User talk:Sir Joseph/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

Stalkers, please fix errors

Hello stalkers, the following errors need to be fixed:

  1. Beit_Shemesh is in the category 13 Kohanic Cities, but that is for a different beit shemesh, as the article itself points out (in Beit_Shemesh#Canaanite_and_Israelite_town ). The city of Beit Shemesh should not be in that category.
  2. The same category should not have As-Samu in the category, As-Samu is a neighborhood in Hebron and Hebron is already listed as being part of the category. There is no indication or evidence that As-Samu is a Kohanic city.
  3. AJOP is at AFD again, this was brought to AFD by me almost 10 years ago, back when editing was so much more fun and cooperative. This AFD should be marked as speedy keep, sources are well sourced and User:IZAK edited to bring it back to standards. The AFD itself is not marked with the First AFD, nor is it added to the proper project.Sir Joseph (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  4. [[1]]
  5. List_of_places_with_eruvin#Pennsylvania The LM and Wynnewood/Main Line are all in LM/Narberth and should properly reflect that.
  6. Eruv#Disagreements_between_Orthodox_groups Shouldn't it be "among?"
  7. Talk:Yom_Ha'atzmaut#Requested_move_11_May_2016 COMMON is YH even among English speakers.
I can do this
Feel free to delete this comment after you read it. I would recommend that you delete this section, because folks do not take kindly to requests for edits to be made by a user who is blocked. I don't want to see you in any more hot water. Just a friendly recommendation. Scr★pIronIV 19:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm leaving it so I can remember to edit it in case nobody else does it. I don't think this is the same as asking someone to do a contentious edit, this is just a notice that there are errors. If an admin thinks this is not allowed, I will remove it. Thank you for the friendly notice. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Our policy on WP:PROXYING refers to banned users and not blocked users. I think you are okay with this. Even if it was against some sort of rule I would personally ignore it for the benefit of the project. HighInBC 19:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for that notice. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Why am I still blocked?

My block was supposed to have expired by now, it even says 17:36, 11 May (My time). Thanks. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

You were blocked at 22:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC). The block should expire at 22:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC). The above comment is dated 22:06, 11 May 2016. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Again, why are you posting and watching my talk page? Bishonen I did not address Guy Macon at all and I don't need his response. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Your block will expire in less than 15 minutes. -- GB fan 22:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, so someone/something should be done to the notice, it seems to be 1 hour off. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
What notice is incorrect? The block notice says 22:36, the block log says 22:36. -- GB fan 22:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
when I try to edit it has my local time, 17:36, not 18:36. There is no mention of utc. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
You might look at the appearance tab of preferences to make sure the offset is correct. -- GB fan 22:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
You need to manually change the offset twice a year when the time changes. Wikipedia does not automatically update it like your computer will. -- GB fan 22:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that was it. I changed to a defined zone and it works. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of places with eruvin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Overbrook, Pennsylvania. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2016 (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) 04:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Belmont Hills, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't see the G6 listed for some reason. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Questions...

Hi Sir Joseph. I would like to correspond with you outside of Wikipedia. I understand the need for anonymity and the protections of Wikipedia, but this is very, very important. I'm with a pro-Israel NGO. Can you please suggest how we can begin the process? Thank you. Searching 4 Sir Joseph (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Special:EmailUser/Sir_Joseph Sir Joseph (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Lower Merion Library System

On 15 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lower Merion Library System, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that even though Lower Merion Library System accounts for only 7% of the county's population, it accounts for over 20% of its circulation? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lower Merion Library System. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lower Merion Library System), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

AN Notice

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Premature archiving of collapsed ANI discussions". Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

why am i being blocked they deleted my article

im very pissed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliketumbleweeds (talk • contribs) 14:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

So discuss it. You can't call other users fags or wish them to get cancer. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cary Grant

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cary Grant. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

leave me alone

im not harrsaing anyone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliketumbleweeds (talk • contribs) 14:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Calling editors fags and wishing them to get cancer is not allowed. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rick Rude

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rick Rude. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3

Could you add the diff for the edit you referred to here, if you can remember which article it was. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

