User talk:Sir Joseph/Archive 8

A year ago ...
"This is a simple request."
	... you were recipient; no. 1607 of Precious,; a prize of QAI!

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 5

Archive 6

→

You said I recently edited an Arab-Israeli conflict...

You said I recently edited an Arab-Israeli conflict page which is untrue, please show me which article it was. I only edited the Palestinian universities to improve their location. This does not fall under the Arab-Israeli conflict Winsocker (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

it does. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Winsocker: On the one hand, you passed the threshold of extended confirmed earlier today, so in that respect you are certainly now eligible to edit in the ARBPIA area. That said, the edits you made on the article, in replacing "Palestinian territories" with "State of Palestine", placed those edits squarely within the conflict area. There was not really any ambiguity in the locations within those articles, so it's not as if they exactly corrected a problem. (For example, it's not as if the articles said "Syria", and you then changed them to "Palestine".) And if you had changed their location from "6th Street" to "7th Street" within the same town, without changing "Palestinian territories" to "State of Palestine", nobody would have taken that to be an edit falling under the Arab-Israeli conflict. (Or, if Sir Joseph had, I would have told him to zip it.) But the edit you made was exactly the kind of edit that places an otherwise potentially benign article directly in the conflict zone. Please don't try to play naive on this. StevenJ81 (talk) 04:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: The reason why I changed "Palestinian territories to" "State of Palestine" is because the locations are referring to the actual country itself (reminder that majority of nations in the UN do recognize Palestine as sovereign). I dont seem to see the problem with this very small edit. It is a lot more accurately correct to use "State of Palestine" Winsocker (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Winsocker: Whether or not I agree with your assessment, I do understand your reasoning. My point, however, was that the characterization of Palestine as "state" or "territories" is a question that falls under ARBPIA. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: I can kind of seem why but the wording "territories" feels more like a geographical sense. I was changing it into the actual country it actually resides in. For example, the Indian territories in the United States. They count as basically seperate countries with their own governments & law (even US police cannot enter these territories without permission) but they are on "American" territories yet they are basically considered a new country. Winsocker (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Winsocker: I struck part of my first comment, as you clearly see yourself as having corrected a big problem. I don't agree. But my point in any event was really not that so much as the fact that such an edit does fall under ARBPIA. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: Big problem? I did not say that, read my statement again: "I don't seem to see the problem with this very small edit. It is a lot more accurately correct to use "State of Palestine". The whole point of going on Wikipedia is to read & add things accurately. When I edit those university pages, I was not under the impression it fell under ARBPIA (I did not get a warning for some reason unlike when I do on wiki pages that do involve the conflict). This seems to really constrain what actual Palestinians can edit their page which feel's extremely limited. Second, majority of the countries do see Palestine as sovereign, this is not an opinion, its a fact, so I am going with the majority here and not placing my own opinion or biased views. Winsocker (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mary Jane Girls

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mary Jane Girls. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Sir Joseph, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
- User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
- User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:

Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Qaboos bin Said al Said

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Qaboos bin Said al Said. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Deaths by type of illness

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Deaths by type of illness. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dan Wagner

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dan Wagner. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:White House Press Secretary

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:White House Press Secretary. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Sefaria COIN

Hi. Perhaps you want to weigh in on Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Sefaria_requested_edits? You helped guide me on the right way to request a COI edit, and the topic is under debate now. LevEliezer (talk) 06:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:John Oliver

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John Oliver. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Randy Quaid

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Randy Quaid. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ned Kelly

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ned Kelly. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

ANI

This place never ceases to amaze (mostly in a negative way). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, you rightly called it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jared Taylor

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jared Taylor. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Donald Trump series

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Donald Trump series. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Sir Joseph, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Google's Ideological Echo Chamber

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Google's Ideological Echo Chamber. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ted Kaczynski

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ted Kaczynski. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Yom Haatzmaut

I've done a fair bit of work, to make this article suitable for WP:OTD in 2018. Along the way, I had to discard a mention of a Hebrew Song Contest, as I couldn't find it mentioned in reliable sources, especially when ones that were based on our article were discounted! I notice you've done work on the article in the past- if you can find a reference, please let me know or add the material +ref to the article. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do some digging and see what comes up. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox scientist

