Jump to content

User talk:Sir Joseph/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Terre Haute Transit Utility

Please note that the article Terre Haute Transit already exists and, since they are both about the same subject, they should be merged. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your nomination at Articles for Creation was declined, and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation was not created. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer, and please feel free to request article creation again once the issues have been addressed. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!  fetchcomms☛ 22:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hatzalah

Yossiea, Since you were involved with editing the Hatzalah article I'd like to draw your attention to two discussion that I've opened on the talk page. One, regarding external links and region information and the other regarding using the list of chapters instead of a list in the article. Thank you, Joe407 (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Passover vs Passover (Christian holiday)

See discussion at Talk:Passover (Christian holiday)#Merge with Passover. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


why would i advertise something i dont own that is nosense —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.217.82 (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You are a fucking disgrace, why did you delete my wikipedia post, I asked yesterday and you didn't reply, what a disgrace, I was just making a page for a beer brand, which i dont fucking own, why would I be advertising it?

Christian Yom Kippur discussion

Hi Yossiea: Regarding serious Christian content in the Yom Kippur article, please see Talk:Yom Kippur#Theological significance and Talk:Yom Kippur#Poll: Yom Kippur and Christianity. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


Hatzalah: Role of Dispatchers

Hi Yossiea: You quickly deleted my new paragraphs on the role of the dispatchers in Hatzalah stating that it was too NY centric. I have 2 comments: 1. Much of the entire article is about Hatzalah in the NY area with an amazing amount of local detail.

2. The volunteer dispatchers have a very key role to play in the success of Hatzalah and they are barely mentioned in the entire article. This is very much true in other locales as well - (I live outside the US and helped found the local Hatzalah here, and was a Hatzalah volunteer in NYC in the late 1960s/ early 70's)

I would have welcomed your adding a sentence like: "The NY area Hatzalah handles many calls per day and uses a sophisticated dispatching system ....followed by my text.

I respectfully ask you to reconsider. Thanks! 80.218.34.97 (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The dispatchers are already mentioned in the article, if you want to add the part about the NY dispatchers, then it should be added to the NY section. Yossiea (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Trinity Pacific Christian School (Newbury Park, CA)

Actually, high schools are inherently notable, so that should not have been a decline per nn, but rather a hold for reformatting sources or something similar. Cheers, —fetch·comms 21:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"oops. my bad." I knew that some schools are inherently notable, it must have slipped my mind. Also, this could be nitpicking, but is there a difference between a k-12 and a HS? Anyway, thanks for pointing it out to me. Yossiea (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
High school (in the US, at least) is 9-12, so K-12 (including primary schools, then) would include high schools. In any case, the article is back up for review, so happy editing! —fetch·comms 23:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Bexley RFC

I am struggling to the Bexley RFC page setup and any advice would be much appreciated. I feel I have the groundwork in place for a good article that other people with more knowledge can add to. This club may not be the most successful club in the history of Rugby but has competed with limited resources in a highly competative rugby environment. As a result of not having the financial backing of other clubs there has been emphasis in building links to local schools and developing talented youngsters. this has resulted in players and former players getting recognition at county level and more recently at international level. the club has also in recent years won a high profile youth tournament than was represented by clubs as far as Italy. I feel this club along with all Rugby clubs plays a significant part of development of a national sport at grass roots level, also the local council has specifically mentioned the club in documentation referencing the value of the work Bexley RFC has put into the community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmjco (talk • contribs) 10:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

AJOP

I am currently writing a paper on AJOP and I saw that you were one of the main contributors to the page. Some of the information on the page has no clear cited source, so I am not sure who wrote it. I, obviously, can only state things in my paper that I can back up, so I was wondering that if you know much about the topic, you would be willing to talk more about it.

Thank you.

SaychelTov (talk) 05:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Second-time AFD

You may be interested in this second-time AFD for Chaverim (volunteers). Yoninah (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Yossiea! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only. 
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Larry David

Everything I wrote about Larry David is true. I do not understand how it is considered vandelism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.30.130 (talk) 09:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Extreme behavoir that is

Extreme behavoir that is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.0.127 (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

k. Bradzrules7 (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


New Page Patrol

Hi. Thank you for patrolling new pages. Could you point me to where the creator has requested deletion of Happy Squirrels per G7? It looks as if you tagged it yourself. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for cleaning up my talk page. Cheers! --Bryce (talk | contribs) 09:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I know what it's like. I'm thinking of having my page protected. Yossiea (talk) 09:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry.

