User talk:Sir Joseph/Archive 11

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) 04:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Notifications for detentions
This is in case you don’t get pings. I’ve removed the tags because you were not responding on the article talk page while you responded on the DYK page in a seemingly uncollaborative manner. If you want to tag the article again, I hope you will give specific examples of every instance the problem occurs in the article. This will help me to identify problems and improve the article. It shouldn’t be hard because apparently you see the problem already.  starship .paint  (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Annual notice
 starship .paint  (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I participated in an AE discussion regarding the above within the past year. Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive247 Your posting of that template violates the guidelines. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry, Sir Joseph. I based my post because your last notice on the topic was over a year ago, July 2018 by Sangdeboeuf. Then please remove my message.  starship .paint  (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Penny Rowson
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Penny Rowson. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

ARBPIA violations
Both on this talk page again, and on the article space — what gives? El_C 03:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My TBAN expired. It's been over three months. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh? What timeline were you operating under (starting and end date)? El_C 03:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , Sir Joseph is right. The timeline recorded at EDRC shows an end date of 2019-08-10, three months after the AE discussion was closed. – bradv  🍁  03:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I was looking at WP:AEL (which I, myself, logged), but okay, I guess five days got lost somehow. El_C 03:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your date was incorrect since I was already banned by GoldenRing, and that was affirmed in my appeal/clarification to Arbcom that the date didn't get reset. Also, just to note, that there is a weird date issue if you look at the log, it says in the signature "3 months, 2 days ago" so someone might inadvertently edit at 3 months, and not look at the log, so people should keep that in mind, since some months don't have uniform number of days. So if you look at my archive (number 10) GoldenRing banned me, and it'll say, 3 months 2 days, so had I edited a couple of days ago, it would say 3 months ago, but that would still be apparently outside a TBAN. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:59, 11 August 2019 (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) 04:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Quote on Talk Page
The out of context statement at the top of this page should get you bounced permanently from WP. You are suggesting that I am a Holocaust denier. Among my ancestry are Jews that escaped persecution, and now this. My point, inelegantly made, was that the Holocaust was evil beyond words and that the exact number of deaths is irrelevant to this monstrosity. It is millions. You are doing this because we are in the middle of a article disagreement. This is the worst example of retribution I have seen in my 12 years at WP. It is no wonder that your block log is so lengthy. Remove this immediately. O3000 (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not out of context, it's a direct quote from you. I took it verbatim from the talk page. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, that quote has been up there for ages, I just put your name there now. BTW, how many Jews died in the Holocaust? You can answer now if you want. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is out of context. We were talking about the evils of Nazism. Whether it is 5, 6, 7 million, it's evil and the Holocaust which you are saying I'm denying. Something like 40 million total died in WWII. There is no way that I can allow this monstrous false accusation to stay here. Last chance to remove it. O3000 (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how quoting your words is libel. Please clarify. They are your words, and I quoted them in full. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, the Holocaust only refers to the death of six million Jews, not to the other deaths during WWII. So not sure why you are putting in the 40 million in your sentence which has no bearing on your quote. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sir Joseph - beyond full quotations clearly not being libel, claiming you are performing libel would seem to be a possible legal threat. WP:NLT.Icewhiz (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You stated that it was Holocaust denial. That's a goddamn lie. The Holocaust was one of the worst acts in Human history. The Wannsee Conference is an example I give of ultimate evil. By my ancestors, this lie will not stand. O3000 (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a form of Holocaust denial, read the links. Stating that it's 75% or whatever, is a form of Holocaust denial. I quoted your full statement, which as pointed out, can't be libel. You are in violation of NLT. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. That article says there are lots of estimates. I don't know the number. It is millions, it happened, and it was evil beyond measure. I have never denied the Holocaust. Claiming that you deny the Holocaust because you don't now the exact number is nonsensical. Calling someone a Holocaust denier who despises the Third Reich as strongly as I is sick. Remove your libel now. O3000 (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