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox scientist. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jack Posobiec

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jack Posobiec. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Uma Thurman

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Uma Thurman. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Sir Joseph, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Moors

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Moors. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Linda Sarsour

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Linda Sarsour. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Montgomery C. Meigs

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Montgomery C. Meigs. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Liberty University people

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Liberty University people. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jadwiga of Poland

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jadwiga of Poland. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Karl Marx

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Karl Marx. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sven Hassel

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sven Hassel. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Sir Joseph, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andre Gasiorowski

Your speedy close there with 1 D and 1 K !vote is not proper. I did advance a policy arguement despite nom's failure. Note that @Drmies: supported AfD right before the SPA tagged it [1].Icewhiz (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, you must have put that delete in while I was doing the close. I will undo the close. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The close was indeed close. We probably responded to the same delsort listing. I edit conflicted with the !vote above me by Galatz.Icewhiz (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I felt like it was way too brutal of a rejection, "Sir"

I have an anxiety problem I am taking medication for and I can't face the blunt, quick, two worded, fast paced, complete rejection that occurs when a Sir Joseph doesn't work with a statement and instead just removes it. Hopefully you guys can make things work better. If not, I guess what I had to add would be possibly lost forever. I left a request on the sandbox page so maybe you can work with it but I'm psychologically unfit to face a complete rejection like that, after the time I put in. I actually have to make myself leave Wikipedia due to it even though that definitely wasn't your intention. Best of luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurningWicked (talk • contribs) 22:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors. Your signature is also causing Tidy bug affecting font tags wrapping links.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] [[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]] → Sir Joseph ^(talk)

to

[[User:Sir Joseph|Sir Joseph]] [[User_talk:Sir Joseph|(talk)]] → Sir Joseph ^(talk)

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks for letting me know. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Danica Roem

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Danica Roem. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Al Franken

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Al Franken. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Text not supported by sources

Re your reversion here: All of the sources cited describe the NRA as a gun rights group, not a "gun rights and civil liberties group" (which wrongly implies that the NRA is involved in some broader civil liberties debate, which is not the case). Can you undo your edit? I view this as a very straightforward (WP:V) issue.

I also note that this verbiage was recently added, and then challenged (by me). This can of course be discussed on the talk page (as it currently is now), but it should not be unilaterally added. Neutrality^talk 05:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

It's a little of both. Gun ownership does rely on "gun rights" but it is a civil liberty, at least in the US, to own guns and it's this civil liberty that the NRA advocates for. I am not sure of the timeline, and I do recall months ago a statement in the lead about how the NRA is a civil liberties advocate organization. This was discussed at length on the talk page there. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality:I changed the wording a bit, that it advocates for gun rights as a civil liberty, which should be acceptable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Question

Hello, and thank you. I do hope that I am not violating some arcane rule just by writing to you. But the truth is that although I have learned my way around AfD, and am comfortable enough with sources to occasionally venture an opinion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, I find ANI aversive that I rarely dip a toe in unless dragged there. I am, therefore, puzzled to know whether I am required to do anything further at this point, or indeed, permitted to do so. Can you point me to an explanation of BOOMERANG? WP:BOOMERANG is no help at all. Am I, for example, expected to bring diffs on the several editors accusing me of bad editing? I learned the ropes at AfD by blundering into one rule after another until more or less I figured it out. Somehow, it doesn't seem like a god way to handle ANI, although that is more or less what I've been doing until now. If this was real life, I would have consulted an good attorney. But perhaps you will be kind enough to offer some pointers, or point me to to the Wikipeida version of black letter law as it applies to defendants in the dock at ANI, and the etiquette of BOOMERANG. Gratefully, E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Basically a boomerang is exactly that. They claim you edit X, the charge is now that they do so. I don't always agree with boomerangs because there are real cases where people bring stuff to ANI and then right away it's boomerang. But in general, if you bring a case to ANI, your posts and behavior is fair game. So basically, I think at this point, a boomerang means that you and others can provide diffs to show that the cause of action that was brought upon you was not in good faith. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Nice to see you guys getting on like a house on fire as usual. Sir Joseph - I hope you noted that the closing admin at the ANI said "I do have to say that some of the boomerang proposals are particularly ridiculous and do not reflect well on some of those who proposed them." Your conduct at the ANI reflected very poorly on you. But at least your loyalty and disruptive behaviour has impressed your Dear Leader. AusLondonder (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