Hey,

I didn't realize I was making actual changes. I'm new to this. Everytime I reloaded the page what I had put was gone. I thought that meant that I wasn't really editing it. I didn't realize you were sending me messages so I didn't realize that the posts were being deleted. I appreciate wikipedia and feel that I can be a positive member of it's community. Please do not have me barred from editing because of this blunder.

Thank you for your concern and help.

- guy who edited the logical fallacies post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.94.174 (talk) 09:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Knicks task force

Please accept this invitation to join the Knicks Task Force of the WikiProject National Basketball Association.
It is dedicated to improving all articles associated with the New York Knicks. Simply click here to accept!

NYCRuss ☎ 20:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Appeal

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!

Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1764 submissions waiting to be reviewed.

Do you have what it takes?
  1. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
  2. Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
  3. Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
  4. Are you autoconfirmed?
  5. Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog.

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation using AWB on 20:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

MOTDs (This space for rent)

You may have noticed over the past few days that the MOTD that you link to on your user page has simply displayed a red link. This is due to the fact that not enough people are reviewing pending MOTDs here. Please help us keep the MOTD template alive and simply go and review a few of the MOTDs in the list. That way we can have a real MOTD in the future rather than re-using (This space for rent). Any help would be appreciated! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Appeal

Articles for Creation is backlogged and needs YOUR help!

Articles for Creation is desperately in need of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors and administrators alike, to help us clear a record backlog of pending submissions. There is currently a significant backlog of 1764 submissions waiting to be reviewed. These submissions are generally from new editors who have never edited Wikipedia before. A prompt, constructive review of submissions could significantly editor retention.

Do you have what it takes?
  1. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
  2. Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
  3. Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
  4. Are you (at least) autoconfirmed?
  5. Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog.

Click here to review to a random submissionArticle selected by erwin85's random article script on toolserver.

We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 1 or 2 reviews, would be extremely beneficial.

On behalf of the Articles for Creation project,
AndrewN talk 23:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!

Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1764 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk.

Do you have what it takes?
  1. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
  2. Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
  3. Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
  4. Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions.

PS: we have a great AFC helper script at WP:AFCH!

News

Good article nominee AFCH script improvements
  • 1.16 to 1.17
    • Batman still works!

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation. If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.
Happy reviewing! TheSpecialUser TSU

I need help getting my biography page posted for Missy Ward

You just declined the page for Missy Ward: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Missy_Ward

I need help getting this article approved I added a ton of resources and I want this person to be linkable from their company page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affiliate_Summit as her co-founder was able to do. I am not sure why the co-founder of this business was able to get a page up and I am not able to get Missy up with more references than Shawn has.

Can you please guide me?

Thank you MarySBP (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

What you need is independent sources that verify notability. In addition, you should have inline references after something that needs to be referenced. Yossiea (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Rollback Privilege

I used to do a lot of anti-vandalism work, and now that I have more time on my hands, was hoping to get back into that. I downloaded a program called "Huggle", but it requires the user to have the rollback function, which I do not have. (I did have it in the old days when I was really into this, and did thousands of edits responsibly) Now it seems that the function is reserved for admins these days. I don't wish to apply for adminship just to get the rollback function back, but I understand that there is a process where normal editors like myself can get the rollback funtion without becoming an admin. I've looked all over, and I cannot find a page where I can apply for this. Can you point me in the right direction? --Sue Rangell[citation needed] 21:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback good luck! Yossiea (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject:Articles for Creation October - November 2012 Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 22, 2012 – November 21, 2012.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

EdwardsBot (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You rejected Samknows2: 2WR of Georgia, Inc.

You rejected the above referenced document http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Samknows2&diff=next&oldid=518956841. You stated there needed to be more verified information outside of that created by the entity. ALL reference information included was by other sources; not the submitting source or the firm. You should reference HOK, HKS and other similar firms currently covered by Wikipedia: HKS - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HKS,_Inc. HOK - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellmuth,_Obata_and_Kassabaum

The submission of 2WR of Georgia | 2WR of Colorado was developed following the same format as the firms referenced above.