SJ, regardless of who is right here, it says on WP:UP that "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" is not allowed on user talk pages. Arguably, WP:ASPERSIONS also applies. If you think you have a case for sanction against O3000, you should take it to an appropriate noticeboard. Zerotalk 15:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So suddenly POLEMIC is something that is enforced on Wikipedia? I have nothing to sanction, that is a quote that I have on my page. I'm not attacking him, and it's not libel since it's a full quote not out of context. (And are we now going to to go other editor's pages and start enforcing polemic since I've been to many that violate it, but apparently it's selectively enforced. Also, what do you mean who is right? Did six million Jews not die in the Holocaust? That is why I put the quote on top, we can't let people think it's OK to say that not so many people died in the Holocaust.) Sir Joseph (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you saying it is not an attack to call someone a holocaust denier? And of course it's out of context. Context includes other relevant text. O3000 (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not out of context at all, it's your full quote. And denying the numbers, which you did, when you said specifically, 75% is a form of Holocaust denial. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * From the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum on "Holocaust Denial and Distortion": Common distortions include, for example, assertions that the figure of six million Jewish deaths is an exaggeration and that the diary of Anne Frank is a forgery. -note, that you used almost the exact same words (with regards to the count). Sir Joseph (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So, for the record, you are again repeating the accusation that I am a Holocaust denier because I was trying to make a point that I don't think the specific number is important to the label Holocaust or its evil, correct?
 * So, for the record, you continue to insist that I am a Holocaust denier despite my multiple statements that the Holocaust did exist and was evil beyond all measure, correct?
 * So, for the record, you posted this prominently at the top of your talk page despite the fact we have never before discussed this, correct?
 * So, for the record, you refuse to remove this even after a warning from an admin, correct?
 * So, for the record, you placed my name on the quote (out of context from the entire conversation) while we were in a content dispute unrelated to the Holocaust, correct?
 * So, for the record, you did this without notifying me, correct? O3000 (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your point is. I never said you didn't say the Holocaust never happened, you just are denying six million Jews were murdered, and you are OK with saying that it can be 75% of that number. As per the Wiki article, and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, that is indeed Holocaust Denial.
 * The quote on my talk page is not out of context, it's a full statement of yours. It may be part of a paragraph of yours, but this is a distinct statement of yours.
 * I don't think I have to remove it just because Zero asked me to because Polemic is not something this encyclopedia takes seriously. We have a user page that is over 1.5MB long full of polemic, we have other user pages that is chock full of polemic. I put your quote up because you warned me once how to behave in the IP area, so I felt it was very ironic that we have people with your views editing the encyclopedia. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, you have repeatedly falsely accused me of Holocaust denial and have refused to remove these attacks. I will take this elsewhere. O3000 (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, and note that there is a distinction between scholars debating whether it's 5.65 or 5.7 or 6 million or people claiming that people "exaggerate" the deaths, as you state. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I said: “may have very well been exaggerated by some”. Clearly I am stating that some people exaggerated, not that the official number is an exaggeration. The official count is 6 million. But, there have been claims of 7 million and more. So, what I said, and what you call Holocaust denial, is undeniably true. Indeed, this was my point. It was millions and monstrous. O3000 (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You then say though at the end, "Does it make it OK if it was 75% as many? Just say “substantially fewer deaths” so that is not clear. In your opinion, how many Jews died in the Holocaust? 75% of six million, is 4.5 million, which is far less than the accepted range. If you want to repudiate those statements, you may do so now. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I can remove all this real quickly if you resolve it, just tell me how many people died in the Holocaust. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The official number from historians is around 6 million. I never said 75% of 6 million as you just suggested. I have never in my life argued against the number 6 million. I merely stated that some people have exaggerated the number. Some, as in the definition: "at least a small amount or number of people or things". How can anyone mistake that for the agreed upon number by historians? Of course some people exaggerate. Look, this was not a discussion of an article. It was a freewheeling UTP discussion about a possible essay about the fucking Nazi's that come into WP. My obvious point was that it was millions and that makes it monstrous, no matter what the exact number. And, it's stupid to exaggerate a number that is already monstrous. Since it was just a UTP discussion between a few anti-Nazi's about a prospective essay, I didn't think I'd have to dot every i as I knew no one in that discussion would think for a second that I was a Holocaust denier. O3000 (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not how your quote reads. Read it again. You are implying that fewer than six million died in the Holocaust, it's obviously millions, it's still bad, even if it's just 75% of six million. Again, I'm just reading your words as their written. You may wish to clarify that then. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That’s a goddamn lie. Read it yourself without mentally inserting words and meanings that aren't there. I did NOT say 75% of six million. Why would you lie about what I said? And don't tell me what I meant. I am Jewish. Most everyone I’ve worked with for decades is Jewish. I am the descendant of Polish and Russian Jews who escaped persecution. Stop inferring what does not exist. Retract your foul accusations. O3000 (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Does it make it OK if it was 75% as many? Just say “substantially fewer deaths”" That's your quote. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As many as what "some" exaggerations claim -- not what the historians say. No wonder you have been blocked so many times. Retract your lies. O3000 (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Objective3000—wouldn't there be an equal likelihood that the Holocaust deaths were understated by some? Bus stop (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously, rather definitely. Actual Holocaust deniers have claimed 200,000 and 50,000, which is outrageous. And Simon Wiesenthal was heavily criticized for exaggerating non-Jewish deaths. All of this is to be expected. The point is that the Holocaust occurred and was monstrous. O3000 (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * To those who read this screed against me, I am a descendent of Jewish immigrants who escaped persecution. Only insane people deny the Holocaust or persecution of Jews dating back to 167BCE. The accusations made by Sir Joseph, over and over and over, are completely without merit and revolt me to my core. I notice that among the extensive number of blocks in his log is one for calling editors terrorists and another for accusations of anti-Semitism leveled against editors. Now it’s Holocaust denial. We are all volunteers. Making vile accusations against editors when you have a disagreement is unacceptable. O3000 (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're using a Coffee block against me? Sir Joseph (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * - simple question, answer with a number please: how many Jews died in the Holocaust? Icewhiz (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The current recognized estimate according to reliable sources is some six million Jews, around two-thirds of Europe's Jewish population. I've seen claims as high as 11 million, which would be larger than the population. O3000 (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To which I'd say, you're spot on, O3000. Sir Joseph, it seems pretty clear that O3000 is not denying anything. Your quote of him is technically fine (though I'd advise against it). Your assessment of it is offensive and incivil. Buffs (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey, guys, did you notice El C removed the quote at the top of the page a while back, with a sharp warning for you, Sir Joseph, in the edit summary? If he hadn't, I would have, as soon as I saw it. Surely you can both stop quarrelling now? Let it go. And as for you, Bus stop and Icewhiz, what's the idea behind dropping by and throwing kerosene on a fire? Objective3000, please don't rise to the baiting of Sir Joseph's talkpage stalkers. You don't have to answer any questions. Nobody in their senses believes you're a holocaust denier. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC).
 * Or considering that this is the first time ever on my talk page and my first time ever interacting with him. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I came here via Ilhan Omar's talk page, since it was referenced. I'm not trying to toss any kerosene. I'll be leaving now. Buffs (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "what's the idea behind dropping by and throwing kerosene on a fire?" I didn't think I threw kerosene on a fire. I made the reasonable observation that understatement is as likely as overstatement. I'm trying to frame the question differently. The question concerned the possibility of exaggeration. What about the equally likely possibility of understatement? Bus stop (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You can ask at his talk page where the discussion is ongoing, where Nishidani has now made an appearance. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Someone hat this crap. I'd ask for a revdel, but I want it on record. O3000 (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation dos and don'ts
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation dos and don'ts. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

