Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nishidani (talk | contribs) at 19:05, 7 June 2016 (→ARBPIA 1 revert rule infraction). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is Sir Joseph's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Template:Archive box collapsible

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 15:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

 ? Sean.hoyland - talk 15:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Sir Joseph 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

May 2016

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 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 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/search/?title=User_talk%3A199.102.168.8&type=revision&diff=720883515&oldid=717167169 Sir Joseph 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)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cynwyd Heritage Trail, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Septa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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 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 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 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 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).

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 /_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 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 /_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 /_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 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 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 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 /_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 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 /_Stalk 04:31, 30 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)

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)

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 18:38, 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 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 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)

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 19:11, 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 22:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

See sea salt ;) --TMCk (talk) 00:02, 3 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)

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)

Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines including for disrupting Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others closed

Please comment on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages: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 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 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 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)