If there is a specific reason 2WR can't be included please note. If there is specific information that is not included please note. Please check the references and you will see they are all by outside sources such as professional organizations, magazines and newspapers. Why would Wikipedia allow information on only select companies to be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samknows2 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for contributing. Please don't take it personally, but you have to assert notability. Wikipedia is not a directory of companies. Thank you. Yossiea (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

An Barnstar for You!

The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar

Congratulations, Yossiea! You're receiving a brownie because you reviewed 9 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! Mdann52 (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles for creation needs YOUR help!

Articles for creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 1764 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our help desk.

Do you have what it takes?
  1. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
  2. Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
  3. Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
  4. Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. Plus, reviewing is easy when you use our new semi-automated reviewing script!
Thanks in advance, Nathan2055talk - contribs

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation at 22:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC). If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.

WikiProject Articles for creation newsletter

Delivered 00:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC) by EdwardsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the spamlist.

Wikiproject Articles for creation Needs You!

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1st, 2013 – March 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

Delivered by User:EdwardsBot on behalf of Wikiproject Articles for Creation at 13:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject AFC needs your help... again

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from July 1st, 2013 – July 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code cleanup, and more page cleanups. If you want to see a full list of changes, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.

Delivered at 12:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC) by EdwardsBot (talk), on behalf of WikiProject AFC

Mishneh Torah

Yeah, it was a joke, based on something that was going on somewhere else. Thanks for accommodating; you guys are the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.17.126 (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

October 2013 AFC Backlog elimination drive

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1700 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. --Mdann52talk to me!

This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 02:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello, Yossiea:

WikiProject AFC is holding a two month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from December 1st, 2013 – January 31st, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1700 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. EdwardsBot (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) at 09:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "List of military occupations". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 26 January 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 07:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:AE-notice

I have opened a case against you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. --IRISZOOM (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

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

For the Mediation Committee, User:PhilKnight (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Blocked for breaching 1RR at List of military occupations

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating the 1RR on List of military occupations,
you have been blocked from editing for 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there.

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sir Joseph (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not really RR. The first time, I reverted Sepsis' because he did not utilize the talk page. I wanted to have a discussion and he just reverted, and did not AGF. He left nasty revert comments. At least Iriszoom left a comment on the talk page, and I would be OK with his idea of having it listed disputed. I do not think I warrant a block, especially when Sepsis gets nothing. Furthermore, Iriszoom did not assume good faith when he accused me of canvassing. Putting a notice on a project talk's page is not considered canvassing. It says so explicitly on the canvassing page.

Decline reason:

Arbitration enforcement blocks cannot be reviewed through this procedure. See WP:AEBLOCK.  Sandstein  17:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please comment on changes to the AfC mailing list

Hello Yossiea! There is a discussion that your input is requested on! I look forward to your comments, thoughts, opinions, criticisms, and questions!

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

This message was composed and sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 18:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Motto of the Day Help Request April 2014

Today's motto...

→T'was the night before Wikipedia, when all through the 'net
Not a creature was learning, not even my pet;
The software was written and the servers were sound
In the hopes that knowledge would be spread all around. Merry Christmas, from the crew at Motto of the Day!


Nominate one today!

Motto of the Day (WP:MOTD) is in a state of emergency and really needs your help! There are not enough editors who are reviewing or nominating mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review, and this probably means that you will notice a red link or “This space for rent” as our mottos for the next weeks and months.

Please take a moment to review the nominations and nominate your own new mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review and Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/'Specials. Any help would be appreciated! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

This message has been sent by pjoef on behalf of Motto of the Day to all editors of the English Wikipedia who are showing MOTD's templates on their pages, and to all the participants to MOTD: (page, template, and category).

Notification of a June AfC BackLog Drive

Hello Yossiea:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1700 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

The AfC helper script can assist you in tallying your edits automatically. To view a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. Sent on behalf of (t) Josve05a (c) by {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) using the MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Yossiea. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Yossiea~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

04:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

20:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

18:05:38, 17 September 2015 review of submission by Nupur2000


Nupur2000 (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC) Please help me out. what else I need to feed in this article ?