List of concentration and internment camps
The article is subject to consensus required, which your latest edit violated. Please take this opportunity to self revert. El_C 03:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Look, I appreciate you reverting that question, but even if that user hadn't asked me to look into this on my talk page, there is nothing preventing me from enforcing policy when it comes to your editing. El_C 03:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Your proposal for new language/cleanup at List of concentration and internment camps
The RfC's summary is pretty clear that discussion is needed. So please, let's have that discussion. Let's work collaboratively on cleaning up the section. --Pinchme123 (talk) 04:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

1RR violation at List of concentration and internment camps
I thought I should warn you. List of concentration and internment camps is under 1RR. Your first revert  was on 22 August 03:46 and 03:50. Your second revert was at  22 August 05:43 and 05:58. So, you're over the limit. I think you should know what to do, now that you have been notified.  starship .paint  (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ok, I temporarily removed the tag. Sir Joseph (talk) 06:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but this too, 05:58, which I mentioned above.  starship  .paint  (talk) 06:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, can you clarify why you think my edits are reverts? I think you're counting a self-revert I did at the behest of which I don't think is fair to count as a revert. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I also am not immediately seeing a revert with the first set of links. El_C 14:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sir Joseph, I did not count the revert you self reverted. I already included links to what I counted. Sir Joseph and, here it is, 22 August 03:46 is a revert of an IP's 21 August edit .  starship  .paint  (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned on the talk page, I took that page off my watchlist so you can do whatever you want to that page. Also, please don't ping me on that page or post on my page anymore, thanks. I don't want to have anything to do with that topic. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. You won't be hearing from me unless it's absolutely, absolutely needed (I can't think of an example, so hopefully there aren't such cases).  starship .paint  (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson
Please see talk if you would like to comment about the lead section. --Malerooster (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Ilhan Omar
Hello, Sir Joseph,

