User talk:Sir Joseph/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with 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 10

Added request for undelete of this topic

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Eprovided.com. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Mediation

Case is accepted. Page can be found here

Hinder

   Buy the fucking record, and read the credits, cody hanson doesn't play the drums!!!!!!!

AFC Backlog

Articles for Creation urgently needs YOUR help!

Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1438 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk.

Do you have what it takes?

Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
Are you autoconfirmed?
Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions.

PS: we have a great AFC helper script at User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js which helps in reviewing in just few edits easily!

We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 2 or 3 reviews, it would be extremely beneficial.
On behalf of the Articles for Creation project,
TheSpecialUser ^TSU

AFC Backlog Drive

Statement of Wrongdoing and begging for mercy

I want to end this back and forth. I do want to make a clear statement. Firstly, the way I think and process information, sometimes I ask questions and say things just to process, and that does not mean I am attacking or questioning, I am just trying to ask or clarify. I am not necessarily trying to wikilawyer. I have things in my head and I was always told to just process and think things through, so I'm processing my thoughts onto "paper."

That being said, I do realize I was wrong both times for attacking. If I may just make a statement with the second attack, (not necessarily to justify) I did not know that I can't do that on a talk page. I thought a talk page was a private space where I can vent and then delete when I needed. It's my own venting ground. Certainly not subject to the Israel Sanction pages. Had I known that I would not have done so. Once I found out about the 1RR a while back, I knew that certain areas didn't use the normal 3RR. I already apologized to Serialjoepsycho. I have been editing wikipedia for over 10 years and was involved in very few edit disputes, with the most notable one was dealing with Daniel575 and his 9 sockpuppets and his admin friend who was covering for him. During that time, I followed all the rules and acted as a model wiki editor.

This time I lost my cool because it was in the heat of the moment and the stress got to me. I apologize for that. It was unbecoming of me and unbecoming of someone who has been here for over ten years. That being said, I ask not to be topic banned. Being away from Wikipedia for over 48 hours has allowed me to cool off. I realize my error and I will not do that again. I did not know my talk page is subject to discretionary sanctions and I also did not know my talk page is subject to similar rules that can't be flexible since it's a user talk page. (Perhaps it's my fault that I'm not that involved, but I'm usually a behind the scenes editor and don't get involved in police or disputes, but I sometimes try to get more involved in front end stuff as time allows.)

In addition, and this is just a personal request, perhaps similar to a request for mercy, I have family in Israel. They walk around today with implements ready to defend themselves with. My second cousin was kidnapped last year and murdered so when I saw on a userpage that someone supported Hezbollah, and this was while I was blocked and this was while this guy was editing against my opinion of the facts, my emotions got the better of me. I have already passed the 48 hour block. I don't know what sanction you will place on me for the second attack, but I beg of you to please take everything into account. I will work with you. I already said I will think twice, submit once, should I edit in the Israel arena. Allow me the opportunity to prove myself once again to be the editor I have been for the past ten years.

If anything in this has offended anybody, please know that it is not how it was written. Please ping me and I will clarify whatever it is you wish. Ask away. I will do all I can to prove to you that I have it in me. I would not want to be missing a good part of Wikipedia for editing. As per the advice of -Serialjoepsycho-, I am pinging @Swarm:User:Swarm Yossiea ^(talk) 00:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Swarm I suggested that he ping you. I explained in my view y'all are discussing the topic ban as an insurance measure to end his disruption due to his escalating behavior. I suggested that he discuss this with you as there may perhaps be a way to alleviate concerns of future disruption without need for a topic ban. That's the reason for the ping.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It would have been nice to have been notified that Im a terrorist, I only even noticed any of this cus I was on AE for something else. But for the record, that userbox does not say anything about Hezbollah. And even if one were to make the assumption that I do in fact support Hezbollah, or Hamas for that matter, that would hardly make me a "terrorist". People have different views than you, and understand that somebody may see the IDF the same way that you see Hezbollah. All that said, I dont really care about the insult, and Im kinda surprised it resulted in an indef block. If my view matters, that aint necessary. What is necessary is the user understanding what WP:OR means and agreeing not to engage in it. nableezy - 07:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Can someone contact me with the status? I would like to start editing already and I really feel 4 days away did me good especially in light of everything. Can we please close this chapter already?Yossiea ^(talk) 02:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

When you can't edit Wikipedia, you start to read the weird part of Wikipedia, and you start to wonder weird things. I just finished reading the whole Neelix saga. I have questions about that, but I'm blocked from Wikipedia so I can't comment. And my AFC peeps are waiting for me. and my AFD peeps are waiting for me, and I had a thought about some page on my watchlist and now I forgot which page that was about. So, enough with the punitive measures, or sanctions, if you will and let me edit. I have a lot of catching up to do. After all, we're all in it for the barnstars and ribbons. Yossiea ^(talk) 02:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't know if this would help but see [1].-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

thanks. And one more for the record, besides neelix, admin malik shabazz is back. Not only was he not blocked or banned, he just had his admin privileges revoked for his extremely nasty comments. Yossiea ^(talk) 12:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

This is nuts, I'm still blocked! I was looking at the list of people at ANI, AE and even Administrators and I am here still waiting to do my stuff. Yossiea ^(talk) 20:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Blocks_should_not_be_punitive Yossiea ^(talk) 00:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Be patient. If by any chance no one comments about you on WP:AE, this AE thread you started will be automatically archived (de facto no action), and this is your best possible outcome. But I am not very optimistic, after looking at your recent comments.My very best wishes (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

no action means I'm banned. As for my recent posts, I can't edit so I read. And this past week was pretty interesting and I see nothing wrong with mentioning it. It DOES NOT take away that I was wrong, but it does highlight that I think an indef is extreme, and I think I can have that opinion, and I can also have a sense of humor about posting and Wikipedia. Yossiea ^(talk) 01:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Somehow I am not surprised that no one unblocked you so far after looking at your "Request reason" (to unblock) on template above on your talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

That's what got me blocked. Yossiea ^(talk) 02:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

That your request (as written) is an indication that you should be blocked rather than unblocked. I do not know what will happen on WP:AE (probably you should simply wait), however you should make a completely different request for unblock if you want to assure admins that the problem(s) will not reoccur. My very best wishes (talk) 02:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I modified it anyway, since AE has priority over the unblock request. Yossiea ^(talk) 02:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You probably do not realize that your talk page is currently on this list. In your place, I would change the reason in your request for unblock. My very best wishes (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I did, I think. Also, the AE block expired already. JPGordon's ban wasn't an AE block so why do we need an AE to overturn it? Shouldn't that be a regular admin or ANI or something similar? I'm pinging an admin to see what the story is. Because I am not sure how to proceed now. Yossiea ^(talk) 03:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC) @Callanecc:User:Callanecc

None of that was AE action. Wait for a week, and if you are lucky and your AE request will not result in new sanctions against you, then one of the admins will visit your talk page to review your block - exactly as it was written in your request (box above). If that happens, make sure that your request is reasonable. Do not do anything right now. My very best wishes (talk) 03:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, and I'm sorry to see you retiring from Wikipedia. I hope you reconsider. Yossiea ^(talk) 05:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

If you get banned in the future, let's hope you don't, take note of what happened here. You addressed the admins concerns and they took that into account.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

An appeal to my edit on the "I Saved Latin! A Tribute to Wes Anderson" page

Hello -

I just got your note saying you reverted an edit I made to the I Saved Latin! A Tribute to Wes Anderson page, as it didn’t appear constructive to you. First of all, thank you for letting me know; it's appreciated.