It was Israel's ambassador to the UK, I know the warning and revert was done by RolandR. I'll try to look it up for you. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
[2] ? Sean.hoyland - talk 15:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Yep. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
That's probably a good example for the admins. The presence or absence of a sanctions header makes no difference in practice as far as I'm aware, but that edit seems to be a good example of something that falls in a fuzzy region. Do articles about ambassadors of Israel match the "reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict" criteria? And if not, are the edits made by the many IPs and new accounts to change the description of the reported reasons of Taub's return to Israel (including this one which I guess shows RolandR's consistency in implementing the rule there) "related to the Arab-Israeli conflict"? I have no idea. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I think that in order for an article to be locked it needs to be clearly related to the conflict. This article, about an ambassador to the UK has nothing to do with the conflict. I'm more in favor in allowing editors to edit, and if I see even an IP editor editing somewhere he's not supposed to, I'll take a look at the edit first. I'm not in favor of blind reversions. Plus, he could have reverted that edit under BLP without doing 30/500, in this case. If an edit doesn't belong, then it can be reverted under BLP, UNDUE, BRD, etc. We should encourage people to edit and lock only those we know to be disruptable. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I think BLUELOCK/extended confirmed protection is a different, perhaps less complicated issue though. For BLUELOCK the article has to unambiguously match the "reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict" criteria, and in practice right now, there needs to be evidence of disruption for an article to be protected. For the record, I'm in favor of the server preventing any edits by people who don't meet 500/30 in articles that unambiguously meet the "reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict" regardless of the level of disruption. I support preventing and actively discouraging new editors from editing in ARBPIA because I think the benefits to Wikipedia content, genuinely "new" editors (rather than socks), and existing editors, far outweigh the costs. People are bound to differ on the merits of such a heavy handed approach. For the most part though, I think the non-server based, 500/30 rule enforcement by editors is being handled quite sensitively at the moment. That's one of the reasons why I think your diff is a good example. It's something that will likely never be covered by BLUELOCK and it's genuinely ambiguous, at least for me. If it is related to the conflict, how is it related to the conflict precisely? The edits look like POV pushing in both directions. Does that make it related to the conflict - why else would people push? Or is it just a normal content dispute over news? That doesn't seem entirely convincing either. I agree though that those edits could have been reverted for other policy/guideline based reasons. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cynwyd Heritage Trail, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Septa. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed

Black Supremacy

I added a new section in Black Supremacy TALK..I'm wondering what you think about this (post there if feel like addressing it)..and if you feel like helping with a AfD..68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Joseph Conrad

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Joseph Conrad. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Notification

As one of the editors who participated in the discussion leading up to this Rfc, please see Talk:Jerusalem#Is_Jerusalem_in_Israel_or_Palestine. Debresser (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Im Tirtzu edit

Hello. Your recent edit on Im Tirtzu ran contrary to the discussion on Im Tirtzu's talk page. You reverted my previous edit although it clearly indicated that this had been vetted through that process in which the predominant view was to rely on the translation of the Jerusalem Post article. I encourage you to read the discussion on the talk page and explain your own thinking there.--PPX (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Careful about that 1RR rule

Hi again. Seeing your edit on Btselem, I wanted to bring to your attention that it is a violation of the WP:1RR rule that applies to the page. Your edit has already been reverted on other grounds by another editor, so there's no need to self-revert. Please be more careful in the future. --PPX (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't have to self-revert in any case since I didn't go above 1RR. You are possibly referring to 0RR which some people have as added restrictions. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
No sir. Your single edit reverted both this and this.--PPX (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
no, that's not how it works. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't make the rules, but those are the rules. --PPX (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Not only do you not make the rules, but it looks like you don't know the rules either. You should read up on what a revert is. You are more than welcome to ask administrator if I violated 1RR. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
You're mistaken: one edit that reverses multiple changes made by others is a violation. But I have no interest in carrying this on further. I only intended a friendly warning. Have a nice day.--PPX (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
OK, and a bit of friendly advice, learn what a revert is, especially if you ever intend to bring someone to AE. You wouldn't want to get a boomerang or a warning for a frivolous action. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) That is indeed not how it works, PPX. A single revert can't violate the 1RR rule, no matter how many previous edits it reverts. Bishonen | talk 18:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC).