How funny. Huldra posts an ANI and you come running. Stay off my talk page, I have no interest in speaking with you. And I am going to presume those comments are not for me. I posted a boomerang request after two others requested it. And my request was simple, a boomerang. You should look in the mirror yourself if you don't think you aren't biased. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I went to the ANI independently because I'm sick to the back teeth of E.M.Gregory's behaviour. The boomerang proposal was embarrassingly naïve and makes your judgement appear very poor. Unlike you I'm not obsessed with one or two topics and I edit widely (and rarely in the Israel/Palestine area) so I'd be very careful before accusing others of bias. AusLondonder (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, I told you to stay off my page. Secondly, guess what? I also came to ANI independently. And you are biased. When you edit Israel or terror related articles, you edit with your bias showing. And I also edit in a variety of topics. And again, stay off my page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

"Bet Din"

Balance between din and p'shara, huh? Or law and equity? Anyway, good luck ... StevenJ81 (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It should be an interesting few weeks. (BTW, that is one thing about BD I don't like. My family is/was involved in a dispute and the BD automatically tries pushing p'shara when with din, we'd be victorious.) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Concerning BD (not here), there is a strong historical preference to encourage p'shara, of course. But don't most Batei Din give the parties some latitude as to their preference for p'shara, p'shara k'rova ladin or din? StevenJ81 (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think when you start the case they ask if you want p'shara or din, but they push for p'shara, I don't know if that is also to accommodate issues with being legally recognized arbitration. I just think there are times when you know you're right and want your day in court, but we're all taught that p'shara is the way to go. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

[2] Does anyone else find this comment a little off? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Here's the comment as it is, and I note that I am the only one who got descriptors, I do think it's fairly common for some segment of the people to point out the religion of someone, but I make no claim about any editor, just pointing out it shares resemblance with those types of people.

Sir Joseph (T-C-L) is a Jewish Republican from New York City, living on the Jersey side of the river. Kudos for trying to learn a little Yiddish......

I don't think I'm overreacting, but I find it distasteful. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I find it funny in a way in how people are "non-Jew"-splaining on what is or not perceived as anti-semitism. As I have said many times before, on Wikipedia, the only minority group you are allowed to "persecute" are Jews. Can you imagine a different minority telling someone that their comment came off as anti-them? They would get an apology and the comment would be edited. And to all my stalkers out there, I never said the person is an antisemite, I said the comment was perceived as antisemitic and I have communicated with a few other people to get their feelings and 90% of the people agreed with me. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Benito Mussolini

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Benito Mussolini. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

IRC

Do you have an account on the Wikipedia-en WP:IRC channel? Just wondering, as I was wanting to contact you in a quicker form than user-talk pages. _{Adotchar| reply here} 22:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, no, I don't have an account on IRC, but you can email me if you don't want to discuss things on wiki. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ned Kelly

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ned Kelly. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Sir Joseph. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

vote for sir joseph

Dear sir joseph, My vote for you for new development of wikipedia. Sunresh (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Questions regarding ARBCOM (Please reinstate)

Thanks for engaging with my question. While I may still disagree with the answer, I respect the effort that you made to address my concerns and will reflect that fact when voting. I do not intend to press the issue further. Just to follow up, though, with an initial apology if I came off as hostile - I only sought an answer, and may have gone overboard in seeking it. With this in light, I would like to ask that you revert your decision to remove my secondary question from the question section, as it deserves to be there in my view. If, as you alluded to, you removed it to spare me from coming off negatively from the interaction, I can inform you that I don't share such concerns - much like yourself, I believe that I should stand by what I have said. If you wish, you can strike out the question, but I would request that you reinstate it nonetheless on the page rather than purging it with a tool intended for vandalism, which my query was not. I am asking here rather than reverting directly so as to prevent an edit war with the three reverts rule. I believe that the question should remain visible, I stand by my concerns and am satisfied that you answered, and I feel that they should be reinstated ergo. If you would kindly see to this, I will be happy to let the matter stand.