I'm the author of the piece that was quoted, and I felt the closing that I added ("I Saved Latin" is a hell of a damn tribute") was quite relevant. First of all, the passage that was quoted, while accurate, was not the summing up, the button, that my last line gives it. Were the album to use any part of my review as an advertisement, that line would certainly be one that they would single out, and as such it seemed appropriate to add here.

Secondly, it's a reference to the line in The Royal Tenenbaums where Royal Tenenbaum, at a cemetery, admires a headstone and says, "Hell of a damn grave." Adding that last line serves as a point of reference for fans of Wes Anderson, as well as being an accurate summation of the album itself.

Thank you for your time, and I hope you will reconsider my edit.

Take care,

Patrick Robbins Features Editor, Cover Me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.188.145 (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Drive by tagging

See Template:POV, specifically "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor." Sean.hoyland - talk 04:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

List of military occupations

I've reverted your edit at List of military occupations as it is highly WP:Pointy and rather disruptive.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I included sources. You can't just revert because you don't like it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Please check page Annexation where Tibet belongs. Note that West Bank and other similar territories are also described as annexations. Therefore, one could reasonably argue that all of them should be excluded from the list of ongoing military occupations, however including Tibet in the list would be wrong. But I would strongly advise you not to appear anywhere close to the the List of Military occupations because the majority of contributors out there will not agree with you, no matter what, and you will end up with a topic ban from this page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I think then, what you are saying, is similar to what Rav Papa was saying, and what others are say about Wikipedia. If I want to find out about a TV show, then Wikipedia is the place to go, but..... yes, I agree with you. And I tried to point that out based on the lead of the List article. The list explicitly says no annexation territories are to be included. I guess it should be edited to say no annexation territories other than Israeli territories because we don't like Israel, or something along those lines. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Use of rollback

Your use of rollback in this revert are inappropriate as they were used during an edit war. Please explain why you should continue to have the rollback userright. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't an edit war, and then I reverted and after I reverted I then edited again and added the sources I found. It was simpler to do it that way, and comment on the talk page, than to do a "clean" edit and have a possible misstype with the wiki-codes. I hope I explained myself clearly, I wouldn't have used it if I just reverted that one edit, but since I added the second edit, I felt it wasn't a "real" revert, but an addition. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

If it wasn't an edit war/content dispute what was it? The use of the rollback tool is limited to use in specific circumstances and prohibited from use in edit wars, or when reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with. From your comment it appears that you believe your use of rollback was correct so I have removed it until we have discussed it further so that I can be sure you won't use it inappropriately again. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, maybe I misspoke. I didn't rollback because I disagreed with him, I rolled back because I was adding references to the prior link that was there before. I won't do that again anyway, but I didn't do it out of wrongdoing, I was just trying to shorten my editing. I commented on my edit on the talk page. Please give me back the privilege, I feel this was a misunderstanding. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 06:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

So you need to have a close look at what it can be used for and only use it for those things again. One way you could avoid it is to click the undo button and then put in the references (which would have had the same effect and taken the same or less time). However it was still edit warring rather than discussing it on the talk page. I'm accepting in good faith that you realise it wasn't an appropriate use of the tool and now know what is and isn't appropriate so I'm re-enabling rollback. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry ;/

Sir im sorry for that, i thought that this information would be useful on the "video game" part of the article..., since is a very useful information for beginner's that need to have a better understanding of the person on the game, im also sorry if i caused any trouble... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romaoplays (talk • contribs) 00:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing

I'm going to try this without discretionary sanctions but go this way instead. Your and Serialjoepsycho's comments on my talk page have shown that you are canvassing more than what I'd be willing to accept. Therefore, I want you to stop notifying anyone of the discussion regarding what to include at List of military occupations. I also want you to try and not to discuss List of military occupations anywhere except on the talk page of that article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, but how is contacting admins who were involved with my AE called canvassing? He needs to stop his wikilawyering. The only reason I contacted you was because nothing was done at AN, even after an admin basically asked him if he's ever going to listen to other opinions. He still thinks an opinion of just him is called a consensus as far as Tibet is concerned. I don't care anymore one way or another. I already know that Wikipedia is not the place for a unbiased view on certain topics. As I've said elsewhere, the whole top of the talk page, not even the archives, is full of other users chased away by wikilawyering, etc. and that doesn't even include other users and past years of wikiusers. Furthermore, if he's "stalking" me then it's not canvassing, especially since I'm contacting admins and I'm contacting admins not to edit the article but to get clarification on activity. That is not the same as canvassing to get people to edit the article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Like I said on my talk page days ago, canvassing administrators is not a way of going about consensus building and dispute resolution. Start an RfC, take it to a noticeboard, go to the village pump, go to a Wikiproject, there's endless possibilities that will not result in a boomerang. Swarm ♠ 04:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing 2

You would think that, having been warned about canvassing, an editor would read WP:CANVASS -- but in your case, such a supposition would be wrong. You violated WP:CANVASS today when you posted a notice of your MfD to the discussion of WP:POLEMIC. Please be more careful in the future. Thank you. 2601:14C:0:F6E9:71B2:6F01:9EB8:B237 (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know which sockpuppet you are, but posting that was not a violation of canvassing, but being a sockpuppet most definitely is. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a sock, but if you think I am, WP:SPI is available to you. 2601:14C:0:F6E9:71B2:6F01:9EB8:B237 (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

First day and you already know about canvassing and SPI. What a shocker. Please stay off my talk page. You had your fun. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Sir Joseph FYI, the sock was reported and semi-protected against here. Good nite! Zezen (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

ANI

As you have allowed the ANI to lapse and thus archive, I consider that matter resolved.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hanukkah Page

I'm assuming you aren't Jewish, considering you continuously change the page to incorrect information. I recommend you do research on the Jewish culture before changing the Wikipedia page. Jordandlee (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

1. Don't assume. 2. As I pointed out, hanukkah menorah is a more widely used abd known term. On the page, hannukiah is also mentioned, but that term is not as widely used outside of Israel. In the future, this, and before edits, should go on the talk page, not my talk page.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Abusing your powers