    • You need to put into the article something that asserts notability. Why should what you're writing be in an encyclopedia? You need to include significant coverage and references. Yossiea (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Coz he is a renowned DJ from India. and his contribution towards Indian bollywood music is immense . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nupur2000 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Dispute

Hello there! I don't think we've met, but I see you roam the 7th circle of AfC! I thought you might be interested in chiming in at this discussion, given your knowledge of Judaism. It'd be nice to see this resolved. Thank you for your input. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I took a quick look. I try not to get involved in religious issues disputes, they tend to go in circles and I'm also not the most knowledgeable person out there. Yossiea (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Request on 06:22:56, 1 October 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Nittennair


Hi I have editted the article multiple time and have provided references. Could you help me edit this article so that it can get approved?

Thank you.Nittennair (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Nittennair (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

08:05:06, 20 October 2015 review of submission by Kiffsy


Citation help

Hi there. I am trying to sumbit my first article and feel like a bit of a baffoon. Can you help direct me in regards to which sources need citations?

Article : Mike Conyers CEO of ResDiary

He is is a really interesting character and a titan of scottish industry, so I need to know how to get this up :-)

Thanks 

Kiffsy (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not a real expert on citations, you might want to check out the teapost or whatever it's called. Basically, anything that you insert needs to be verifiable. So if you claim that Mike Conyers can do X, X needs to be referenced. You don't need a citation on every sentence but it needs to be verifiable, especially if it's a biography of a living person. Yossiea (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

17:35:19, 4 November 2015 review of submission by 193.4.74.32



Hi. My article was declined as it was mentioned it was the same as another page. This is incorrect as REYST is another organization all together. I can't delete or redirect that page unless there is another page to redirect it to hence why I created a new page under the Iceland School of Energy title.

Discretionary sanctions alert - Arab–Israeli conflict

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request dismissed

Hi Yossiea, I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). You've recently filed a request for arbitration, but it's unclear what the dispute is, because you haven't given a statement. In addition, the dispute shown on the talk page seems to be very premature for arbitration. For those reasons, I am removing this request for arbitration as declined.

Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

Disputes among editors regarding the content of an article should use structured discussion on the talk page between the disputing editors. However, requests for comment, third opinions and other venues are available if discussion alone does not yield a consensus. The dispute resolution noticeboard exists as a first point of call for disputes that are not resolved by discussion, and the Mediation Committee provides formal mediation for advanced content disputes.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact a member of the community if you have more questions. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 14:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

request

Regardless, I don't think a topic ban is warranted in this case. At the end of the day and measuring everything, I think we can continue without additional sanctions. I didn't edit war on a sanctionable page. I think we can put this behind us.

  • The discretionary sanctions apply to any pages that include this topic, period, and unquestionably apply here. It is not your place to pass judgment on the personal beliefs of other editors, period; in fact, you should not comment on other editors at all but instead focus on content. It is quite clear that you see nothing wrong with your comments and that tells me you yourself have a personal bias that you are unable and unwilling to keep out of your editing, and as such, you should be prevented from editing in this topic area at the minimum. We have absolutely no place in this contentious area of content for editors who are going to make personal attacks or judge the personal beliefs of others. Not only is a topic ban warranted, it will be the minimum sanction imposed against you at this point. As far as a 10 day block goes, this is exceedingly reasonable. You are at the community's mercy as to whether you are unblocked at all and quite frankly you are not helping your own case here. Swarm ♠ 22:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

My take on the situation here is that they are suggesting a 10 block as a cooling off period. Consider the first block, for a personal attack, and then consider the second block, for another personal attack. Consider as well your responses. It does seem as if you are trying to justify your comments. I can reasonably understand your comments but there's no justification for them. Calling a Hezbollah supporter a terrorist is out of line. Your appeal a personal attack and while discussing the appeal you make another personal attack. A cooling off period is reasonable. You've not really said much to assure that this will not happen again.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

But I did it on my talk page, not on a topic page, that is what is confusing to me. I understand a block, but why a topic block? I didn't vandalize the topic pages. Yossiea (talk)\
The sanctions apply to any page on Wikipedia that discuss the topic. Swarm ♠ 02:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I did not know that a user talk page also has that. Also, wouldn't that then mean that a user box calling for the death of Israelis should result in a topic ban?