P.S. If we are worried about perceptions on Wikipedia, purging a valid question doesn't come off as particularly diplomatic.

Nonetheless, that said, I will now drop the matter as you have done your utmost to address my concerns vis-á-vis ARBCOM. Sincerest best of luck in the election. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Also want to dissuade any notions that I am stalking. Rather, I am trying to cast an informed ballot for ARBCOM in an effort to become more involved in the project. Once this is satisfactorily resolved, I shan't bother you again. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Peter Popoff

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Peter Popoff. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Arbcom

So, I'm sitting there waiting for a dentist appointment and I get an email notifying me about the Arbcom elections. As I had a few minutes to kill and was already prepared for some pain, I decided to stop by and see how this amateur production of Lord of the Flies was going. Imagine my surprise to see your name there. Have you recently suffered some head trauma? Who did you imagine would vote for you after literally years of open hostility from the administration to people like us? Were you surprised that someone on the "other site" warned everyone you're a Jew? Were you surprised that nobody called him on it? Anyhow, good luck. I'd appreciate it if you could ping me on my talk page when the elections are over, I'd like to see how many votes you get. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

[3], and as I mentioned on the discussion page, I did ask people for their opinions to see if it wasn't just me. What I find even more troubling is that in several guides they write that I throw out the antisemitism card, which is not true and insulting. I have been told by others that the comments are troubling but there's nothing to be done about it. I know I won't win, but I prefer to lose because of my edits or qualifications, not because of my religion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It's called goysplaning. The idea that any complaint about antisemitism is in itself an indication of bad faith is not unique to Wikipedia but is taken here to the extreme, just like everything else. (you may recall I was once barred from making AE reports because I reported someone who said, inter alia, that Purim is a celebration of genocide). Have you read this - [4]? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I remember the AE and the article. I also had an issue here while editing Bernie Sanders and Milgram. I do think though that people being told they are playing a card is not that often with most minorities. Regardless, I was always told that if someone told me my comment was offensive was to explain myself, or apologize and mention that it was not meant as that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

This discussion reminded me of this little gem which I noted on the admin boards at the time. A Jewish wikipedia editor is apparently responsible for "the rise of antisemitism" (and notice how he includes himself in those feeling more antisemitic). Not a peep from the admins, of course. Imagine telling a woman she was responsible for rape. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

What do you make of this? [5]? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

1. Obvious sock. 2. Obvious DICK. Again, if this place had any integrity someone would ban him for that kind of shit. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism and ARBCOM

I have come here with an epiphany. I am very sorry if my comment was construed as anti-Semitic. I assure you that it was not intended to be so. In most of my edits in wiki space, I attempt to maintain humour and a light tone. It appears that this ambition has led me astray. The initial comment with which you took offence has been removed, and I unabashedly and wholly apologise for it if it came off as offensive. I feel that the air between us has been unnecessary hostile, and this is something which I wish to remedy. We may have differing viewpoints with relation to the election, but that is not a justifiable reason for us to squabble endlessly. While I do not intend to support you in your pursuit of a role as an arbitrator for a litany of well-documented reasons, I also do not want to make you feel attacked and put upon - I can unequivocally state that this was never my intention. You are unquestionably entitled to your religious beliefs, and should fight for that right. I am not an antisemite, and your status as a Jew does not bother me. So, while I will not rescind my criticisms, I will unequivocally apologise if you were aggrieved and felt that my comments were antisemitic, and will cordially extend an olive branch to you. I did wrong. I am sorry. I do not want to continue the lack of civil discourse between us. Are you willing to accept the olive branch, @Sir Joseph:? Stormy clouds (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