As soon as I joined Wikipedia, I read the guidelines. Nothing in which I have done was considered vandalism, yet you have threatened to ban me. You told me to reread the guidelines many times—I did because I know there is the possibility that I was wrong. I have read ALL OF THE GUIDELINES plenty of times. Never had I once broken amy rule. You on the other hand have. You are supposed to use your privileges to keep Wikipedia the way it is supposed to be. You are using your power to make it the way you want Wikipedia to be. You said I vandalized baseball's and Chanuka's pages— I did not. I looked at every change I've made, and compared to the guidelines. I did what you wanted and I read the guidelines again, now you do what I want and read the guidelines again— pay extra close attention to both the commas AND the hyphens sections. Jordandlee (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Do what you want to baseball, I don't care anymore. But you should be using the talk page over there. You should also read up on English styles of usage. When you have a sentence where you have a phrase that is extra fluff that is not needed, it is placed within a comma. I still don't get why you have such an aversion to putting what you did on the talk page. That is where you should be discussing these things, not on my talk page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Then why can you do it on my talk page? If you don't want me doing something to you, don't do it to me, simple as that. I just think you should reread the guidelines because looking at past conversations on your talk page many other people have had this exact same problem with you. You need to understand that you aren't always right, especially when many people have talked to you about the same thing.

You need to lean how Wikipedia works. If you get reverted, then you need to use the talk page on the article to discuss the revert. You don't just then use the edit summary. If you have any other questions, feel free to post at WP:AN. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Scott Carpenter

I currently live with Scott Carpenter and know his life stroy. Please mind your own business and send me back the editing as it is lost. Thank you— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.155.226.13 (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

124.155.226.13 - Sir Joseph's removal of your content was perfectly justified. Wikipedia does not allow original research to be added as content to any articles. "Living with", "knowing this person", "living there", or "having first hand experience" is not a basis for adding the content here. It must be attributable to a reliable source - especially on articles that are biographies of living persons. I highly recommend that you read these policies and guidelines, as it will help you understand the reason behind Sir Joseph's removal of your content. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

If you have a source for all those wonderful stuff, then by all means, discuss it on the talk page and I'm sure you'll find some discussion on whether or not it's appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Not everything is acceptable, some items, especially trivia items are not really acceptable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring warning

You appear to be edit warring on Israel. You have repeatedly reverted the content added by myself, Nishidani, Johnmcintyre1959 and Zero000. Your edits (i.e your reverts) present unverifiable assertions as facts, and thus violate Wikipedia content policies. And your edit summaries are misleading - your repeated reverts are exactly what cause the content of the article to be unstable. Please refrain from any further disruptive behavior, or you could be blocked or topic banned. IjonTichy (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Reverting your edit is not called edit warring. There's a talk page for a reason, and the map in question was being discussed on the talk page, when you just jumped in and reverted. That is called edit warring. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Your reply is only making the situation even worse, and demonstrates your continued battleground behavior. You appear to have some Chutzpah (the bad kind, not the good kind) to accuse me of edit warring given that I've only made a single edit to the article while you have repeatedly reverted the edits of four different editors. You appear to be saying that if multiple editors disagree with you, then they, and not you, must be edit warring.

Stability is not unimportant but it is not very important. It is not one of the core editorial policies of WP, and is enormously less important than the core policies. In this specific case, you appear to be exploiting the extremely weak requirement of stability to edit war in order to retain unverifiable content that violates the infinitely stronger core requirements of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. -- IjonTichy (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

You say a lot of words and have a lot of links, but the fact remains that this matter is under discussion, and it's tagged as citation needed, and you need to learn how to WP:AGF. See, I can also link to a policy. I also don't know how reverting one person is considered reverting multiple users multiple times, as you claim. And it's pretty funny for you to claim NPOV and NOR. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not say a lot of words, in fact my comment was concise. And I did not have a lot of links. And I'm well aware of AGF. The reason I mentioned NPOV and OR is that in my mind they are interrelated to V & RS, but for the purposes of this discussion I should not have mentioned NPOV and OR, I should have only mentioned the violation of V & RS - my mistake. I also should not have accused you alone of reverting four different editors - also my mistake. I apologize for both mistakes.

More correctly, you, together with WarKosign, appear to have edit-warred against four different editors. Nishidani added content to improve the adherence to V & RS. You almost instantly reverted him, restoring the content that violates V & RS, and you also accused Nishidani of OR in your edit summary. Zero000 reverted your edit. WarKosign reverted back to the version violating V & RS. Johnmcintyre1959 reverted WarKosign, and WarKosign reverted back again. I reverted WarKosign's edit, and you reverted back again to the version violating V & RS.

Furthermore, as I said above, 'stability' of content is an extremely weak requirement and is not a valid reason to retain content that violates the infinitely stronger requirement to adhere to core WP policies. Nor is 'stability' a valid reason to edit war (nothing is). IjonTichy (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic List of military occupations. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

Please comment on Talk:Fiona Graham

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fiona Graham. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TM (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Christian Dingert Post

So people can post praise commentary for this person but if you post honest commentary of his lack of skills it is considered vandalizing,? Nothing like a dictator running a free speech info site. You should be proud of yourself Herr dictator Joseph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eintdave (talk • contribs) 04:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman

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/Kevin Gorman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 28, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman

Hi there,

You are receiving this message as you have been involved with the Kevin Gorman Arbitration case. I just wanted to let you know that the case timetable has been changed - evidence now needs to be presented by 22 December 2015, the workshop closes 31 December 2015, and the Proposed decision is targeted to be posted 3 January 2016.

I would therefore be grateful if you could submit any additional evidence as soon as possible.

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Mdann52 (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Re your comment at AE

Hello Sir Joseph. You posted at AE about your block for 1RR violation in February 2014. I took some time to look into this. The sequence of events is presented in the 2014 AE complaint. Also see the timely warning given to you by another editor, prior to your second revert, letting you know about the 1RR restriction. (Warning at 01:53 on 18 February 2014, your second revert at 06:56). The wording of the 1RR in WP:ARBPIA says "Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense." So the 1RR is routinely enforced even on editors who haven't yet been notified of the discretionary sanctions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. I did not see that I was notified of the AE complaint or that a talk page is a DS notice, to me it seemed like a hit and run. I never even knew of ARBPIA in 2014. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

You were notified of the AE here at 07:37 on 18 February 2014. The current procedure for issuing DS notices is given at WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. But (as mentioned above) 1RRs are enforced even on people who have not received DS notices. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Do me a favor

Please point to a single action that I took cited in my arbcom case that a regular user has been blocked for. I'm still an admin, at least for the moment, and will gladly unblock them. Kevin Gorman User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page}Statement in current arbcom case 21:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not say that you blocked someone. I said, based on what I read in your diffs from recent history and the other cases you were involved with. I just personally don't find your behavior based on what I've seen so far to be what I expect from an admin. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind, but since I fixed my signature I re-signed the above post. To me, "At a certain point ARBCOM has to reach a point where they are not going to tolerate behavior from admins that would get regular editors banned or blocked." certainly suggests that some of my actions have reached the point where if they were coming from a non-admin, they'd have gotten the non-admin banned or blocked. Anyway, offer stands, ping me if you change your mind. If you point me to a user who has been blocked in any sort of way I can reverse (e.g., not a checkuser block or arbcom or comunity ban) for behaving in the same ways cited in my arbcom case, if you make me aware of them I will unblock them. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page}Statement in current arbcom case 21:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Why did you delete everything I posted?