Lastly, I've never been banned before. As you can see from my logs, I don't usually get involved in disputes so I don't know what all these terms being thrown around means.I'm sorry for insulting people and I won't do it again and I really don't want a topic ban. I think that's going too far for something I didn't know about. I beg you to let me try again, I've been here for almost ten years. Please let me continue.Yossiea (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

and I'm not justifying my remarks. I apologize for that. I'm now just asking what's the difference between a talk page and auserbox? Personally, I think once unblocked, I'm removing my boxes, I've had them since they were cool, in 2006, but serve no purpose. Yossiea (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not acceptable on your talk page or anywhere on Wikipedia. Two factors that really made it worse, 1) is that you targeted an ideological opponent who you are in a content dispute with in a topic area under general sanctions and 2)you did so while under seeking an AE review which puts you under a microscope and brings more admin eyes your way. A topic ban, and again this is my personal take on the situation, but it depends on what issues the admins are specifically looking at. Just viewing the personal attacks alone your behavior is escalating inappropriately. Beyond that if they look further there's other things to consider. For instance in 2014 that block you received was for violating 1RR in List of Military occupations that was put in place by WP:ARBPIA. This block here, the first one was for an attack at that very article. The second seems related. Consider the IDHT behavior and the inappropriate notification in violation of canvassing policy. Again it depends specifically on what each admin views as an issue. The personal attacks are simply enough, to my understanding, because you are not recognizing the issue in that. If you don't understand what your disruption is, the general consensus is that you can't actually understand what the issue is you can't be expected or trusted to change that behavior. The behavior is considered disruptive and the goal is to stop the disruption. Since the disruption is related to the topic area, and since you have not had any issues in other topic areas, removing you from the topic area will stop the disruption. But again this is my general take on the subject. Personally they have the grounds to do it but honestly I think they should just give you the rope. I assume you will take what ever appropriate action to manage the stress that lead to this in the first place when entering this topic area in the future. You should review what the administrators have said both here and over at the AE thread and consider those statements before responding further. Right now, focus on your own behavior is what I would recommend. This is what they seem concerned with ATM to me.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
thank you. I am sorry for insulting you. It was wrong and it was the heat of the moment getting to me. Personally, I see the way you're acting now and while I disagree with a lot of your opinions, I would be honored to continue editing sticks with you. Yossiea (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
You haven't personally offended me. I've edited enough in WP:ARBPIA to know this happens. When people feel strongly about something emotion can get he better of them.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
thank you. But do you think a ten day and a tban is overkill? I think ten days is more than enough, but I'm not going to fight that, but I don't think I should have a topic ban, especially since I didn't even know you can get one from your talk page. Can you please let ae know all I wrote today, from my talk page? Thanks. Yossiea (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
and then, just to ask, is a Hezbollah user box allowed? Or is it allowed by a user doing edits in the sanctionable area? Yossiea (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
One has no bearing on the other. As per the box, as I understand and if nothing has changed then there's nothing wrong with that specific box, other boxes have been barred. But you are basically considering that inherent bias to be a COI. There's bias everywhere. Consider an American writing Russian history. English speaking Israeli citizens writing articles on the Palestinian conflict. Pro-life people writing articles about abortion. There's bias there but we don't consider it a COI that would prevent them from writing neutrally. You have to consider the external role or relationship when considering a COI. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
so then why would a comment on my talk page result in atban? If you read the discretion notice above, it also says only pages about Israel. My edit on my talk page should not result in a topic ban. Especially since I had absolutely no idea that my talk page falls under discretionary sanctions. , not a bias buy a sanction violation.Yossiea (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
They indef blocked you because you called someone else a terrorist. They could have blocked you with discretionary sanctions or with out. Though to mention, The Admin that changed it to indefinite didn't seem to do so on the basis of discretionary sanctions. Honestly, You really need to stop trying to wikilawyer this. It doesn't help you. They have caught you violating policy. They watched it escalate further. They want to know that you understand what you did wrong. They want to know that you are going to take action in the future to see that it doesn't happen again. They are going to take what ever action necessary to prevent your disruption.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not trying to wikilawyer, if they do a ten day sanction I'll be fine with that, my point is that I should not also get a topic ban. They want to give me ten days and a topic ban.that to me makes no sense, based on what I wrote.again, I'm not trying to argue, but how am I supposed to know that my talk page is subject to discretionary sanctions? Yossiea (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
"The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted." But regardless, you do understand even if you ignore the discretionary sanctions calling someone a terrorist like you did is always inappropriate. Whether or not you you knew that discretionary sanctions were in play you should have known that was inappropriate. They are going for the topic ban because it seems necessary because of your escalating behavior. You have to convince them that it's not. what can you do to alleviate their concerns?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
the only thing I can say is that this cooling, de escalated. In the future, I will hope to go back to my usual method of think twice post once. Like you said, this was an abberation. And like you and others, elsewhere, have said, tbans are punishments that in this case is not necessary needed. Worst case, why not give me a chance? Hasn't my tenure here made me deserve at least that? Yossiea (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The first thing I would do is make a statement a very clears statement that shows you do in fact understand perfectly well why you got blocked, both blocks. Then I would ping Swarm. Swarm seems to be a skilled and knowledgeable Admin, they maybe be able to talk with you and both of you come up with an alternative means to help alleviate the concern that you will cause further disruption. I'm not exactly sure what can be done so no promises, but I've seen agreements develop before in cases like this.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I hope my statement below is a good start. Yossiea (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