I noticed that you marked an edit that added a reference to a New York Times article as a "minor edit". Please be aware that no edit that adds substantive content should be tagged as a minor edit. Please read Help:Minor edit, which says "A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions. Examples include typographical corrections, corrections of minor formatting errors, and reversion of obvious vandalism. A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." Adding a new reference, no matter its quality or applicability, is not a minor edit. This matters because some editors toggle a box that does not show minor edits in their watchlists. Incorrectly marking a major edit as minor reduces scrutiny of the edit, and that is inappropriate. I am not expressing any opinion about the reference you added. It may or may not be an improvement. But what is certain is that it is not a minor edit. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for that, but I ended up getting rid of that in the next edit anyway since it makes no sense to have it on the page but I'll take note of it for the future. Thanks. Sir Joseph (talk) 05:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Page mover granted
Hello, Sir Joseph. Your account has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ASir_Joseph granted] the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when  is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:
 * Requested moves
 * Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

quote
I was just passing through and noticed the "Jews must pass my test if they want my sympathy" quote. It seems like both the style and favorite topic of the guy who once said that Purim is a celebration of genocide. Is it? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , yep Sir Joseph (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sadly unsurprising. I see he also told you that the "most intelligent commentator" on the Crobyn thing is the guy who says Jews make up claims of antisemitism (after everything we did for them!). Also unsurprising. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , yeah, I guess half of British Jews are thinking of leaving for no reason whatsoever. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This just happened within a day or two in Manchester. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah I saw that. The good news is that people stood up to that guy. I don't think that would have happened before the all the Labour antisemitism brouhaha. I think this Labour thing has opened some people's eyes. You may recall that several years ago I noted that Wikipedia doesn't know how to deal with antisemitism masquerading as anti-Zionism, maybe things will change here too eventually. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , sadly they still don't. I have first hand experience with that. I think it will take a little while longer for things to change on this site. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I know. As long as some admins protect these people (perhaps mistakenly thinking they're supporting anti-Zionists, but at this point I doubt it), nothing will change. There needs to be some media attention and then outside pressure for anything to change here. Maybe one day. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, to answer a point raised in that thread, he is from Australia (which makes his weird chest-thumping rant about where he lived and what he stole even more farcical than it looks), and currently lives in Italy. His interest in this matter is ideological. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The train passenger in Manchester had a right to travel without disturbance. Usually, though, "bullying" isn't done with quite such a smiley face: Anti-Palestinian activists guilty of harassment - "Two infamous anti-Palestinian activists in London pleaded guilty to charges of harassment and threatening behavior on Wednesday. Jonathan Hoffman, a former leader in the Zionist Federation, and Damon Lenszner changed their earlier not-guilty pleas in exchange for government prosecutors dropping related assault charges." And perhaps, in another incident on a train, this person took his objection to the use of the word "costume" a bit too far.    ←   ZScarpia  17:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Kind of proves the point of conflating antisemitism and being anti-Israel. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Australian
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Australian. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The name of the thread is "Using a talk page to attack an editor". Bishonen &#124; talk 19:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox film
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox film. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mindhunter (TV series)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mindhunter (TV series). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019
Hello ,

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
 * Backlog

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
 * Coordinator

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for  making  the occasional  mistake while  others can learn from  their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
 * This month's refresher course

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
 * Deletion tags

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
 * Paid editing


 * Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
 * Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
 * Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent  enhancements to  the New Pages Feed and  features in the Curation  tool, and there are still more to  come. Due to the wealth  of information  now displayed by  ORES, reviewers are strongly  encouraged to  use the system now rather than Twinkle; it  will  also  correctly  populate the logs.
 * Not English
 * A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
 * Tools