Hello Sir Joseph, how are you? I'd like to ask why you deleted my edits. Were there problems with them? I am new to writing for Wikipedia, please let me know what I can do to write better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OTDQueen (talk • contribs) 21:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Anything you write in Wikipedia has to be sourced. So when you include a new paragraph, you need to include a source for that paragraph. You can't have original research. Certain sentences such as "the sky is blue" is obvious and does not need a reference but an entirely new paragraph needs one. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Archive bot

There is an archive bot set up already. I do it manually when there is a need to do so manually. There was a need to do so manually. There was in excess of 171 kilobytes of conversation. Conversations that were either stale or resolved.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I saw the maxarchive size in the bot but that is on the archive thing. There should be a bot that also takes the size of the talk page. I wonder if they have something like that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure. But even with an archive bot you can always use manual archiving. There's also the one click archiver but I'm not sure if it's been updated in functionality to do more than archive to archive one.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I just "installed" the one-click archiver and it works like a charm, I would use that instead of copy and paste. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Be careful with it. Also note that the maintainer has been banned so unless someone else picks up the development it's functionality may cease at some point.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that's similar with miszabot, it's now being picked up by lowersigbot. But for simple archiving it seems to do the trick, I tested it out and it seems to work fine and others use it. Once it stops working, they'll post the notice, similar to other custom scripts, like they did with Twinkle stuff. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

This case shall be suspended from December 22nd, 2015 to January 2nd, 2016.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 20:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Motion

Revert (< 500)

Hello,

What do you mean by: Rv as per ARBPIA IP and EDITS < 500 not allowed?

500 what?

Thanks. Nayef (talk) 09:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Unexplained revert by User:Jordandlee

I did some copyediting, as I often do, to improve readability and remove redundancy. This user promptly reverted it with no explanation.

I thought it better to raise the issue first quasi-privately, on their* talk page, than on the article's talk page. There I saw that this very new user has been reprimanded multiple times for improper editing, so I thought it would be well to add this incident to the record. Seeing your name often as the senior editor involved, I am doing this by writing to you.

B'shalom. Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The only thing I can say is either revert, discuss on the talk page or bring it to WP:DR if all else fails. It's unfortunate but I'm not going to deal with that user anymore, it doesn't seem to do me any good. My warnings and other warnings haven't gone noticed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I reverted it right off, and then I left the note on their talk page. If they do it again I'll go to WP:DR. --Thnidu (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The Discussion on the "Festival-day" as a unique Jewish holiday

My good friend, User:Sir Joseph, I have only come to your Talk-Page to show you a page that I scanned from the Oxford edition of the Mishnah, and which you might find interesting. Since we've already discussed this matter there, there is hardly any need here to repeat those things. This is a page taken from Mishnah Betzah, a Tractate that deals specifically with the laws regulating a Yom-Tov, or "Festival-day." See: File:Page_from_Mishnah_Betza_(Oxford_edition).jpg. With that, I assure you of the respect that I have for you as a co-editor, here on Wikipedia. Hopefully, we can reach a compromise on this issue. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

New Israel Fund

You were the editor who asked about the NIF? These links might shed some light on those people, although most are blogs/SPS that cannot be used in articles. 50.196.177.155 (talk)

Dec. 2015

Rv. yourself or get blocked.--TMCk (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

For what? I removed unsourced claims and took out the part you didn't like. The flooding and dam part is not true, it's a hoax, perpetuated every year when there's flooding in Gaza. We can work on the language of the agricultural claim, but you can't just revert an IP claim and then when someone else comes along revert becasue of that. It's a hoax Gaza pulls off every year when they flood. There are no dams in the south of Israel that can cause flooding. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--TMCk (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

porque esta reeditando esta pagina? No hay razón para que lo haga porque no esta aportando sino borrando

Señor porque esta reeditando esta pagina? No hay razón para que lo haga porque no esta aportando nada sino borrando. Entiendo que a veces hay personas que no encuentran amor y solo hacen vida en internet pero comprenda que Wikipedia es un sitio para plasmar informaciones veraces, si existiera algún tipo de falacia en un articulo es correcto que sea borrada o reportada de lo contrario es un error hacerlo, yo he estado aportando una conformación de la pagina Celia (telenovela) basado en lo que fue su vida en lo que ella representa y poniendo en la trama lo que la novela esta reflejando, sin embargo usted con diferentes usuarios esta revirtiendo lo que yo escribo, le solicito muy cordialmente que se dedique a algo productivo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emces2015 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC) 1) I don't speak Spanish. 2) You can't insert promotional or flowery items in an article. It has to be sourced and verified. You can't write that Celia is the most important person in the world. That doesn't work in an encyclopedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Nunca dije o escribí que Celia es la persona mas importante del mundo/I never said or wrote that Celia is the most important person in the world

1)yo soy hispanohablante y perfectamente se como entender lo que usted escribe en ingles. 2)no difame de mi pues en ningún momento yo he escrito que Celia es la persona mas importante del mundo. 3)el tratamiento que se le da a Celia es algo completamente real y que fácilmente se puede verificar a través de múltiples entrevistas y artículos sobre ella y la evidente vigencia que aun ella tiene en el mundo de la música latina; Celia es indiscutiblemente la persona mas influyente e importante de la música latina, solo remítase a los múltiples homenajes y los títulos y elogios que recibió en vida. yo no he escrito nada incierto sobre ella. 4)usted a priori esta borrando lo que yo escribo lo cual hago basado en una realidad porque estoy viendo la novela y porque se quien es Celia Cruz, sin embargo usted lo borra sin haber analizado ni investigado lo que yo escribo. 5)Le recomiendo vea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kFUTonsdrc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQbdTTvukkc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsKOU-wE3Oo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMqvXU3D0pY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-cuCUmszV8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3vcYF4Hi5U y lea: http://www.tctelevision.com/novelas/celia http://www.canalrcn.com/celia/noticias/articulo-nota/sinopsis-lady-4510