Please comment on Talk:Gary Cooper

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gary Cooper. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Lone wolf (terrorism)

Please read WP:POINT. I hate to visit WP:AN/I, and I'd hate to have to bring you there, but I will if I have to. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

For what? based on the talk page, the news source has to state, LONE WOLF. The few I checked didn't. Based on your and Auslondonders comments, those items should be removed. "a reprehensible act by a bloodthirsty Jewish terrorist who sought to attack innocent Israeli citizens" is not "lone wolf." Why is OK for that to be listed but not other terrorist attacks? Quite trying to threaten people to follow your biases. The fact that you don't allow Muslim terrorists into the article because it doesn't explicitly mention lone wolf is telling. Either it mentions lone wolf or it doesn't, you can't pick and choose. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Please read the new section I started at the bottom of Talk:Lone wolf (terrorism) and comment there. The problem with what E. M. Gregory has been trying to do since the beginning of the year is that no reliable source describes either of those incidents as terrorism, lone wolf or any other kind. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
And the fact that you only see a problem when there are Jewish terrorists involved is very telling. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
The philadelphia one has sources, I remember reading about it since it's local to me. He stated he's doing it in the name of ISIS. And I removed those two because that was the first two I checked. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/265858-fbi-treating-philadelphia-shooting-as-terror-attack http://articles.philly.com/2016-01-15/news/69768854_1_police-officer-federal-agents-isis http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/14/fbi-philadelphia-police-shooting-terrorist-attack/ I hope this satisfies you that the Philly shooting should be classified and placed in the article. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Islam-Shooter-Stolen-Police-Gun-Jessie-Hartnett-Officer-364664771.html this one says "lone wolf" Sir Joseph (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Please read the talk page. We've been through all of this already—months ago. The FBI announced they were "investigating it as a terrorist attack", not that they "found it was a terrorist attack". There's a world of difference. It has to do with how a government bureaucracy allocates resources, which protocols they follow, etc. It says nothing about their conclusions about the case.
You jumped into a fight you know nothing about, and it would be helpful if you educated yourself before you get yourself in trouble. Please take that as the friendly warning it is meant to be. E. M. Gregory is wrong on this issue, and you picked his side to fight on. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
The NBC Philadelphia link has a statement, "This is a lone wolf trying to make a name for himself." and acting for Islam, etc. Why should it not be included? Sir Joseph (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
You need to read less selectively. The person who called the perpetrator a "lone wolf" (and whose statement you're misquoting) is his past defense attorney, who says the shooter "wanted to make some mark" by targeting a police officer. "I think he's trying to bolster his image and trying to do this for himself and not for Islam or for ISIS or any other radical group. This is a lone wolf trying to make a name for himself." That doesn't sound like an endorsement of your theory that this was an example of lone-wolf terrorism (a word that is missing from the NBC report). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Abby Stein

Hi. I noticed you marked the Abby Stein article for speedy deletion. As far as I can see, it already passes the WP:BIO notability criteria by a substantial margin, due to the amount of WP:RS coverage she has received. -- The Anome (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Jerusalem Day

You have deleted large sections of Jerusalam Day without bringing the issue appropriate to the talk page. There is no consensus there, so you should avoid deleting well documented, referenced, up-to-date information that simply doesn't meet your taste in balance. VanEman (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I did bring it to the talk page, you're more than welcome to comment there. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

1RR

Jerusalem Day edits are without doubt covered under that. nableezy - 18:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I made a revert, I got rid of extra stuff and removed sentences that were not needed. See the talk page for more information. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
[this rerverted this and this is labeled a revert of this. nableezy - 18:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not that sure, you can also say multiple edits, which I did, is to be considered one revert. In any event, I think the article is fine as is and if I revert back would mess it up more. I created a section in the talk page to discuss, but I think it's fine now, even if the violence section is far too large relative to the other sections. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
There were intervening edits between your reverts. You can say youre not sure, but I am sure. Its moot as somebody else has reverted you, but that was unequivocally 2 reverts and a violation of the 1RR. I dont actually care, its like im going to be filing a report over it, but try to be more careful in the future. nableezy - 19:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, and just so you know, I didn't even see those reverts. I edited and then just edited again, so I didn't see any changes. But can you honestly say the violence section is appropriately sized? It does need paring down and not everything in there has to be mentioned. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I can honestly say I did not look nor do I intend to. nableezy - 19:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey, All-Palestine in West bank?