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User rights of (site) banned users
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User rights of (site) banned users. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Template editor
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Template editor. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Shoreline Towers
Hello Sir Joseph. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Shoreline Towers, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 cannot be applied to buildings. Thank you. So Why  07:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sir Joseph and accusations of Holocaust denial and revisionism. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Portal/Guidelines
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Portal/Guidelines. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Walk away from it.
Howdy. You may have to swallow your pride on this one & promise to stay away from anything to do with the Holocaust. It might be the only way for you to avoid a site-ban or any topic-ban. At this point, it's no longer a matter of who's right & who's wrong. But, rather a matter of there's a lot of editors angry with you. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't usually edit the Holocaust area anyway. The only reason why this is being discussed is because I mentioned on TB's talk page that I don't think he'd be a good ARBCOM candidate and so he reopened that closed case. So everything and everyone comes out of the woodwork. And nobody complains about TB making insinuations about me, he gets away with it. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 'Tis the way it is, sometimes. Ain't fair, but that's how it goes. GoodDay (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Random
Please revert & ignore me if you don't want to hear from me. I have some advice. I read that stupidly long ANI thread and you used one word, "libel", which people are allergic to on Wikipedia. They'll shout WP:NLT and block you for it. That is why I recommend being very very careful with that word. I didn't really bother digging deep enough to know who is right and who is wrong and why. Poveglia (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox film
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox film. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Redirect
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Redirect. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Customization
One can always customize through substitution. El_C 21:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case commencing
In August 2019, the Arbitration Committee resolved to open the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case as a suspended case due to workload considerations. The Committee is now un-suspending and commencing the case. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The primary scope of the case is: Evaluating the clarity and effectiveness of current remedies in the ARBPIA area. More information can be found here.
 * Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Evidence. The evidence phase will be open until 18 October 2019 (subject to change).
 * You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Workshop. The workshop phase will be open until 25 October 2019 (subject to change).
 * For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
 * If you do not wish to receive case updates, please remove your name from the notification list.

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sir Joseph topic ban violation. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

ANI
I think everything will be good, just stop responding. I don't think you will be able to avoid a month block, but that is not bad, for you are harmful for yourself in your current emotional mood. Just stop responding, take a month wiki-sabbatical, and welcome back :-)--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * JUST STOP RESPONDING! Don't you see that the second proposal wins?! Just DO NOTHING, and everything will be ok.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , the second proposal won't automatically win, if the first proposal also has enough votes, the first proposal if it passes, will pass, then the second proposal will be moot, that's how it works here. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I guess so, but a month does seem excessive for a first violation, but of course I can't say that since that would be wikilawyering. I note you didn't vote in the CBAN section, one way or the other. :) I do think a formal IBAN with TonyBallioni should also be proposed, if he ever needs admin action against me, he can always contact someone else.
 * I do note that someone in the first section made a comment that I didn't have to comment at the Electoral Commission website, well, I'm not TBANNED from there, and also, Tony didn't have to reply to me. He's not only an admin, he's a functionary, they are held to higher standards, and his conduct is wanting, and you can see that in his voting. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to know my opinion, you behave as an a@#$le (sorry). However, I always prefer to deal with honest and rude users like you rather that with polite but sneaky jerks, and I want you to stay in Wikipedia. In that situation, one month block is quite ok. You need a long break to come to a normal mood. I will be glad to see you back in 1 month.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding your last post, if you don't want to help to yourself I can't do anything. If a second proposal don't win you know whom to blame. Good luck.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'll stay away, the problem is that ANI is ANI, you saw how it went last time and this time has the same cast. I don't know why people are voting to BAN me for a TBAN violation when that is not how it is supposed to go. It clearly says that in the ANI closure of my TBAN, any violation is met with escalating blocks, so even if this is a TBAN then block me. I don't get the rationale for a CBAN, when all I did was respond to yet another TonyBallioni ANI request. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Happy sabbatical :-)--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Joseph, I was going to post my opinion against sanctions on you despite you technically breaking the t.b. I decided not to because I would possibly violate my own Topic Ban. I think you should let it go and chill out for a couple of days. I believe you are still disappointed and bitter, but that will pass. Believe it or not, but I reflected on your point of view on many topics despite not agreeing with you most of the time. Please cool off, now with impossible to compromise Icewhiz gone; the area will be less toxic, and things will work out well. Don't get yourself banned, please. GizzyCatBella 🍁  10:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

B'Sha'ah Tovah
B'Sha'ah Tovah—I wish you a good year.