1) I am spanishspeaking and I know how to understand what you write in English 2)please Don´t defame about me because at no time I written that Celia is the most important person in the world 3) the treatment given to Celia is completely real and that can easily be verified through multiple interviews and articles about her and her still State Of Being in force in the world of Latin music, Celia is arguably the most influential person and important Latin music, only refer to the many honors and titles and accolades he received in life. No this writing nothing uncertain about it 4) You at priori is erasing what I write I do it based on a reality that I am seeing the novel and I know perfectly who is Celia Cruz, however you delete it without having analyzed or investigated what I write. 5) We recommend see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kFUTonsdrc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQbdTTvukkc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsKOU-wE3Oo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMqvXU3D0pY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-cuCUmszV8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3vcYF4Hi5U and read: http://www.tctelevision.com/novelas/celia http://www.canalrcn.com/celia/noticias/articulo-nota/sinopsis-lady-4510 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emces2015 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Please don't contact me on my talk page. You submitted an edit war request, so you can put your comments there. And you should have used the talk page of the article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 06:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Sir Joseph. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Willing to Reach a Compromise

My dear fellow co-editor and friend, Joseph, if I may ask your indulgence for this moment, please, I know that we've had our disagreements on certain issues, but can we calmly try to work things out, and by assuming Good Faith? If I may ask you, what exactly do you dislike about having an expanded page dealing with the specific issue of the Yom Tov, although it is a branch of the Jewish holidays? Is it not similar to having a specific page on Afikoman, although it too is a branch of Passover, or is it not like having a specific page on Muktzeh, although it too is a branch of Sabbath day? I think that WP has a host of fine and capable editors, and you are, no doubt, one of them. Can we then find some common ground with which to begin hashing out our differences? With all due respect.Davidbena (talk) 04:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

At a very high level, your main reasoning for the article can be dealt with, and I believe is already dealt with, in the Jewish holidays article. There is a section called groupings and it explains the different groupings of holidays. There is absolutely no reason to get overly academic here. And for the record, Yom Kippur is indeed a Yom Tov, we say the standard yom tov greeting, we say a shecheyanu, etc. I think at this point, it's best to work on the existing articles without muddying the waters. Your new article is just too confusing. I gather you speak English fluently, perhaps at an academic level, but nobody uses Festival-days as the term for Yom Tov and that is the underlying source for the Wikipedia article. In English, Purim, Pesach, Rosh Hashana and Sukkos are all Holidays. The holidays articles then has the groupings to differentiate, and we have another article for the shalosh regalim to add on to that. At this point you should just ping an admin to close the AFD to delete and let's move on from here and work together to work on existing articles. There are some articles that are really messed up, that needs to be fixed; we don't need to be adding unnecessary ones to the mix. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Shavua Tov, Joseph. If I could make two points: The first, I really wouldn't call this article "mixed-up," particularly not now that I've made a few corrections in my edits on that page. Take another look at the article. And, besides, there is a subject in Jewish law called "Yom Tov," with a whole myriad of laws dealing specifically with that subject, and which are not to include Purim, Hanukkah or Yom Kippur. My second point is that, although today the standard "yom tov" greeting on Yom Kippur may be such, it seems to me that this is only an anomaly, and something that only started relatively late in time, since in the Talmud itself we do not find Yom Kippur being called by that name, but rather by the name צומא רבא - "the Great Fast [day]." The words"Yom Tov" (Heb. יום טוב) are reserved in the Talmud exclusively for Pesach, Shavuos, Sukkos and Rosh Hashanah.Davidbena (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a solution to the problem. I noticed that the title of the article, "Jewish holidays," is wrongly translated in the page's title as "Yom Tov" / "Yamim Tovim." It is a misnomer, and should have rather been translated as " Chagim Yehudim " (Heb. חגים יהודיים). This is because, in classical Hebrew (or in rabbinic Hebrew), the word "Tom Tov" has a limited meaning, and excludes some Jewish holidays, such as Purim, Hanukkah and Yom Kippur. Don't you think that by changing the name there (i.e. Jewish holidays), half of our problem will be solved?Davidbena (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Sir Joseph, I noticed where the name-change (Yom-Tov) given to the WP article, "Festival-day (Jewish," was reverted, and this came after many co-editors (a vast majority) suggested the name-change to "Yom-Tov." Why, then, was it necessary to keep its old name? Just curious, my friend.Davidbena (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You Have Been Reported

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokshin kugel (talk • contribs) 04:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles ARCA request

Hi there,

Just a note to let you know that your recent amendment request has been declined and archived. For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Lokshin kugel (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On!

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On!

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Your recent editing history at Shmuly Yanklowitz shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 your 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. Scr★pIron^IV 19:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Shmuly Yanklowitz. Thank you. Scr★pIron^IV 19:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're issue is. He's a student of YCT, therefore he's a OO rabbi. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

If that were true, the article on the school would label it Open Orthodox. It doesn't. Find a SOURCE. Scr★pIron^IV 19:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

As I showed you on your talk page, the article does label it Open Orthodox. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Even if it did - which it doesn't clearly state - it would still be WP:SYNTH to claim it; published, verifiable, third-party sources. You have been here forever. This is basic stuff... You are way too experienced to argue of a need to cite WP:RS per WP:V. Scr★pIron^IV 19:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Re:Secretary of State

There is a very simple way to tell if it's a state secretary of state. The state secretaries of state's titles are e.g. Secretary of Florida. or Secretary of (State name) Is that really so hard to figure out? The title is not United States Secretary of State. I only used United Kingdom because they also have more than one Secretary of State, and nobody put United Kingdom before it. NapoleonX (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Secretary of State Cont.

The official web page for the Department of State says The Secretary of State, not United States Secretary of State. NapoleonX (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

UK Secretaries of State

Actually there are several Secretaries of State in the UK. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Secretary of State for Dominions. All Cabinet officers are called Secretary of State of Education, etc. But that's not the issue in the U.S. The state secretaries of state are called that. They are called Secretary of State of Washington. or Secretary of State of Florida. The actual title of what you are calling United States Secretary of State is just Secretary of State. It even says that on the official Dept. of State home page. The Secretary of State or with the current office holder, Secretary of State John Kerry. NapoleonX (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

And the US is the UK? Last I recall we fought a war in 1776 to make sure we don't have to follow the same rules and protocols you use in the UK. Also, stop posting on my talk page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

I didn't mean to fill your page up with a dispute. I deleted my comments from your page. I didn't mean the US is the UK. I was just saying that there isn't United Kingdom in front of their Secretary of State. I was only saying, there are more than one Secretary of State in the UK. I really didn't mean to start a dispute. I just thought it'd be shorter, and simpler, we call them the Secretary of State, and United States Secretary of State is so long, and unnecessary I thought. I'll delete this after you've seen it or you can if you want to. Just wanted to say I wasn't trying to start a fight. NapoleonX (talk) 10:58 pm, Today (UTC−5)

1RR

You have violated 1RR at the JDL article. Please self-revert; if you don't, you'll visit AE. I see you have been notified re the discretionary sanctions [2], and you've previously been blocked for violating 1RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

1rr is only on specific articles.why is this article subject to 1rr? besides, you seem to keep misreading the fbi document, which might be broadly construed as a blp violation, since you are defaming people. The jdl has nothing to do with the ip conflict, it's a us based group fighting antisemitism.