firstly, please read this, or at least the summary. [6] I have no problem with accepting an olive branch, if you remove you're comment about antisemitism from your guide. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I have read it, and guess that we will have to agree to disagree. I still see your branding of me as an antisemite to be opportunistic and founded in fact. I am not opposing you because of your faith, but because of yoir policy. My problem is not with the fact that you are Jewish, but the fact that you use thag fact in an argumentative manner. I am not an antisemite - there is little more that I can say in that regard. The conment on the guide stands as it is accurate. I dislike the terminology of the card, but the fact that you are already attributing your campaign's shortcomings to systematic bias is problematic, and frankly, insulting. I am not saying that you cannot be proudly Jewish. However, don't assume that everyone who opposes you does so on religious grounds, because they don't. I don't. Our argument stemmed from an act of bad faith on your behalf, and construing innocent comments as antisemitic is a continuation of that bad faith. I stand by the critique, which is divorced from religion entirely. In the spirit of civility, I will in fact amend it to reflect this, so as to mend the discourse between us, but the advice to not assume the world is out to get you is still kindly given. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

for some reason I think you have a misunderstanding of why I said a certain comment was antisemitic. I also never said people who opposed me are antisemitic. I also never raised that issue with will the criticism. I raised it with one comment I, and many others, perceived as antisemitic. I also never said anything about you. The only bad faith here is from editors telling me I throw out the antisemitism card.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Olive branch. Take it or leave it. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

"Sorry that you were offended" is not an apology. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:National Rifle Association

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:National Rifle Association. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

One point

What you were doing on this page was not constructive at all. The clean ups are done in order to avoid the appearance of low quality articles on the main page. You can still resolve the issues of any articles you'd like to see on the main page. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Sir Joseph, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Verifiability

This edit summary is patently untrue, but I'm not going to continue this, because I don't want this to become skewed into something it isn't. The article wasn't in suitable condition for the main page, it still isn't, and if it's not improved, it won't be featured next year. Bye for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't threaten me. It's clear in policy that not everything needs a ref next to it. For example, in the section you think needs a ref, there is a hyperlinked three words, Battle of XXX. That is all. There is nothing to reference. The entire section is just a list coming from a secondary article. And we don't need to be overly aggressive with things that are in linked articles. Now go away from my page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:39, 14 December 2017 (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. Mhhossein ^talk 20:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your defense of Hanukkah from residents of the former Seleucid Empire. Icewhiz (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Richard Sakwa

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Richard Sakwa. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Special Barnstar
		Despite our differences, it takes courage to run for the office of an Arbitration Committee officer, bravery to encounter criticism and respond with civility, and grace to accept defeat with humility. Therefore, this barnstar is well deserved. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Miranda Lambert

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Miranda Lambert. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello Sir Joseph: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Please comment on Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bosnian pyramid claims. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Sweden in the news again

It looks like even the left leaning NYTimes is finally coming to see the truth. [7], [8], [9] I give it another year or so and maybe the leftist PC crowd will even acknowledge it here. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:George Pell

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:George Pell. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

24 hour rule

Please see [10]

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

28 December 2017

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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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 that 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.

–Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Linda Sarsour

Greetings. Please note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. In particular, talk pages on BLPs are not for the purpose of promoting an opinion about the article or its subject. I would urge you to undo this edit and this edit. Otherwise, you may appear to be simply trolling, which you seem to agree is inappropriate (diff). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not trolling. I gave my opinion and I stand by it. She deserves all the criticism that RS has on her and the only reason it's not on the page is right now she's still well liked by a good chunk of the left. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

That may be your view, but it's inappropriate for a talk page. I've removed the comments per policy (diff). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't do that. I would hate to report you for an ARBPIA infraction for such a little thing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Sir Joseph!

Happy New Year!