Just so you know I am not permitted to weigh in at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or I would. Bus stop (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , thank you and same to you. This place has been interesting the past few weeks, to say the least. It has even reached Jimbo's talk page. Fun times for all I guess. :) Sir Joseph (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice of ANI closure
Per this closure at ANI, you are topic-banned from the holocaust and from anti-Semitism, both broadly construed. This includes discussing the Holocaust and/or anti-Semitism as it pertains to other editors. Primefac (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , Can I ask you a question on your close and the ANI or will you block me? Sir Joseph (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BANEX allows for asking clarifying questions. Primefac (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , firstly, your closing statement, at least to me, reads like you took TB and the support voters at face value ; "There were three main proposals made regarding Sir Joseph's behaviours" that is how I read it. Also, it's quite clear that most of the "support" voters were either "as pers" or did not read any of my statements or TB's DIFFS that show that there was no action necessary. As pointed out, based on lack of evidence of any problem regarding the Holocaust since the warning a month ago, before this spurious ANI report was filed (i.e., between Aug 18 and Sep 19, inclusive). To the extent there is a problem "in this thread", it was caused by the filing of this thread. No thread, no problem. I'm not down with sanctioning people for responding poorly to poor noticeboard reports. everyone else was misquoting and misusing the O3000 situation. So, I am asking you as the closing admin, because nobody in that thread, including admins, provided me with DIFFS of ongoing behavior that justify a TBAN, where are the DIFFS that justified the close? I've been told that "You've been given evidence, multiple times." But not once was I provided DIFFS of ongoing and NEW behavior that justified a TBAN.
 * Simonm223 for example says in his support statement that the O3000 that kicked off this mess.... but the O3000 dispute was a month and a half ago and was closed and clarified and I didn't have any posts or interaction with O3000 until TonyBallioni opened this ANI. As Levivich mentioned in his oppose, "No thread, no problem." The community got this one majorly wrong and you closed it for them. But you have a responsibility as the closer to show proof for your close, so as the admin, I am asking you to provide proof for the reasoning behind the TBAN.
 * Thank you. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The only way that your false accusations against me were "closed" was the four admins that criticized you, one admin that was criticized for not sanctioning you, and Bish finally stating that no one with any sense thinks I am a holocaust denier. Drop this crap and never mention me again. I could have brought up the timeline that shows, without question, that attaching me to a holocaust denial link was pure retribution for a completely irrelevant content dispute minutes before. I haven't done this as yet -- but the record remains. Please don't ever mention me, or holocaust denial, or Antisemitism again. O3000 (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There you go again with your false accusations. I asked you to stay off my talk page. Not once did I accuse you of anything. You quoted something a month and a half ago. That issue was resolved. But the quote itself was bad. That is not up for dispute. That people think I said you said something is their reading comprehension issue. Not once in that ANI did I ever say anything negative about you. That is why I repeatedly asked for a DIFF and I am asking Primefac for a DIFF. And I am telling you again to stay off my talk page. I have the right to question and clarify my BAN and I choose to do so. You can take my page off your watchlist. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have a right to respond to a post that uses my username three times. You don't like, it, stop using my username. O3000 (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There were three proposals - two different tban options, and a site ban proposal. So yes, you read that entirely correctly.
 * Two of the examples provided by Tony (archived here) included posts from the same day that he filed at ANI. I do not believe (nor do I suspect the participants believed) that Tony filed at ANI solely due to the O3000 incident - as you say it was in the past, but it does support his case that this is an ongoing occurrence as opposed to a one-off issue.
 * As far as the close itself goes, I weighed the input of the participants and found that the consensus was with the TBAN posted here. If, as you say, the community "got it wrong," I do not see evidence of that, and you are welcome to contest the deletion at the appropriate venue. Primefac (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , you still haven't provided a diff. You said I posted on "the same day" but that's on Sandstein's talk page that he's trigger happy. Where's the "ongoing occurrence" as you say? And again, those examples from Tony are distorted quotes from me, something he accused me of doing. Also, Holocaust is usually capitalized. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's still the same day, regardless of where it was posted. The job of the closer is to read through the discussion interpret the will of the community; there were compelling arguments made on both sides but ultimately the decision ended up with those in favour of a restriction being placed.
 * Thank you for the note, though, I've updated the logs to have a capital H. Primefac (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I understand that, but my comment about Sandstein was that he closes AE without admin input, certainly that is not an actionable event. I'm still waiting for DIFFS to disruptive edits to the mainspace that warrant a TBAN. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * TBANs don't have to be only predicated on mainspace disruptions. Primefac (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I know, but they need to be predicated on some sort of disruption, and telling Sandstein that he closes AE actions without input from other admins is not a disruption and it most certainly doesn't have anything to do with the Holocaust or antisemitism. I will eagerly await the evidence of disruption via DIFFS. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We're going around in circles, to the point where further conversation seems fruitless. If you wish to contest the topic ban, please make a post at WP:AN. Primefac (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , OK, but if you ever want to provide actual evidence via a DIFF, I'll be here. In the meanwhile, the evidence is clear that the TBAN is 100% unjustified and you closed it as such. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

