If you are considering posting something to me, please:

Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
Use the New Section option when starting new talk topics.
Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here.
Do not make personal attacks or use the page for harassment.

Comments which fail to follow the four rules above may be immediately archived or deleted.

1.Stick to the subject matter being discussed in the title of the [section].
2.Be concise.
3.Use a logical argument.

USEFUL PAGES:

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is it disruptive editing to post to a blank page? You are violating your own rule. Your characterization of my argument as bigotry is inappropriate. The questioning of Islam's intolerance is valid. Your name-calling is not.

Well, firstly, Wikipedia is not a site for questioning the intolerance of anyone, it's an encyclopedia, so if you want to campaign against Islam then you need to take it elsewhere. Secondly, there is a big difference between "the questioning of Islam's intolerance" and the propagation of the works of an anti-Muslim hate site - you might notice that the image you uploaded to Commons and then posted repeatedly to the talk page of a closed AFD here was deleted on a unanimous consensus. Finally, if I see you do anything like that again and nobody else gets there first, I'll be blocking you indefinitely. Now, if you want to make an unblock request you know how to do it, but I suggest your current approach is unlikely to be successful. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not post to the talk page that was closed. I posted to a talk page that was blank. That argument is wrong just as you are wrong. Obviously, you are censoring the intolerance of Islam by becoming its Minister of Truth; . Your claim I am propagating the works of an anti-Muslim hate site is an ad hominem fallacy, not a valid argument. What it does is collect facts from the broad media, including many Muslim news outlets. The problem is you; not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a collection of facts. That Islam is a museum of 1400 years of intolerance against its own minorities of tradition, women, gays, and other religions is a fact you are now trying to censor. Your "I'll be blocking you indefinitely," is the appeal to the stick fallacy. If you are going to campaign for Islam, you need to take it somewhere else rather than censoring the facts about the rise of violence during Ramadan in 2016. John Lloyd Scharf 15:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Further, your claim there is a process for "unblocking" with your censorship is vague and unexplanatory or I would have taken it. John Lloyd Scharf 15:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JohnLloydScharf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Irresponsible irrelevant censorship of a discussion on a blank talk page or what is the point of a talk page

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note to the reviewing admin, you will not be able to see the image uploaded by this editor to Commons unless you are a Commons admin. I am not, but like many I saw it before it was deleted. I'm not now able to find the original source - but it was a version of this with a black background instead of the photograph, credited to the anti-Muslim hate site thereligionofpeace.com. You can find the ANI discussion that led to the block at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive929#JohnLloydScharf and Ramadan Bombathon, and the image deletion discussion at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ramadan-Bombathon-2016 Final Score Black.jpg. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are reiterating your name-calling personal attacks with ad hominem fallacies rather than addressing the sources properly with legitimate logical argument. If you believe the data is untrue from the source indicated, make your case; not a claim. Talk should be a place to carry on logical argument in a civil conversation, not your opportunity to censor opposition. At this point, you need to resign your authority. Your bias is evident and you ignoring the purpose of a talk page is proof. John Lloyd Scharf 17:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

No, jpmorgan, I do not understand what I have been blocked for, did not cause damage or disruption, and made a useful contributions instead. So, your response is both irrelevant and inappropriate. You know what that means and should carry my appeal higher, however that is done. I cannot contradict something when something arbitrary and ambiguous is claimed without facts or evidence to support it. John Lloyd Scharf 17:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JohnLloydScharf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

No Wikipedia page, blank or not, is an appropriate place for material from hate sites; I'm baffled by your notion that offensive material can freely be put on blank pages. Your unreasonable attacks on this page against the blocking admin frankly make me more inclined to lengthen the block than to lift it. If you make another unblock request without giving a reason, or if you make it in attack mode again, your talkpage access will be revoked. As for carrying your appeal higher, you can use this page, or appeal to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. For it to be any use, though, I'd really advise you to glance at the Guide to appealing blocks first. (Who is "jpmorgan" anyway? This guy?) Bishonen | talk 19:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

So Bishonen, you claim the material is from a hate site. Again, that is an ad hominem argument A claim without merit until you make a logical argument from the facts. Is that the best you have? Punishment for expecting a logical argument rather than claiming, without merit, the religion of peace site is a "hate site." The facts be damned because we do not like the obvious conclusion? I am not attacking. I am on the butt end of a personal attack. PROVE THEM WRONG! Repeating your claims does not make them true. John Lloyd Scharf 20:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, you do not know how to make a reasoned objection with a logical argument. There is no reason to have any faith in the existence of a legitimate process.

John Lloyd Scharf 22:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, this is ignored:

John Lloyd Scharf 22:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk page access

As you are misusing this talk page to continue to promote an anti-Muslim hate site and to propagate its material, I have revoked your ability to edit this page. If I see *one* more example of this behavior when this block expires, I will seek a site ban for you. See WP:UTRS if you wish to appeal this decision. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Site ban proposal

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

You cannot edit this talk page, but if there is anything relevant you want to say then I suggest contacting WP:UTRS where someone might grant you permission to post it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, JohnLloydScharf. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]