List of Military Occupations

The page specifies that the page does not include those occupations that were annexed, yet Jerusalem and the Golan Heights were both annexed by Israel. This is of course, besides the Gaza Strip which is not under a military occupation. Yossiea (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Aliyah Page

Can someone look at that page and revert? It was reverted without consensus. I will comment on that page once unblocked. It is not a political page, it is a religious page and it should be reflected on that. Yossiea (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Please look at the edits of K_Mattar, at the Aliyah page, he is editing without consensus and he appears to be changing all mentions of Israel and Land of Israel to Palestine, when it has nothing to do with it. Yossiea (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

To enforce an arbitration decision and for making a personal attack in this edit on the page Talk:List of military occupations, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Swarm ♠ 22:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."


This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sir Joseph (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. Because there was no personal attack. Yossiea (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I've extended the block to indefinite; you don't get to call other editors "terrorists", ever, period, end of discussion. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.


Have you read the talk page? It's full of bad faith, and furthermore, one of the editors is a supporter of hezbollah, look at his userpage. Why would I assume good faith for a terrorist supporter? Yossiea (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
It is unfair that I get blocked but others do not for also not assuming good faith. Yossiea (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
It is also unfair that I can't respond to the allegations. Yossiea (talk) 05:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I read both discussions and no, it's not full of bad faith. It's full of editors on both sides of the argument repeating the same thing multiple times, while making no effort to provide reliable sourcing or seek out dispute resolution, but I don't see any reason not to assume good faith. Nableezy appears to be a highly established editor in good standing and the fact that you perceive his personal viewpoints to be different from yours does not give you license to accuse him of bad motivations. The discussion is under discretionary sanctions and a higher level of decorum is expected. By accusing him of only caring about his personal bias, you have committed an assumption of bad faith, a personal attack, and have breached the expected standards of conduct. Swarm ♠ 05:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
1) Someone who has this on their page "This user supports the right of all individuals and groups to violently resist military aggression and occupation by other parties, but due to an alleged consensus he is disallowed from naming particular individuals or groups which certain administrators find to be unacceptable." is not someone Wikipedia should be touting as a model editor. 2) This by serialjospsych is not WP:AGF "The original research here is blatant. It's a waste of time for anyone to even respond. One editor's WP:IDHT, pushing for the acceptability of this but only if they can say Egypt is an occupier. They have multiple times been asked for a reliable source to justify it. Instead of doing so they move on continuing IDHT promoting original research. Another editor latches on to that original research. Another editor comes in with original research, ignores what they source used says and then reasons that the sources must be out of date because they don't line up with his original research. " Yossiea (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