Did All-Palestine existed in West bank?

--La shakran (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Kosher salt

Hello, Sir Joseph. Thanks for providing the citation in Kashrut. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I'm wondering if the irregularity of the kosher salt crystal actually results in more absorptive surface area as compared to regular salt, since kosher salt crystals are significantly larger than regular salt crystals. I suppose this could be determined if one were able to compare surface area of each by actual weight . . . Thanks.--Akhooha (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

That is what I found in the sources. Because the surface area is larger it absorbs more and it also requires less to taste so it reduces the sodium intake as well, which is why chefs use it. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
See sea salt ;) --TMCk (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Duke Ellington

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Duke Ellington. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed

An arbitration case regarding Gamaliel and others has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Gamaliel is admonished for multiple breaches of Wikipedia policies and guidelines including for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, removing a speedy deletion notice from a page he created, casting aspersions, and perpetuating what other editors believed to be a BLP violation.
  2. DHeyward and Gamaliel are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with or discussing each other anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the usual exemptions.
  3. DHeyward (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.
  4. For conduct which was below the standard expected of an administrator — namely making an incivil and inflammatory close summary on ANI, in which he perpetuated the perceived BLP violation and failed to adequately summarise the discussion — JzG is admonished.
  5. Arkon is reminded that edit warring, even if exempt, is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
  6. The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existing WP:BLPTALK policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed

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) 04:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment

Hi, I have been trying to add some info, and had to edit it a few times before I got it right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Es321 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, the issue is that you are adding links to a store. It doesn't do anything to the encyclopedia. We're not a directory of commerce. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

ARBPIA 1 revert rule infraction

Sir Joe, that's under a 1 revert rule. You will note that in my second edit there, I did not touch the language of your addition, but supplemented it, whereas in your two edits, you altered the language of the preceding text. Ist revert 2nd revert Don't worry, I'm not calling for penalties. But in both cases, you altered language that is in the source. Don't second guess the sources, and everybody in the world knows that 'settler vehicles/buses' means vehicles used by settlers. Your edit merely erased the important source distinction between Israelis and Israeli settlers. So, please revert.Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You want me to put back that the "vehicle was shit" as opposed to "vehicle was shot?" Sir Joseph (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I think you meant the next diff, so I reverted that one. I left "shot" in, since I don't think you really mean the vehicles are shit. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Good point. 'Shit' more or less describes my brains, as we say, 'shit-for-brains', these days. Thanks,much appreciated.Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Request on 18:58:42, 8 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Batwoman90210


Hi Sir Joseph, You seem to have rejected the article I wrote and submitted on Jonathan Rosenthal. I am wondering why it was rejected, since I assiduously included citations throughout from reputable sources, which include The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, Business Week, MSNBC, and the Journal of Transportation. Please could you be a bit more clear about what you felt did not meet the guidelines so I can edit it and resubmit?

Thank you.

Batwoman90210 (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looking at the draft, I found the article read in a promotional tone. Scrolling back up, I saw that was indeed the very reason why SirJoseph declined it. Getting rid of unnecessary details may fix the problem. It is certainly needed anyway, as that article is huge. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Revanche 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. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

You need to stop harassing me. Bishonen,User:GB_fan I am pleading with you to do something about this. How much more bullying and harassment can someone take? He is following me around, templating me for removing vandalism, etc. This has to stop. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay please read what is not vandalism. Removing uncited trivia written in a poor encyclopedic tone is not vandalism. The latest edit indicates it might not even be correct. Instead of edit warring templating new users with vandalism warnings you should attempt to communicate with the person who you don't agree with. Our verifiability policy allows anyone to remove uncited material and the burden to find a source is on the person seeking to restore it.
As unwelcome as Macon's warning may have been to you it was a valid warning and that warning may have prevented you from being blocked for edit warring. HighInBC 13:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The IP was welcome to use the talk page and discuss, or cite it. Then I would have known it's not just vandalism. We don't know if it's incorrect or not. And I find his warning a day later based on him following me more troubling. He needs to stop following me around. But I see your point as well, but Guy is not doing this out of good faith. I can guarantee you that. My next step is to ask for a formal IBAN at AN/I if this bullying and harassment doesn't stop. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Guy Macon, Sir Joseph was reverting unexplained removal of content at Revanche. That doesn't deserve being called edit warring if a little common sense is applied. Don't come to this page unless it's very, very, important, ok? This wasn't, and considering you must be richly aware of how Sir Joseph feels about you posting here, your template was a poor idea. Don't reply here, please; reply on my page if you want to say something to me. And if some block-happy admin blocks Sir Joseph for edit warring over this, I'll oppose it. Bishonen | talk 13:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC).
I would think any admin worth their salt would know a block is not appropriate a this point. The purpose of a warning after all is to prevent a block, which I think has been accomplished here. HighInBC 13:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
More of the same, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A199.102.168.8&type=revision&diff=720883515&oldid=717167169 Sir Joseph (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I fully agree with Bishonen on this, and have posted a formal warning at Guy Macon's talkpage for his last bit of shenanigans. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I am not an admin but Coffee and Bishonen are fully right. It is very annoying to be plastered with unnecessary template warnings. There should be more strict rules against it. CaseeArt Talk 05:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI

I noticed with surprise that you haven't stated your opinion at Talk:Ancient_synagogues_in_Palestine#Requested_move_4_June_2016. Debresser (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

lol, you gonna ask Zero to comment too? nableezy - 23:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
He didn't comment yet?? I very much appreciate that editor, and will certainly invite him, if he hasn't commented yet. Debresser (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. By the way, Nableezy, I hope you are not stalking me? Debresser (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:BRD

Optional way of handling edits. No one "needs" to do it that way.VanEman (talk) 06:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Just happened to notice this VanEman, WP:BRD is optional, but definitely warmly recommended. Not following it is the sure path of the edit warrior. Debresser (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

AJOP

Hi. I've got to tell you that I think this is going to be a difficult fight to win. I think this for two main reasons:

  1. Just about all of the sources—even the best of them—is borderline. They don't really tend to be about AJOP, only that they affirm its existence. (And they're mostly at least 3-4 years old.) In essence, while I think that the legitimacy of Orthodox sources tends to be unfairly maligned around Wikipedia, it is nevertheless true that it's hard to find any articles, even in the Orthodox world, that are actually about AJOP.
  2. I'm increasingly coming to believe that AJOP has shrunk; today, I think it is little more than the host of an annual all-parties kiruv conference. That's it. It's always been an umbrella organization, and the organizations that are part of it still mostly do their own thing. It's possible that what's happening is that as AJOP has become more haredi, it's become less active on the Internet. Now, that feels counterintuitive; if you want to reach people who are not religious, you need to have an Internet presence. But I'm finding little evidence of its doing much of anything other than the convention the last 2-3 years. The Facebook page (not that I have an account there) is all about the convention. The LinkedIn page says it has 1-10 employees—not much for an organization that is active on a daily basis in kiruv work.

What's more: an awful lot of the links are dead. Importantly, I could find no link about this at the National Council of Young Israel website; if what the article reports is correct, that should be the locus of whatever is still happening.

To me, the only reason to keep this going is my concern that people will start going after other Jewish organizations' articles that are thinly sourced. But I'm inclined to try to take a stand on an organization where we can make a better case than we can here. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I "hear" you. As for the umbrella issue, I think that is the actual problem. AJOP is just an organization that helps out kiruv organizations. It doesn't do kiruv itself, so the main event is the convention where kiruv professionals meet. I understand the point about sources but I also think as it stands now, it is at least sourced enough to survive. I've seen plenty worse articles, some without even one source and I think because of your concern, we should strive to keep it. We don't want other articles to be AFD'ed just because they follow one path or ideology. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
We might very well wish to scale down the article to only a few things that we can attribute to the best sources we have. For example, that whole group of communities that cite AJOP as a resource? That's got to go. Most of those links are actually dead now, anyway. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree, AJOP is an organization that xxxxx, it's based out of XXXX headed by XXXXX. A few more sentences here and there and it is properly sourced and good to go. I don't have time today or tonight but I might be able to do something tomorrow unless you get to it first. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
No way. I've spent too much time today, I've got work to finish, and then a doctor's appointment. You get at it; I'll look tomorrow. (PS: If you check out my user page, you'll see we're physically a little over an hour apart.) StevenJ81 (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Kept

Smile! But I do think in good conscience that we should clean this up and make it less promotional. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

