User talk:Sir Joseph

I am: IN

This user previously used another account.

(I'll write back on my talk page, unless specifically request otherwise. Thanks!)

Wikipedia is that special place where anonymous editors can determine someone's religion. Only here can editors determine that Bernie Sanders is not Jewish. So if you want to know why Wikipedia is just a hobby for most people and not a real encyclopedia, now you know. '

Western Wall

Regarding [1], I suggest you start a discussion at the relevant talk page. Chesdovi (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

1) I told you to stay off my talk page. 2) It's on you to discuss on the talk page, if you are the one making major changes to an article. 3) Have you ever edited Wikipedia under another name? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I only saw your territorialist note after I had posted my previous note. But I understand and will not launch any rammings or stabbings against your page in retaliation at my expulsion from it. I will stay off your land, I mean page, sorry. After all, it is yours. But I will not have you attempt to dispossess me from the main space. That would be POV cleansing which is frowned upon. The only problem is, you don't seem to always reply at talk, hence my latest edit at anti-Zionist stronghold of Meah Shearim. I do not generally take kindly to editors who edit in order to obtain the upper hand against good faith editing, hoping to keep material they are repulsed by off Wikipedia for as long as possible. Had I rejigged the sections at Western Wall without adding a sub-section associated with anti-Zionsim, nothing, I presume, would have triggered the alarm on your pro-Zionist radar warning system. Chesdovi (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

You violated the 1RR at that page. Kindly revert or I will file a report. Thank you. nableezy - 00:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, youve violated the 3RR on that page, besides the ARBPIA 1RR. nableezy - 00:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

saying captured is a nnpov because then it opens up the page to a view of the wall being recaptured. That is why the neutral term of sovereignty is being used. Israel does exercise sovereignty over the site. A while back there was indeed a back and forth over this exact term, captured/re-captured and consensus was just to leave as exercised sovereignty which is a neutral term. We should try as much as possible to use terms that minimize edit wars, and let's try to have at least one article on Wikipedia that doesn't need to have IP conflict. This is about the Western Wall, not the IP conflict, it's a religious article, it has a bit about the conflict but it's mostly about the site and let's leave it at that. Let me know if you still want me to revert. I think the goal of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia not to aimlessly follow rules, and putting in weasel word, I think you should just leave be, the way it is now is fine and neutral. It means exactly what you want it to mean without the pov connotation. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

sovereignty is a term that says a state has legal title to that territory. That is not the case with Israel and East Jerusalem. Captured is simple fact, soveriegnty is contested minority opinion. Your view on what is neutral doesnt really concern me, and honestly I wish I had seen this response prior to you being blocked for the 3RR vio. Would have made things easier on me. nableezy - 16:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Debresser, can you take a look at the Western Wall page? Chesdovi is on one of his edit sprees. WOW! Looking at his most recent edits, I think he just got a job working for Al Jazeera. The PA I am sure will most likely try to contact him in the future. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel. Could you please give your opinion on whether or not Palestine should be considered a separate sovereign entity from Israel? Many thanks Spirit Ethanol (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Mike Bickle (minister)

Hi. Just got an e-mail update from the JTA about this pastor. I have added two references, but frankly I feel uncomfortable about even typing what he said. Perhaps you could expand it?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Western Wall Source

Have you even bothered reading the source?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The Goren one? Yeah, I did. It's very ambiguous. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The material sourced was ambiguous. The source itself is quiet detailed and goes beyond Goren simply saying that Jews had only prayed at the western wall for 300 years. It documents and reliably a a notable minority point of view covering not only the western wall but also the temple mount.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Star Alliance

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

February 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bernie Sanders. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
You wasted no time in getting the article back to your preferred version after full page protection was lifted. You then exhibited edit warring behavior by reverting immediately, despite an administrator's warning on the talk page regarding WP:DS. As to this issue, there is no consensus as of yet. You ignored this fact and decided to act unilaterally. No, you haven't violated 3RR, but note that edit warring behavior doesn't necessarily mean reaching and violating 3RR. If someone comes along and reverts your revert at the article, you would be wise to not revert them as I will file an AN3 report if you do. Please discuss to reach consensus rather than edit war. Thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are hereby topic banned from editing any page relating to Bernie Sanders for 1 week.

You have been sanctioned for direct violation (addition of contentious content without firm consensus edit warring) of the discretionary sanctions already in effect at Bernie Sanders: "You must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before making any potentially contentious edits, must not engage in edit warring and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page."

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

From one person walking through the DS minefield to another, focus on conduct, not content. Only offer proof that you're right about the article if it's directly relevant to why you didn't do anything wrong (i.e. if you were accused of adding unverifiable content, show sources). Instead, explain why your actions aren't disruptive, etc. I had to dig through your statement to find anything that pertained to that. Good luck today, and, if not, good luck next week. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You are in violation of your topic ban with this edit:[2] See WP:TBAN. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

No, article means article, not talk page. And didn't I tell you to stay off my talk page? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

No, topic ban means topic ban: please click on the link. Coffee may have accidentally used the wrong word (article instead of page); I've alerted him. Bishonen | talk 19:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC).

I've updated the topic ban to reflect this. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Why would I be banned from editing the talk page? What purpose does that serve? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT: Some topic bans cover talk pages and some don't. Take it from me, though, this stuff isn't obvious unless you've spent months watching WP:AE.

As to why you were banned, you'd have to ask the admins for their reasoning (but let me warn you: they hate that). My guess is that topic bans are meant to be at least partially punitive. You're being punished, maybe as a deterrent against making edits similar to the one that inspired the ban in the future. Since your ban was for one week, it might be meant as a sort of time-out for you to cool down. I'm just guessing, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)