My userpage
Hey Joe, you made some edits on my user page, which seem like an error and a revert. I am on my phone so I can't quite see the changes. So I am just make sure everything's fine.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No reference to Hendrix intended.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, a fat finger edit via mobile. When you edit on a mobile phone the page doesn't fully load and then it kind of does the edit that you pressed even though you didn't mean to, so I reverted once I noticed, it should have warned me, but I think it slipped through the cracks. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for violating your topic ban on antisemitism and the Holocaust, per this thread at ANI. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Yunshui 雲 水 11:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * you wrote that I am blocked for multiple violations, please clarify that it is only one violation. People here will come back to this edit and use it in the future. Thank you. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia as a press source
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia as a press source. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request on UTRS
--UTRSBot (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Interaction ban
Per this ANI discussion, you are subject to a one-way interaction ban with User:TonyBallioni. You may not You may appeal this ban in the usual manner. Yunshui 雲 水 11:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * edit TonyBallioni 's user and user talk pages.
 * reply to TonyBallioni in discussions.
 * make reference to or comment on TonyBallioni anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly.
 * undo TonyBallioni 's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means.
 * use the thanks extension to respond to TonyBallioni 's edits.
 * , I wish to make it a two way IBAN. How can I do that? Sir Joseph (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My reading of the situation is as follows: The ANI thread showed consensus for a one-way IBAN. There was no consensus for a two-way IBAN. Requesting that TonyBallioni be subjected to an interaction ban would likely be regarded by the community as a violation of the third element of your ban, above. If at some point you successfully appealed this interaction ban, you would then be able to comment on TonyBallioni again, and could request a two-way interaction ban at AN. However, as thing stand, you may only comment on this ban at AN in order to appeal against it; requesting the implementation of sanctions against TonyBallioni would be a violation of this ban. Yunshui 雲 水 13:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think that is extremely unfair. Also, do you think it's fair that the anyone at ANI can just propose a sanction that goes against the usual course of escalating blocks? The first violation of a TBAN is not one month but because that is what one person proposed that is what passed. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My opinions on the fairness or otherwise of the discussion have no bearing on its conclusion; neither do yours, I'm afraid. There is no hard-and-fast rule on how long an initial TBAN block should be, and - as was pointed out in the discussion - you have been blocked several times previously for behaviour that was directly related to the topic ban. You may appeal this block in the usual way, although I would urge caution if you choose to do so - making an unblock request that relies on the argument that "it's not fair" is very unlikely to be successful, and may result in the revocation of your talkpage access for the duration of the block as well. Yunshui 雲 水 14:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Just to note, I have been blocked only once, and that was by Coffee. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I was about to apologise and strike part of my above comment, assuming that I had perhaps misread the block log, but as far as I can tell you have been blocked multiple times for related behaviours (ARBPIA and topic ban violations). My use of the word "several" is therefore justified, IMHO, although it really doesn't matter - again, the block and its length were decided by community consensus, not by me, so what I think about your block log and history isn't relevant at all. Yunshui 雲 水 07:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I count eight blocks, not counting extensions. Two of those were done by Coffee (like that invalidates them or something) and one was overturned on appeal.  As far as I can tell from the block log, with one possible exception, they were all for ARBPIA-related reasons and at least two were for personal attacks related to ARBPIA.  GoldenRing (talk) 08:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , and what does ARBPIA have to do with my current TBAN? Sir Joseph (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , again, how is a tban on x related to y? Are you saying that if you ever violated a tban, the next time you get a tban, in any topic then it's not a first time violation? Or are you just conflating these two topic areas? Sir Joseph (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I lack either the time or the level of interest required to dig through all of the diffs leading up to your previous blocks, but a cursory review of your blocks from 2016 onwards seems to show that accusations of antisemitism have factored into at least some of them. If you had previously been t-banned from, say, editing pages related to armadillos, quantum physics or the Dutch Royal family, then I suspect the community would not have factored previous blocks into their decision, but since so many of your previous blocks seem to relate directly to Israel, Jewish public figures, and attacks on other editors, it's hardly surprising that they would have been taken into account. Again, though, this is not my decision - you could convince me 100% that you were entirely innocent and that the block was unjustified, and I still wouldn't unblock you, because the block was imposed by the community. You can appeal it if you wish, or not, but appealing to me directly is going to fall on deaf ears. Yunshui 雲 水 14:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , so prior blocks related to Israel are now related to this TBAN, is what you're saying? Thanks for confirming the irony of what many others pointed out. No further need to continue this conversation. It's clear you are not getting it. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Sir Joseph, just for clarification (as I explained in the ANI thread), I chose one month in my proposal because you have several previous blocks for disruptive behavior when you were upset about this particular topic - thus it seemed the correct escalation short of a site ban (which was the other proposal on the table at the time). We don't generally block a user for violating one guideline, then reset the "block counter" to zero when they violate a different guideline under closely related circumstances. To be frank with you, it's clear you need some time away from the project. Please, just step away for a bit. Clearly you're not happy here right now, and trying to fight this out won't help you to be happy. Please focus on the things in your life that make you happy, and then come back with a clear head when the block has expired, I really think you'll feel better in the long run. I wish you the best. Waggie (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , that is exactly the issue. I have one block in this TBAN scope. Issued by Coffee in 2016. That is it. The legal threat was reversed and it wasn't a legal threat at all, and all other blocks were not in this area at all. They were in general editing or in ARBPIA. Or are you saying that ARBPIA is the same as this topic? That is what befuddles me. I want people to appreciate the irony here. I'm OK with leaving this site for a month, I'm just upset over the toxicity of ANI and how I was railroaded, IMO. Also, please stay off my talk page. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see the irony, personally, or that you were railroaded. You comment that only one block is in the TBAN scope, but I count at least two prior to the current block (early 2016 and early 2019). Thank you for taking my advice and taking time off. I will henceforth respect your wish to "stay off [your] talk page", I was just trying to help clarify for you, I'm sorry that it's not welcome. Best wishes, Waggie (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sir Joseph, this is exactly what we call Wikilawyering. This is not a bureaucracy. You have a long history of disruptive conduct resulting in blocks. That you would somehow think that you can dictate which of that history the community is allowed to consider when sanctioning you is strange, to say the least. The fact that you think you can rail against the community and continue wasting editors' time, attacking people as "toxic", nitpicking details, demanding explanations and then banning people from your talk page when they provide them, is quite simply disruptive. The community has delivered a mandate for a one month block. You're arguing this block like it's just a routine technicality to enforce a TBAN. That's presumably why it doesn't make sense to you, but that's a problem. This isn't a routine technicality. It's a pretty severe preventative measure that we rarely see the community resort to. The community feels it needs to do this to protect the project from you. That should be a fairly loud and clear wake-up call that you actually need to make some serious changes, or you're going to end up site banned. What I'm seeing here is not you doing that, it's you continuing to cause disruption on this talk page, in direct violation of the community's intent to prevent that via a block. Your talk page access has been revoked, and your block length has been reset. I strongly encourage you to focus on what changes you need to make to avoid seeing a much longer block in the future. ~Swarm~  {sting} 19:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Per your email and your UTRS request, no, this is not a discussion, this is you arguing with a community sanction and either being unable or unwilling to listen. You have received substantial explanations from the closing admin, all of which you argued with and wikilawyered about, and the proposer even came here to clarify, and, bizarrely, you banned them from your talk page. That's not someone trying to understand a sanction, that's straight up IDHT battlegrounding, if not a competence issue. All of this was explained in my original comment, of course. So no, your talk page access will not be reinstated for you to continue wasting people's time. This talk page is not a forum for your arguments or opinions about your block, and the fact that this is a community sanction means there is zero point in arguing about it here. The only way of lifting it would be a formal appeal and community consensus at AN. That will almost certainly backfire, but it's your right as a blocked user. Short of needing to post a formal appeal, though, your talk page access will not be reinstated for the purpose of what you call "a discussion". ~Swarm~  {sting} 17:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * --Just noting the irony, and the admin misconduct of responding to UTRS for their own block, in case anyone cares about that. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2). Legobot (talk) 04:32, 15 October 2019 (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) 04:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

== Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 community sentiment on binding desysop procedure ==

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 community sentiment on binding desysop procedure. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 4: workshop extended
The workshop phase of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case will be extended to November 1, 2019. All interested editors are invited to submit comments and workshop proposals regarding and arising from the clarity and effectiveness of current remedies in the ARBPIA area. To unsubscribe from future case updates, please remove your name from the notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Houthi movement
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Houthi movement. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Transportation in the United States by county
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Transportation in the United States by county. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019
Hello ,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon. There are now holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action. Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays. Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox. Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards. Admin has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers. Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources. Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13. The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights. There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion. To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Getting the queue to 0
 * Coordinator
 * This month's refresher course
 * Tools
 * It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
 * It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
 * Reviewer Feedback
 * Second set of eyes
 * Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
 * Do be sure to have our talk page  on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
 * Arbitration Committee
 * Community Wish list

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) 04:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rojava
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rojava. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Textus Receptus
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Textus Receptus. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Rules for Fools
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Rules for Fools. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 4: workshop reopened
Because of the nature of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case and the importance of the exact wording of remedies, the Arbitration Committee would like to invite public comment and workshopping on the proposed decision, which will be posted soon. Accordingly, the workshop in this case is re-opened and will remain open until Friday, December 13. To opt out of further announcements, please remove yourself from the notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2019 (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) 04:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)