Sir Joseph,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello Sir Joseph, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

The total number of reviews completed for the month.
The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Josephine Butler

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Josephine Butler. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Unite the Right rally

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Unite the Right rally. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I appreciate your contributions regarding my topic ban as well as your thoughts on Arbitration Enforcement. --MONGO 13:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Esplanade

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Esplanade. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:USS Nimitz UFO incident

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:USS Nimitz UFO incident. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The Kingfisher (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to apologise for my comment at AN/I; I was under the impression that anything that modifies the 'skin' and which the reader has not opted into was not ok, but obviously I was wrong and I apologise unreservedly for any insinuation that you had done anything wrong. GoldenRing (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem, I appreciate your comment. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate comments

In an ongoing discussion at Talk:Donald Trump, you've repeatedly denigrated entire countries—or, more accurately, an entire continent—using abusive language devoid of any redeeming value. Specifically, in a discussion of African nations, you opined that "many of those countries are shithole countries". You then amplified these words by repeating "Most of those countries that was mentioned (sic) are run by dictators, corrupt and all around shitty countries. It doesn't make one racist for stating the obvious. Look at Haiti... Sometimes countries are shitholes and it's not necessarily racist to say so."

Leaving aside the question of whether these comments are substantively ignorant, they are completely inappropriate for an article talkpage or, really, for any space on Wikipedia. Denigrating entire countries (and, by extension, the citizens of those countries, on the basis of their national origin) is not acceptable. If the civility policy has any meaning, it exists to proscribe this kind of editorial rhetoric. Moreover, this project is international in scope and we no doubt have contributors from many of the countries which you've blithely disparaged; again, it is not acceptable to use this kind of language to denigrate those editors on the basis of their national origin. (To be clear, national governments are fair targets of criticism, but to dismiss an entire continent as a "shithole" is outside the realm of reasonable critical dialog; it's simply a term of abuse).

If possible, please exercise some introspection and self-restraint and keep these kinds of opinions, should you hold them, off the pages of Wikipedia. If you're not capable of that sort of restraint, then please refrain from editing articles and pages that trigger the temptation for you to spout this kind of stuff. MastCell ^Talk 20:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It's quite apparent you haven't been reading the talk page if you suddenly decide now to enforce civility. Furthermore, we are discussing Trump's comments about shitty countries, and someone called Trump a racist for saying that, which is more of a violation if you ask me. I have every right to point out that calling something a shitty country is just that, it doesn't make one racist. Furthermore, this is more of the willy-nilly enforcement of civility. People tell me to fuck off, but that is not enforced, making a general vague term about other countries in general and suddenly the cavalry comes out? Shitty countries is just the impolite way of saying Third World Countries. I also think you shouldn't be threatening editors. This is why I keep on saying Wikipedia is such a toxic environment. And this is why I, and others, just keep taking pages off watchlists. However, I am glad to know that should I find myself the victim of uncivil comments, you would be ready to take action to enforce Wikipedia's policies on civility. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

In the two diffs I linked above, you were not simply "discussing Trump's comments". You were expressing your own personal view that most African countries are "shitholes". That's a key distinction. Can you clarify whether you understand it?

Likewise, I think you've missed my point about civility. There is a difference between telling someone to fuck off, and denigrating entire groups of people on the basis of their national origin. While both are uncivil, I take the latter more seriously than the former, as do most thinking people.

It's not my intent to "threaten" you; I was going for an appeal to your basic human decency, mixed with a clear indication of appropriate boundaries. But since that didn't seem to take—and for the avoidance of ambiguity—I will block you or take other action if you continue with this sort of ignorant and abusive nonsense. MastCell ^Talk 23:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

There is little that I could add to what Sir Joseph accurately articulated, other than WP:CIVIL deals with editor to editor conduct, not editors making disparaging comments about countries. If that were the case, every anti-Israel editor in the Arab-Israeli topic area would be banned for life. The Kingfisher (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Correct, saying Canada is a shithole country is not a violation of any Wikpedia rules. I find it very wrong that an admin believes that saying that is far worse than telling a user to fuck off. Furthermore, his threats are more along the lines of why editing in Wikipedia is such a toxic environment. Calling any country a shithole country is no violation because there is no aggrieved person. I am not saying Canadians are shitholes, or a specific Canadian is a shithole, if I say Canada is a shithole country, I am saying the country as a whole, not as an individual. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if MastCell would be so proactively irate if you referred to the US as a "shithole" country? The Kingfisher (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)"you've repeatedly denigrated entire countries—or, more accurately, an entire continent—using abusive language devoid of any redeeming value. Specifically, in a discussion of African nations, you opined that "many of those countries are shithole countries"

