User talk:JohnLloydScharf

If you are considering posting something to me, please:
 * Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.


 * Use the New Section option when starting new talk topics.


 * Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here.


 * Do not make personal attacks or use the page for harassment.

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


 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]]1.Stick to the subject matter being discussed in the title of the [section].
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]]2.Be concise.
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]]3.Use a logical argument.

= USEFUL PAGES: =


 * Pdeitiker
 * Haplogroup H3 (mtDNA) Draft
 * Haplotype J1 (yDNA) Draft
 * Way to ID Administrators
 * EthnicGroup y DNA
 * Hap J Talk
 * Wikipedia Manual of Style
 * Cleanup
 * Wiki Markup:How to format a page


 * Andrew Landcaster Draft Notes
 * Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA)
 * 080911 edition of J1 Haplogroup
 * Archive of 08/23/2011
 * Archive of 09/02/2011
 * Archive of 09/02/2011
 * Notes On Noses
 * Phrenology and the origins of Victorian scientific naturalism

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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


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

You are reiterating your name-calling personal attacks with ad hominem fallacies rather than addressing the sources properly with legitimate logical argument. If you believe the data is untrue from the source indicated, make your case; not a claim. Talk should be a place to carry on logical argument in a civil conversation, not your opportunity to censor opposition. At this point, you need to resign your authority. Your bias is evident and you ignoring the purpose of a talk page is proof. John Lloyd Scharf 17:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC) No, jpmorgan, I do not understand what I have been blocked for, did not cause damage or disruption, and made a useful contributions instead. So, your response is both irrelevant and inappropriate. You know what that means and should carry my appeal higher, however that is done. I cannot contradict something when something arbitrary and ambiguous is claimed without facts or evidence to support it. John Lloyd Scharf 17:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Obviously, you do not know how to make a reasoned objection with a logical argument. There is no reason to have any faith in the existence of a legitimate process. John Lloyd Scharf 22:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, this is ignored: John Lloyd Scharf 22:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk page access

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

Site ban proposal
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
 * You cannot edit this talk page, but if there is anything relevant you want to say then I suggest contacting WP:UTRS where someone might grant you permission to post it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

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