TO THE ADMIN LOOKING AT MY PAGE: The JDL has nothing to do with Israel-Palestine, it was founded to fight antisemitism in the US and fights the KKK, the neonazis, the militant blacks, etc. to say that the JDL page is now subject to ARBPIA sanctions is now bordering on the crazy. Any article with the word Jew in it is now ARBPIA sanction> Is that the way the anti-Israel/anti-Jewish editors are now going to get their biases into Wikipedia? They already have the numbers, they already know how to get editors labeled as sockpuppets, this is next? What's next?Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm -- I'll concede that: the material in question isn't about Israel/Palestine. So, I've reverted your edit, because the quote from the source given on the page does in fact appear in the source. It's a mystery that you deny this. Oh, by the way, if you're going to refer to me as anti-Jewish, you can fuck right off. (Not least because I'm Jewish...) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Plenty of Jews were anti-Jewish. Look at Haaretz, as for the FBI article, you are misreading. The quote says "extremist" not terrorist. If you find a quote where the FBI says the JDL is a terrorist group, show me where it says it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request archived

Your request for clarification has been archived at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 21:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bernie Sanders

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bernie Sanders. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on WP:AN, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

you make me glad of at least one of my votes. I never attacked anyone, I merely said it seems like a constant witch hunt. Nableezy even once posted about all his conquests.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Drmies, especially since I note your response to Curly Turkey just above: "You are the reason why people don't like editing Wikipedia, you chase people away with your moronic attitude. Congratulations." Posted after my topic ban warning above, I see. You will not be allowed to chase people away with constant attacks. Bishonen | talk 12:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC).

what would you call it if Wikipedia decides to declare that Sanders isn't Jewish? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 12:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Why do you insinuate that anyone would? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

you keep posting on my page after I told you not to. Next time I won't just revert, I will report for harassment, similar to what you're doing to another user on Bernie Sanders..... https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bernie_Sanders&curid=1637601&diff=703261073&oldid=703258831 Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

calling someone a troll:https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bernie_Sanders&curid=1637601&diff=703263229&oldid=703262574 Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Last warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 your 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.

As we can see, this is a pattern with you, and you are well aware that you are to wait until there is a consensus. Your next revert—even outside a 24-hour period—will be reported, along with the above diffs to show how persistent you have been. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You're the one who is editing outside of a consensus, and kindly stay of my talk page. The consensus of all 535 members of Congress is to included the religion. You are the reason why Wikipedia is seen as a joke in the news and academia. Imagine Bernie Sanders' not being allowed to include his religion even though he's Jewish, he identifies as Jewish, his press kit says he's Jewish, but you some policy stickler decides he's suddenly not Jewish enough for you? You are the reason why people don't like editing Wikipedia, you chase people away with your moronic attitude. Congratulations. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Please stop before you're topic-banned

Hello, Sir Joseph. I see you have already been alerted to the Arab-Israeli discretionary sanctions. I know you're not the only user who imports political hostilities to Wikipedia, but I've seen you recently doing it much too much — at every opportunity, it seems. Here's a post on a user talkpage: …It's getting really hard to edit Wikipedia on the Israeli-Palestine side when any pro-Israeli editor is banned/blocked every couple of weeks. And here and here, you (alone of all who have commented) defend the blatant rule-gaming and wikilawyering of a user at WP:AE: "maybe if you guys wouldn't be so militant about reporting every third pro Israel editor he wouldn't be so vocal?? Just a thought?". And "… as the ruling stands, this person did nothing wrong. And of course, since he's pro-Israel, he automatically gets labeled a sock. I'm surprised I wasn't yet labeled a sock at some point. That is of course how it works in this area. Regardless, what Wikipedia doesn't need is yet another pro-Israel editor kicked away merely to prove to the world the bias of Wiki." And what Wikipedia also doesn't need is your hostility and POV-pushing all over the noticeboards. We don't need these tensions exacerbated at every turn. I'm going to topic ban you (something I understand has been discussed before) from the Palestine-Israeli conflict if you don't stop stirring the flames and assuming bad faith of everybody who disagrees with you. Oh, and this cute sarcasm just in: That's right. Only Palestinians should be allowed to edit Wikipedia. And these examples are just what I've stumbled on in the last few days; I haven't gone looking. User:Bishonen | talk 18:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC).

I didn't defend his gaming the system. I was merely pointing out yet again how ARBCOM failed. I've been at ARBCOM a few times with clarification requests for their horribly worded rulings telling them it will come bite them in the butt, and this is how one of their rulings come back. I haven't looked at any of his edits and don't care to. I do stand by my remarks about being pro-Israel. If you are pro-Israel, you will get labeled a sock or hounded, the pro-Israel editors let things slide and don't really take things to AE or care to investigate every sockpuppet. And my comment about "only Palestinans should edit" was a very valid sarcastic reply to his edit, and as you can see from all the other replies that comment is getting, it's not just me. I'm not stirring anything, you need to look at the bigger picture. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I hate to eavesdrop, but too late, I already did. I'm quite sure it would be unprecedented to give a user a topic ban based purely based on them presenting their reasonable opinions expressed via talk page contributions, @Bishonen, and even to declare that as a starting point for "going looking" would fall under the fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine in any sane system of modern justice. Such a ban based from such a starting point would have a chilling effect on the free discourse of ideas which the project should, and I believe does, encourage on Talk pages.

I don't agree with Sir Joseph on much yet, and, frankly, he's already aggravated me a tad — just a tad — by making a boneheaded mistake (per the above talk page section). But despite that, he certainly reminds me of myself 10 years ago: I would brashly charge into any subject, discussion, policy or ArbCom dispute within topics of my interest. This project can not thrive if we smother the next generation in their crib.

Of course, mind you, Joseph, if I had it all to do again, I would have toned it down a notch. A word to the wise.... -- Kendrick7^talk 06:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kendrick7: Smothering them in their crib? Sir Joseph has coincidentally been here ten years, as a click on their contribs will show. Indeed, to be finicking, they have been here five months longer than you. And it's not the "expressing their opinions on talkpages", it's how: with persistent and consistent hostility and assumptions of bad faith. Raising the temperature and polluting the atmosphere. Compare also Drmies's warning below. Yes, I think persistence in this would be a fine basis for a topic ban. That's even without waiting another ten years. Bishonen | talk 12:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC).

Some IP tried to reset my password and subscribed me to al Jazeera

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hi, the ip80.189.122.106 tried to do a reset of my password and then I got an email from AJ that I subscribed, but how did that ip get my email address, and can something be done for the resetting of the password? It should certainly be against policy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 12:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

There's no way for an IP editor of Wikipedia to get your email address unless you published it yourself (beyond merely setting an email in your preferences; in that case you may want to contact WP:OVERSIGHT to have the relevant edit removed). How can you tell that the IP is behind signing you up to Al Jazeera?