OMG... where is my tiny violin, laugh-track, and ROFL emojis when I need them? Or my mountain-out-of-a-molehill meme? The manufactured outrage is strong with this one, Sir Joseph. Watch out, you might end up the subject of a NYT op-ed or endless discussion topic on CNN for a day. ;-) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

It's terrible and what is ironic is that I'm not a Trump supporter in any way, and I urge all those on the witchhunt to realize that your actions and comments are feeding the alt-right, (see the recent NY Times article on this, how you shut down discussion, you end up diverting people to fringe sites.) and it's just amazing how suddenly personal attacks are allowed on Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

AE

[11] Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Sigh...Mr Ernie (talk)

Yep. Joseph and I aren't exactly best buddies, but this is a horseshit complaint, lodged by someone I suspect it would be best to seek an IBAN with (although, of course, that won't stop frivilous drama board reports as lodging them is currently exempt from IBANs; until such a time, however, that problematic users are sanctioned for wasting more and more and the community's time and preented from doing so I suppose). I'd just add a cite (one's already been provided at the AE listing), and then the case has precisely zero weight. Indeed, probably less because the proposer did nothing to resolve the situation before going the whole drama hog. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. All he had to do was ask, as MrX did and I provided a source. VM should really stay away from AE, I imagine he is in the top 5 AE action starters. I know I keep talking about the toxicity of Wiki, but this really is. You might notice that in the Israel-Palestinian area, most people before they bring an AE (even if it's 100% warranted) will post on the talk page first and give time to rectify the error. Had VM done that, this could have been cleared up real quickly. And his bringing in the Bernie Sanders blocks (which were not BLP blocks) just shows the bad faith in my opinion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, hence why I'm thinking some kind of IBAN which extends to AE etc should be sought. If any infringement you make is "so bad", he could request another editor to assess it, or email Arbcom. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Zwarte Piet

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Zwarte Piet. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1948 Palestine war

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1948 Palestine war. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I moved your comment

I moved your comment from the closed thread to my talk page, as you seem to be replying to me. I hope you don't mind. It's a perfectly reasonable clarification that completely justifies the original statement IMHO, and if anyone gives you grief over it in the future, you can direct them to my talk page, or just to me, and I'll explain why I think it was just a misunderstanding on my part. Here are the diffs of the move, for your convenience: I removed it from NeilN's talk and placed on my talk page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see that NeilN reverted my removal. If it's okay with them, it's fine by me. I've left the copy up at my page in case you want to add to it anytime in the near future. I think I forgot to thank you for that edit, but I do appreciate the clarification.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

21:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Off the Derech article

About the Off the Derech page: I'm willing to accept criticism on the npov of *some* of the edits, but much of what is currently on the page, in your version pre-the vast amount of work and citation I added, is not npov itself. I do not agree that my edits were npov, and your reversion does more to silence one pov than to ensure npov. -Dainy B. Dainy B (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Carolina Nairne

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Carolina Nairne. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Sir Joseph, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lyndsy Fonseca

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lyndsy Fonseca. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Noah Oppenheim

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Noah Oppenheim. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of oldest living people

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of oldest living people. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Coco Austin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Coco Austin. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alina Zagitova

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alina Zagitova. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

Mumia, blah, blah, you know the drill. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

See my next null edit. I am not edit warring, I am restoring to what the consensus has and what the lead should be summarizing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The consensus until your edit in August 2017 was apparently not to include it. Since then, there hasn't been any talkpage discussion either way. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Black genocide

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Black genocide. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lists of earthquakes

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lists of earthquakes. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Aaron Rodgers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Aaron Rodgers. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Presidents of the United States

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Presidents of the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello Sir Joseph, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.