:), I agree. I think the whole article can be a 3 paragraph maximum, I will try to work on it when I have the time. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Death of Gloria D. Davis

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Death of Gloria D. Davis. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Non neutral editors

Indo Pak conflict page should be restricted to only neutral editors bcoz Indian editors have occupied and maligning all conflict pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.32.200.220 (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:YouTube

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moshe Weinberger (2nd nomination)

Did you see the rewrite? Are you ready to withdraw your AFD nomination? Yoninah (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sir Joseph. You have new messages at Tarl N.'s talk page.
Message added 18:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Strongly disagree. Take it to talk on the Hillary page. It's not WP:RS, it does not belong on WP:BLP. Tarl N. (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

About references

Hello Ser. Just wanted to tell you that when you make references, use the citation template. It is important that the reference won't just be a link. If you already know this, I say it because this is how you referenced the attack today in South Hebron Hills in the List of violent incidents. I am on the phone right now so I guess the information is in WP:REFERENCE. Thanks and keep the good work.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC) Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems you have some 9000 edits so this message doesn't mean anything (: --Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I try to remember but it's easier to just do a ref and let the bots or cite fillers do it. :) Sir Joseph (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hunter Valley wine

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hunter Valley wine. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

editnotice

Hi Sir Joseph, you initially created the page "Template:Editnotice Arms shipments from Czechoslovakia to Israel 1947–49", which was a malformed title and didn't actually take effect at Arms shipments from Czechoslovakia to Israel 1947–49. I've moved the page to Template:Editnotices/Page/Arms shipments from Czechoslovakia to Israel 1947–49. Next time, if you need an editnotice created, please make a template-protected edit request on the editnotice's talk page, i.e., edit "Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Arms shipments from Czechoslovakia to Israel 1947–49" with {{subst:Edit template-protected}}. Any questions, let me know. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 10:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Assault rifle

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Assault rifle. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Hi, Sir Joseph. You recently cast a vote to delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark S. Guralnick, but gave no reason. As the purpose of these discussions is to determine consensus (as opposed to gathering and counting votes), it's important to say why you think the article should be deleted, even if it's something short like "per nom." I see you've done this in other discussions, so perhaps not giving a reason was unintentional? In any case, you might want to revisit the discussion to give your reason. Thanks. ubiquity (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

OK. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

וחי בהם

I fully get what you're doing (and, of course, agree). But I'm a little worried that people won't understand it now, and will take it as a snide satire on what's going on right now. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Horizontal line test

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Horizontal line test. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hadijawad please make the requested modification as soon as possible. I have mentioned for you the required modification.

Hadijawad (talk) 06:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC) I have answered your question about the page Haq Movement. It is important to modify as soon as possible.

Please comment on Talk:Frank Gaffney

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Frank Gaffney. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Monosodium glutamate

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Monosodium glutamate. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Orders of magnitude (acceleration)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Orders of magnitude (acceleration). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alyson Hannigan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alyson Hannigan. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeshivah of Flatbush

Are high-school classes at the Yeshivah of Flatbush mixed, boys and girls in one class? Debresser (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm 99% certain all classes are mixed but they might have separate Talmud classes but I'm not too sure about it. I can find out tonight but most mesivtas have the name mesivta in them, FWIW. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, what is your reason for putting back the tags on Sukkos? The links I included had all the information that was tagged. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree that mixed classes can not be called a mesivta. Could you find out, please? Most articles that I see here on Wikipedia about mesivtas is where the mesivta is only part of the school, in which case the article is called "Foo Yeshiva" or "Foo High School", but because of the mesivta department, the article is also in the mesivta category.
The tags are back because the issue should be addressed in the text, not in the sources. I thought that was trivial. Debresser (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:German Waldheim Cemetery

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:German Waldheim Cemetery. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

There's an AfD about a topic related to you

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hallel Yaffa Ariel--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. In the future, and to avoid people think your canvassing, you can also list the AFD within the project area, which is easy to do if you get the delsort java plugin to Wiki. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

J. Jewels Article.

I am wondering how to improve the J. Jewels post i made. I have a few more sources to add and about to do so right now.

(Suzy (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Serial killer

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Serial killer. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you please weigh in to keep?