Regarding the password reset, you can simply ignore that. Obviously anybody can click the "Password reset" button, but the email with the temporary password will be sent to your email address only. If you do nothing, your old password will stay in place. Huon (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I can't tell for sure, but the emails were minutes apart. I didn't post my email out to anyone, so that is what gave me pause. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Mea Shearim

6 days ago you removed sourced material from Mea Shearim. Please resolve at talk, otherwise the material will be summarily re-added. Thanks, Chesdovi (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Jewish boycott of the Western Wall

You have added {{COI}} and {{undue}} tags to Jewish boycott of the Western Wall. Please provide rational on talk, otherwise they shall be summarily removed. Thanks, Chesdovi (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Um, you clearly have a COI. Look at your behavior. You go after anyone who dares to post a delete opinion. We get it, you're a Satmar chassid, but nobody else but a small minority of guys like you actually think that there is a "boycott." Everyone else in the Jewish world laughs at you guys. This why COI editors are not a good thing. You need to take a step back. Bringing in fringe people and using them as sources is laughable. Just wait a few more days, the article will be delete and get on with editing. That's why nobody is touching your article, there's no point in sullying ourselves with such a horrible and disgusting and vile article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

You have not identified any substantial problem with the article's neutrality. The article is not biased and neither is the material within it unduly weighted. It is a page about a specific views. I am removing the tags as the have been applied improperly. All you have done is further reveal your highly partisan POV on the matter. Chesdovi (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Palestine Wine

It's just so fine. Rolls right off the tongue. Not sure how that deletion discussions going to go but in the event it is retained do view Template:Wine_by_country. A cursory look (I haven't checked every entry) suggests that other than Palestine these are all active wine regions. If that is the case this doesn't seem apt to include a historic and no longer active wine region.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but it was reverted once because it had the word Palestine in it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You'll have to go to the talk page of the template. At the moment it's actually not important or worth your time to bother with. Deletion of the article is justification to delete the link. I'd wait til after. I was just making you aware of it because it relates in someway to your deletion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Re:Blockade of the Gaza Strip

Ah, OK, I see what's going on; I believe that you were trying to revert Anassjerjawi, but didn't realize that the bot's edit had gotten caught up in the mix. Meanwhile, I was trying to restore the bot's edit and didn't realize Anassjerjawi's edit had gotten caught up in the mix. I apologize for the confusion, but you really should have been more careful in the first place. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Manuel Tenenbaum

Are you interested in helping me expand Manuel Tenenbaum please? I decided to create his article after I received the JTA e-mail newsletter. There must be much more about his publications, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I will take a look and see if I can help. You might also ping, IZAK, he is better suited for deeper research, not sure if he is active as much though. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

User:IZAK?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Sir Joseph. You have new messages at Danielklotz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

February 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Western Wall. 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 ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

thanks for not even doing one bit of due diligence. Firstly, you can now see Chesdovi inserting pov into the article, and I guess it's ok to stalk and report. And we better leave false information in there because if we revert someone might drive by and report you Sir Joseph ^(talk) 12:36, 10 February 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).

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

Request reason:

I will post a few reason, pick whichever suits your fancy. Firstly, a block is supposed to be preventative, not punitive, so that being said, there is no reason for the block. The reverts, if any (I'll get to that later) were in the past. Secondly, Guy Macon is a way involved editor. He has it in for me because I am Jewish and Bernie Sanders is Jewish. I am not sure why that is an issue but apparently at the BS talk page, along with Bus_stop and Malik_Shabazz words were said. He then stalks my page. He has had no interaction on the Western Wall page and I have no idea why he's reporting me. Further, if you look above, with regards to one of the revers, Nableezy has posted to my talk page and we're discussing the content of that revert. He didn't report me, I told him why I reverted, why I think my term is more neutral, etc. As for Nishidani's revert, he though I reverted something regarding transgender, in my edit summary I mentioned my revert had nothing to do with that, and I also posted on his talk page about my revert. If the blocking admin would have done any due diligence instead of just blocking he would have seen good discussions going on the talk page. We are working on this page heavily. But now, Chesdovi has free reign while I am blocked and if you notice, as soon as I got blocked, he inserted fringe views into the page, and I can't edit or discuss. As Debresser and others can point out,Jews pray at the Western Wall, the view that Jews don't pray there is a fringe of a fringe view point and reading the article now, as Chesdovi edited it, makes it seem that most Jews don't view praying there as a valid viewpoint. Please unblock. The admin didn't even give me the common courtesy to discuss, I had like 5 minutes to post from my phone at the ADMIN noticeboard, I was not notified about the notice. The other reverts were mostly drive bys, so I can't comment, but if people are heavily editing a page and using the talk page and using the edit summary, someone who has a grudge because Bernie Sanders and Sir Joseph is Jewish should not make someone else be blocked from editing. I would appreciate being unblocked. The blocking admin seemed really quick on the trigger finger and didn't even look at any of the issues. I would like that looked into, and I would also like Guy Macon's behavior looked into as well. His comments on the Bernie Sander's talk page now warrant a boomerang.

Decline reason:

The first rule to appealing a block is "talk about yourself, not everyone else". The way to stop disruptive behaviour is not to be be disruptive yourself. 24 hours is not a long time, take the cat for a walk or something. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

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.

Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:29, 10 February 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).

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

Request reason:

I didn't mention people, I just mention one, Guy, the other people were people that Guy was dealing with. I know 24 hours is not a long time. The other people I mentioned were people I was talking with on my talk page and on the article's talk page. Please read fully and read edit summaries before just pressing decline.Its very frustrating to see articles I'm editing be destroyed in front of my eyes. I was not edit warring. Look at the diffs. Blocks are not supposed to be punitive. Again, Nishidania reverted me because he thought I deleted some info, I reverted and told him I didn't and I left him a message on his talk page as well, that should certainly be allowed. The other is similar. That is not edit warring, that is productive editing.

Decline reason:

Although you continue to adhere to your belief that the block was punitive, your words here lead me to believe that it is preventing further disruption. Some of the accusations you've made against other editors since your block are deeply concerning. You need to take step back and look at your own involvement in this dispute. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

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.