(←) That is a bad comment to quote because it's entirely accurate. What I see there is an editor asking for you to provide reliable sources to support your position. That is not unreasonable, that is fundamentally how this project works, and you made absolutely no effort to substantiate your position with sources and instead repeated unsourced claims and exhibited WP:IDHT behavior in repeating the same things over and over again rather than responding to the opposing viewpoints. Regardless, that has no bearing on this block. You made an explicit personal attack, apparently because you disagree with a view the editor expresses on their user page. That is unacceptable. Swarm ♠ 05:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. I did bring sources. I brought Wikipedia articles. I brought their own logic. They didn't like it so they ignored it. So I asked again, if they claim Israel is militarily occupying Gaza by blockading Gaza, why is Egypt not doing the same? Egypt is also blockading Gaza. How is that not not the same thing? And yes, if people can't see that, then it is anti-Israel, the same UN that puts Saudi Arabia as the bastion of Human Rights but puts Israel as the most evil nation on earth. So I do have a valid claim for asking if someone is anti-Israel if after me asking them why Egypt gets special treatment that Israel does not get. Yossiea (talk) 06:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles and "logic" are not sources. Citations to material complaint with WP:RS are sources. Gamaliel (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I am writing about my block. I have provided sources, repeatedly. They keep posting that Gaza is under occupation. Yet the page they are editing is Military Occupation and it is different than a "regular" occupation. They then continue and say the reason why Israel is occupying Gaza is because Israel controls the border of Gaza. Well, Egypt does the same and I provided a link to that. When I pointed out, not too seriously that Hamas used to occupy Gaza, I provided a link to that, that Hamas was in charge of Gaza and it was not recognized by the PA, Israel or the US (among other International countries).

Furthermore, just so you know, nableezy is a supporter of Hezbollah, a terrorist organization. I doubt he should be editing this since a terrorist who endorses terror has a COI. It's certainly not IDHT to point out that if Israel is occupying Gaza due to a blockade, then Egypt is too. That, and the page is MILITARY occupation and as was repeatedly pointed out by others on the page, including debresser and fran9 there is no Israeli military presence in Gaza. I guess this is why James Madison said the Masses are asses. We have a Hezbollah terrorist telling me I'm not assuming good faith, and Wikipedia is banning me. That's why nobody takes Wikipedia seriously, and why I'm thinking of leaving.


This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Sir Joseph (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to WP:AE, as per WP:BLOCK, an indef is far too extreme for what I did and as I already mentioned and as you can be assured I will not do it again so a tban is not warranted. Yossiea (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I'm unblocking. If someone feels a need to impose a TBAN, that's a different matter from my block entirely; the AE block is long expired. I don't think Yosseia will be calling other volunteers vile epithets such as "terrorist" again; he doesn't have a history of bad behavior, and this does seem like an anomaly in his long history here. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