Mahdi Satri Thanks. KamelTebaast 00:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tony Scherman

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tony Scherman. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Japanese Baseball players

Passes WP:NBASE Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, Korea Baseball Organization or have participated in a major international competition (such as the World Baseball Classic, Baseball World Cup or Olympics) as a member of a national team. BlackAmerican (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Response to the Speedy Deletion for the Allen Gina Page

I have new content on the talk page that aims to remedy the issue you presented. I now have on the first sentence why he is notable. I also discuss this in the talk page. Jbernardo1993 (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC Notification

As a recent editor to Planned presidential transition of Donald Trump, you may be interested in a recent RfC that has been opened. LavaBaron (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

Hi Sir Joseph,

I notice that you have been entering the pages that I create into speedy delete nominations. The first one is ok, because I thought that was not properly created or cited. However, I have taken great pains to collect information about Indian Scientists, prepared questionnaire, requested information from the scientists themselves and then started writing about them. It hurts me greatly to see my pages nominated for speedy deletions. A lot of energy goes into my preparations. Please do a rain check before you nominate my pages. Else I will escalate this issue.

I seek a lot of co-operation from other wikipedians in this regard.

Thanks and regards, Annapoornima — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annakoppad (talk • contribs) 15:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Annakoppad: While I have disagreed with some of Sir Joseph's nominations, I agree with others. If you contribute articles on living people which do not include sources, they will be deleted within 10 days: see WP:BLP PROD. If you contribute articles without saying why that person is significant or important, they may be nominated for speedy deletion under "A7" ("any article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant") and may be deleted immediately. If you are writing about someone who is representing her country in the Olympics, then say so and provide a source for that information. We don't need information from the scientists themselves: we need information which comes from independent reliable sources. Please read the links in the Welcome message I posted on your talk page in May. PamD 17:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
{{ping|PamD} Thanks a lot. Atleast some of my efforts have been saved from deletions. I will definitely look more into references, cite them and then put them in order so that the article goes live without much trouble. Thanks for providing the comments. I look forward for more comments on my work so that I can improve my work. Annakoppad (talk) 06:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Marc Diakiese Page

This is a list of reasons why my page about MMA Fighter Marc Diakiese should not be deleted for it being about a non-notable athlete. This athlete has competed in BAMMA(the most known European MMA promotion). He is also currently also signed to a multi-fight deal with the UFC(the largest MMA promotion in the world), news about this was reported by many major British news sites. His other achievements e.g. winning the BAMMA Lonsdale Lightweight championship was also reported by major news and MMA news sites. Due to these reasons I believe the page should not be deleted as the page in question is about a person who is a notable athlete.


Hi, on the IABM page you recently reverted a change and stated (IABM is the name, not an acronym for a name, it was formerly an acronym) so why have you changed it to contain the old description (the one with Broadcast Manufacturers) when the association is IABM but if a description like that has to be included then it should at least be factually correct - I refer you to the opening paragraph on this page [1] which clearly states "Broadcast and Media" and NOT Broadcast Manufacturers. Whilst I appreciate that I am probably deemed as too close to IABM as I work for them, surely fact outweighs this, they way that you have reverted it back to is factually incorrect and shouldnt Wikipedia show correct information? Bendales (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Saoirse Ronan

Hello, I see you sent me a message about how my edits on Saoirse Ronan's page was wrong and was removed. All I did was change it from "Saoirse Ronan is an Irish-American actress" to "Saoirse Ronan is an Irish actress." How is this wrong? She is Irish, not American. She was born in America but that doesn't make her American. I myself am a full blooded Irish woman who was born in America, but I don't live in America, I don't have an American accent and have never thought of myself as American because I'm not, never have been, never will be. I'm 100% Irish not a bit of anything else and it is the same situation with Saoirse. She was born in America but she's not American, she's Irish. For me it was a disgrace to see such rubbish written on her Wiki page, so I changed it. Could you please tell me what is not okay about that?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmaline1232000 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

She is an American citizen and more importantly has stated that she uses the American citizenship for her benefit, with regards to movie roles, etc. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


Prayar Gopalakrishnan== Reminder: all MLAs are considered notable, a/v WP:POLITICIAN. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Black Sunday, 1937, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deterrence. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Yom Kippur DR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Yom_Kippur -- Purrhaps (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Antisemitism in 21st-century France