@Ponyo: I don't understand, accusations against which users? The only person I said was that Chesdovi is anti-Zionist, which he never denies and I don't have a problem with, it's the putting in POV stuff that is against policy. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion. I was not being disruptive at all. If anyone is being disruptive it's Chesdovi, look at his edits to the page. My edits were reverts or additions. I reverted Nishidani and explained my revert to him. I reverted Nableezy, explained on the summary and on my talk page. I removed the lead section based on the talk page discussion, fixed up some wordings, etc. Occasionally we have some gie and take, but that's not disruptive. What Chesdovi is doing is ruining the page. I was fixing the page. And yes, I do think what Guy did was wrong. Why did he report me? It was extremely childish for someone who has a history with me on another page to stalk me and report me for a page he has nothing to do with. I ask you to look at everything in totality and reconsider. Look at all talk pages, look at summaries look at edit histories. There is no edit warring on my part. If you unblock me I won't edit war, I will use the talk page as I was doing in the past. I'm here to build an encyclopedia, not push a POV. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

To your first question "I don't understand, accusations against which users?" You wrote in your first unblock request "Guy Macon is a way involved editor. He has it in for me because I am Jewish and Bernie Sanders is Jewish" and "someone who has a grudge because Bernie Sanders and Sir Joseph is Jewish should not make someone else be blocked from editing.". You cannot throw around accusations like this. In the same paragraph you wrote "If the blocking admin would have done any due diligence instead of just blocking" and "the blocking admin seemed really quick on the trigger finger and didn't even look at any of the issues" which is also making accusations against others. I haven't even touched on the remarks you made about Chesdovi below.
To your second point "I was not being disruptive at all" - you were edit warring. All you are doing is explaining to me how you were being disruptive, you just don't see it as such because you are so wound up. I stand by my unblock decline.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

If you read the BS and the BLP talk page you will see where I am coming from. And if you look at the AN noticeboard you will see that Guy says he will now stalk my edits to wikipedia. Your second point links to Guy's report doesn't prove anything, it's his report after all. And he's going to hound me and he doesn't even know that a tool automatically puts in "revert" in the edit summary. You might want to let him know that there are plenty of other people on Wikipedia to look out for people's edit. Him hounding and stalking me is going to do nothing but antagonize me and boomerang on his actions. Look at his diffs on the BS and BLP talk pages. Perhaps I should start reporting him. I guess from now on I will be diligent in reporting people. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Can an admin please revert his edits and protect the page? Look at what he's doing? He's adding fringe views. He's writing Jews don't pray at the wall, or they prayed for only 300 years, yet Western_Wall#Prayer_at_the_Wall show that Jews prayed at the wall for thousands of years. This is called edit warring. Sir Joseph ^(talk)

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Please revert and protect the Western Wall page. User chesdovi is edit warring and putting in fringe POV. He waited for me to be blocked and is now inserting fringe viewpoints that are not supported at all by mainstream views and are in fact contradicted by the article itself. Western_Wall#Prayer_at_the_Wall. At the very least revert to my last edit and protect until I am unblocked or I my baseless block is over. He is very disruptive and it is also very uncool to do what he is doing. To put in the Jewish section the majority view that praying is not the majority viewpoint is certainly UNDUE and of course contradicted by the sources and common knowledge of just going to the wall on daily basis and of course by the article. I also think that an admin should tell Chesdovi to stop this childish pursuit. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You were blocked for edit-warring, yet you want an administrator to revert on your behalf and protect your favored version? I really dont think thats the brightest request to make while blocked. nableezy - 16:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I want the page protected. Chesdovi is inserting fringe viewpoints that are not supported by facts. He could wait, and it's really not cool to insert as soon as I was blocked. And I wasn't edit warring. As I wrote, my reverts were not edit warrings, they were either fixes or mistakes, etc, not wars. He is putting in new information, nothing I reverted, and his stuff is contradicted by the article itself. I mean, just look at his edits to the page, "even you" can see they are being disruptive. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

All, please take a look at his recent edits and ask if they are not disruptive to Wikipedia. @Debresser, IZAK, and Yoninah: Pinging some people to help out because the article is going down hill fast. I'm getting a DANIEL575 feeling here for some reason. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Is it really that bad to revert and protect and then use the talk page for a little bit? That's all I'm asking in this request. Chesdovi is purposely being disruptive he knows I can't respond, so he's putting in all his NPOV and fringe stuff in now, knowing I can't do anything about it. He's turning the Western Wall article into yet one of his anti-Zionist pet articles. It's a shame everything has to turn out this way. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, read the Jewish section on the Western Wall, see if you can understand and try tell me with a straight face that it's written in a neutral POV. Chesdovi is destroying the article with his POV. He is an anti-Zionist Jew, and while that is perfectly acceptable to be one, it's not acceptable to insert those views into an article and destroy an article and insert fringe views. Look at how he took the Western Wall article, Jewish section and converted it into the PA section. It's like Al Jazeera hired him as a propaganda spokesman. If an alien would read the article they would assume Jews don't visit the Western Wall and certainly don't pray at the Western Wall. That is what is called disruptive editing. Not what I was doing. So what why I am requesting a revert and page protection. He needs to discuss these changes on the talk page. And he needs to say if he's a banned user because my suspicions are getting stronger. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, I understand that you are upset, but you think perhaps that may be a good idea for you to walk away and calm down, then respond later once you have?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

That's why I just want the page reverted and protected. That is all. Can I ask you to take a look at what he is inserting? Read it, can you tell me honestly if you think those aren't fringe NPOV? Even if you know nothing about Jewish religious stuff, all you have to do is look at the Kotel Kam and see thousands of Jews daily praying to know that the view that Jews don't pray is fringe, besides, Western_Wall#Prayer_at_the_Wall says Jews pray. Then he adds that Jews only prayed there for 300 years and quotes Goren, yet again Western_Wall#Prayer_at_the_Wall has Jews praying there for thousand of years. That is why I just want the page protected. Once it's reverted and protected I can calm down. You know as well as I do, how hard it is do undo done-deals. Once these edits are in, they're in. That, and the fact that it is very uncool of him to edit as soon as I was blocked. Look at the timestamps. That and the fact that Guy reported me. Why did he do that? He stalked me over and reported me because I'm Jewish and has it in for me. Nableezy didn't report me. We don't like each other but we were discussing our edits on the talk page and we were actually involved on this topic, Guy just jumps in because he has a GOTCHA. That is also uncool. That should not be what Wikipedia is about. I am in middle of editing this page and Chesdovi is in middle of destroying it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I have full-protected the page for 24 hours. Despite what I wrote above in the unblock request, there does seem to be too-much back and forth on the article, principally between you and Chesdovi, while a talk page discussion is going on. You'll be unblocked before the protection expires (unless another admin strongly disagrees and reverts it) so you will be able to have your say to any replies that come in. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you at least revert to a less POV version? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I question myself if this all should have been 1RR, but I only did a cursory glance of the edits, so what ever. You are going to have to hit the talk page, the noticeboards or start an RFC. You need to calm yourself down down so you can express yourself. Going back and forth and focusing on individual editors will not help you here. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Did you read the section? It looks atrocious, and it contradicts the article further up. Chesdovi has an-Zionist POV and we saw that in his recent articles that he created and his deleted boycott article. So he's trying to insert the data into this article. I am calm, but it's maddening to watch someone just insert stuff from Google Books and claim that is the majority opinion and then I can't do anything about it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)