I'm not going to defend Yossiea's behavior - it is combative and uncooperative and he seems to have no awareness that it is inappropriate. But the user in question has had a userbox on his user page since 2010 which complains that he can't have a pro-Hezbollah userbox, and regularly has used his userpage as a soapbox on related issues. I don't think he should be calling out other editors, but I'm not sure an indef block is appropriate in this case. Gamaliel (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place to comment for a non-admin. I'm quite new to en wikipedia and am not familiar with all corners of it. I participated in the discussion in the List of Military Occupations. While I don't agree with some of Yossiea reactions and don't think it is helpful to call other editors terrorists supporters (no matter whether they are or not), an indefinite block seems to me a bit too strict. In support of Yossia, I would like to remark that the discussion was quite heated anyway and some comments from "the other side" were also at least on the border of personal attacks (can provide links if this helps). Franp9am (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate that, and I would appreciate it if you would also comment at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AE. Thanks! (And this is not canvassing.) Yossiea (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm begging you guys please unblock me. I enjoy editing Wikipedia. I have been editing since 2005 I think. I have been active on and off for all that time. Do you think I want to stop? I don't want to lose this. Please unblock me. Yossiea (talk) 03:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
An indefinite block is not a permanent block. It's a block that last only as long as necessary to end disruption. At the AE opened on your behalf Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Yossiea.7Eenwiki one person has expressed concern that you don't understand the reason that you have been indef blocked though it is obvious. They question the ultimate likelihood of you ceasing your hostilities towards people you disagree with if you deny or don't understand the reason for the block. I feel that its likely you do understand why you were blocked. So the simple question would be do you?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)4
1) I do understand. 2) My point was and I think you mentioned it was that a) things are heated, b) a hezbollah supporter, etc. 3) I don't think I will be as active in Israel related stuff. I can't deal with the stress. I've been here since 2005 or so, and I've been in a couple of stupid edit wars, you should check out my dealing with daniel575 and his 9 sockpuppets and how he chased away good editors. I decided a few months ago to get back into editing Wikipedia and decided to also get back into content editing and not just AFC/AFD which I used to do more often. But I guess I won't. And as far as Gaza, I still think you were missing the point with the difference between military and regular occupation. But it makes no difference in the real world what a list on Wikipedia means. I took my chill pill. Yossiea (talk) 04:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok you understand that calling this individual a terrorist (I forget whom) was wrong. It happened due to the stress of a heated discussion. And you feel that staying out of Israel based topic areas will help insure that this doesn't happen again? This is my understanding of what you are saying but I do not wish to misquote you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I have proposed we redefine the AE sanction to a 10 day block and indefinite topic ban. I'm not sure if people will support that, but if they don't, I recommend you refile an AE appeal in one month. You will be more likely to be unblocked then. Regards, Swarm ♠ 05:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
      • If you're going to topic ban me then I don't understand the ten day part? Also, just out of curiosity, what would you call someone who has this on their userpage "This user supports the right of all individuals and groups to violently resist military aggression and occupation by other parties, but due to an alleged consensus he is disallowed from naming particular individuals or groups which certain administrators find to be unacceptable." and I ask this seriously. I understand I can't call someone a terrorist. But if someone had on their userpage a userbox saying they support OBL or ISIS or Boko Haram or the IRA, or half a dozen other, wouldn't that be incitement, or fighting words? In some countries, it would even be illegal to display and in the US, it might be legally considered fighting words. Just a thought.

As for the punishment, I think I learned my lesson regardless. I don't think I need a topic ban because there is such a huge assortment of articles out there that I am bound to run into it. For example, I uploaded a picture to Har Nof, and that had nothing to do with a dispute. I will be more careful in the future. I don't think sanctions are warranted, a block of two days was more than enough. Yossiea (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:User:EdJohnston please read this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=690281384#Review_of_past_issues and this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Rephrase_suggestion_to_WP:UP.23POLEMIC please. It might shed some light on current issues. Yossiea (talk) 06:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Lastly, I think sanctions are unnecessary because quite simply they're not needed. I don't have a big history of abuse that warrants such an extreme sanction as a topic ban.

I don't know why edjohnson closed the ae request. Now I don't know if I should be mad or not.
I hope it was not my comment that brought you such a trouble [1]? Either way, I would strongly suggest to unblock you because I am sure that no one has been actually offended by your comment. Here is the problem. Someone who supports Hezbollah is not necessarily a terrorist himself. This is a cultural thing. For example, these guys who are basically Terrorists the Founders have been described as national heroes in the Soviet historiography and literature, and still remain national heroes for many. My very best wishes (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
So, I think you should ask to remove/withdraw all your statements currently hanging on WP:AE or completely change your statements. Your first comment was indeed a comment on a contributor, and "calling a supporter of Hezbollah a terrorist" (your 2nd paragraph copy-pasted to AE) was wrong. My very best wishes (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I am blocked, so I can't do anything. I will do almost anything to get to posting again. Sometimes people misinterpret what I type and I am not trying to say something bad but they think I am but I'm just asking a question or something. Feel free to post or remove or ask to removethings.Yossiea (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
OK. So, I will remove them per your request. If you want to post something else instead, please post it here on your talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
thank you. Can you please comment on the ae? I really am sorry and don't want a topic ban.Yossiea (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The problem is not your editing of content, but commenting about other contributors. Can you simply never comment about other contributors anywhere except cases when someone complains about you on administrative noticeboards and you need to explain your own content edits, rather than anything else? Just to clarify, asking something like this would be asking/commenting about another contributor. Of course you can look at a userbox and make your own conclusions, but you should not rise this matter anywhere to "get" him. If you do not change your behavior in this way, I would expect you to be quickly blocked again in the subject area so contentious as ARBPIA. My very best wishes (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sir_Joseph/Archive_2&oldid=1151051481"