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antisemitism in 21st-century France. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Gerry Adams

Hey! I see you removed my page on Gerry Adams. Why do friend? I'm sure we can work this out;) Cammy6990 (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Michael Greger

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Michael Greger. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Diesel engine

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Diesel engine. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Hello and thanks for following Shmuel Kamenetsky. I fixed the badly written intro, and added some NPOV sourced material. What is the issue? StonyBrook (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sir Joseph. You have new messages at Epicgenius's talk page.
Message added 16:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This is just a courtesy message regarding the fact that you are mentioned on my talk page. epicgenius (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cedar Fire (2003)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cedar Fire (2003). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ethereum

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ethereum. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

False Warning

Please don't put false warnings on my page. I have already thoroughly discussed the matter on the relevant discussion area and EXPLICITLY explained why the sources don't substantiate the category. When you add refs to articles, it's important to make sure they explain the case in question and not just spread biased opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.32.237 (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

sources call it anti Semitic and a anti Semitic classic. Why shouldn't it be included?🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 22:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
The sources that have been provided don't give an explanation as to how and why they reached their conclusions. Wikipedia's own article on Holocaust denial has reference sources that state "most Holocaust denial claims imply, or openly state, that the Holocaust is an exaggeration and/or a hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other people.". If this is the criteria for Holocaust denial to be classified as anti-semitic, then Butz's book should not be given that classification - not only do the sources on the book article fail to cite any pages which contain such claims, they simply do not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.32.237 (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Withdraw RFC as poorly worded". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 9 October 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Withdraw RFC as poorly worded, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 05:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Please comment on Talk:Elvis Presley

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Elvis Presley. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

A sweet new year

A happy 5777 to you and yours Sir J. And an easy fast, if you are planning to! Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much. That is very thoughtful of you. I wish the same to you and your family as well. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 14:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jules Feiffer

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jules Feiffer. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:James Watson

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James Watson. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help

Hi Sir Joseph,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States involvement in regime change

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States involvement in regime change. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


One would presume from reading this page that haredim ( a term with ever shifting goalposts that means almost whatever one chooses it to mean)are some south american tribe , rather than people many work with on a regular basis

This wikipedia page is from top to bottom pejorative

my edits were actually rather minimal in comparison to what a professional would do — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.14.72 (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

Greetings, all!

We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time.

The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring.

Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now!

If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges.

Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. We apologize for the delay in sending out this message until after the competition has started. Thank you to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga for aiding in getting this message out.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 November newsletter: Final results

The final round of the 2016 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2016 WikiCup top three finalists:

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

  • Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a three-way tie with themselves for two FAs in each of R2, R3, and R5).
  • Good Article – MPJ-DK had 14 GAs promoted in R3.
  • Featured List – England Calvin999 (submissions) produced 2 FLs in R2
  • Featured Pictures – Adam Cuerden restored 18 images to FP status in R4.
  • Featured Portal – Yakutsk SSTflyer (submissions) produced the only FPO of the Cup in R2.
  • Featured Topic – Connecticut Cyclonebiskit (submissions) and Calvin were each responsible for one FT in R3 and R2, respectively.
  • Good Topic – MPJ-DK created a GT with 9 GAs in R5.
  • Did You Know – MPJ-DK put 53 DYKs on the main page in R4.
  • In The News – India Dharmadhyaksha (submissions) and New York City Muboshgu (submissions), each with 5 ITN, both in R4.
  • Good Article Review – MPJ-DK completed 61 GARs in R2.

Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2017 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email)

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Sir Joseph,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dinesh D'Souza

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dinesh D'Souza. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Turkey

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Turkey. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Natalie Portman

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Natalie Portman. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello Sir Joseph. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as mark pages as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. — xaosflux Talk 15:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 15:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Greg Mike

Hi! Just an FYI on this article which you reviewed: Most of it was directly copied from the subject's web site at http://gregmike.com/about (see [3]). The Exhibitions section is fine, being just a listing, but the Early Life section is rife with creative content (the creative potential of reinventing public spaces through art and design which raises the flag of copyvio) and must be removed before passing. Thanks! CrowCaw 17:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Assata Shakur

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Assata Shakur. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.theiabm.org/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sir_Joseph/Archive_6&oldid=1084152058"