unwritten etiquette at WP:AE isn't trolling. Do you want him to annoy people unnecessarily? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
no, bishonen's comments.Sir Joseph (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have the same advice for Darkfrog24 as Bishonen does. Please stop looking for ways to take umbrage. Acroterion (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- And yet I was blocked, why wasn't Bishonen given the advice by Coffee to not take umbrage? Sir Joseph (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have the same advice for Darkfrog24 as Bishonen does. Please stop looking for ways to take umbrage. Acroterion (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'd discourage discussing the edits and behaviour of a contributor who is no longer in a position to respond here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm obviously talking about bishonen. Sir Joseph (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Are you soliciting another editor to comment on a contributor? That would obviously not be a good idea, per Comment on content, not on the contributor. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- See also here (2nd entry) for an additional suggestion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm obviously talking about bishonen. Sir Joseph (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Discuss
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Regarding [this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Halakha&diff=710204205&oldid=710203094] edit. Apart from the fact that you show you now nothing of Israeli law, why not discuss? Debresser (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- I "know nothing of Israeli law?" Israeli doesn't have to follow halacha 100% for Halacha to have a cat on the page of Wikiproject Israel. You need to be more civil in your tone. The Israeli Government employs Chief Rabbis, have Beis Dins, hire Mashgichim, forbid stores from operating on Shabbos and public transport on Shabbos. That sounds like Halacha to me. Certainly enough to add a project to a page. See here, as well: http://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/basic8_eng.htm Sir Joseph (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- The United Kingdom has a chief rabbi, see Chief Rabbi of the British Empire, so does that mean they follow halakha?
- The Israeli system of law regulates that one very specific area of Israeli law is governed by halakha. That fact already speaks for itself. It is not the halahkha lending support to the Israeli law, but Israeli law dictating that halakha will decide. So the rule is the rule of the Israeli law.
- That one area is marital status, a small part of family law. Even in that field, many are the incursions of secular law into the rabbinical courts, like parallel jurisdiction with secular courts in most questions, and interference from the Supreme Court. Not to mention that the religious courts in may cases rule in complete disregard of the halakha in favor of modern conceptions like equality between the sexes. Or even with a initial disposition towards the female sex.
- The Chief Rabbinate of Israel can give approbations regarding kashrut, but no law forbids the produce or sale of non-kosher products. That is the law of economics at work, not any legal system.
- Public transportation works on Shabbat in Haifa. Many shops are open on Shabbat. You don't live in Israel, do you?
- It may not be very civil to say that you are rather ignorant about Israeli law, which is why I made that comment only on your talkpage, but the above proves that I was completely correct.
- Debresser (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- If you don't give a get in the UK you don't go to jail, but you do in Israel. Public transit works on Haifa because it worked there before 1948 and the status quo continued, but the law in Israel is that no public transport can operate on Shabbos other than where it operated before the status quo. The UK has a Chief Rabbi but it has no legal authority, no salary, and no government jurisdiction. The same can't be said for the Israeli Chief Rabbi. And the incursion is not just in marital status. The religious authority has influence on many aspects of daily life. And you are incorrect regarding the sale of non-kosher food, it is illegal to sell certain non-kosher food in Israel. Regardless, again, halacha does indeed play a vital role in daily life in Israel. It's irrelevant if I live in Israel, do you? Sir Joseph (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:1st century
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1st century. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)