User talk:JoeJShmo: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:44, 13 July 2024

Welcome!

Hello, JoeJShmo, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Cjse23 (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Duro Bag Mfg, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Cjse23 (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've edited before, just was trying from a new device and it looks like the display wasn't showing the right info, perhaps lag.JoeJShmo (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Menachem Meiri. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments belong on the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and may respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi JoeJShmo! I noticed your contributions to Talk:Gaza genocide and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

I've noticed that you've expressed an interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Unfortunately, due to a history of conflict and disruptive editing it has been designated a contentious topic and is subject to some strict rules.

The rule that affects you most as a new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to the Arab–Israel conflict unless you are logged into an account and that account has extended confirmed rights (automatically granted when an account is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits).

This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.

The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well.

Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to you being blocked from editing.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 19:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Kinsio (talk ★ contribs ★ rights) 19:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

@Kashmiri I have no wish to bother you on your talk page so I'm addressing you here. In regards to my earlier comment on your talk page, I intended that message as a warning to you to be more careful in the future. It is not an opinion that the dual-loyalty trope is anti-Semitic, it is an accepted fact. Your lack of admission to wrongdoing was already concerning. I would like to believe this was a one time mistake, and your continued denial on the matter is truly unfortunate. All the best.

JoeJShmo ^💌 09:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your patronising tone is out of place. I do not wish to engage with you. Please do not ping me. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your response saddens me. It's worrying that an editor who won't show remorse for such a serious mistake is so active in the Israeli-Arab space. Simply avoiding problems may be tempting, but immature. I don't ask for engagement, I only hope you privately take my words to heart. Take care. JoeJShmo ^💌 15:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics alert for all pages related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 11:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the alert about the Arab-Israeli conflict you have posted in an area where you are not allowed to post

Do not do this again. This covers all pages related to the area, discussions, personal talk pages, etc. Doug Weller talk 11:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Doug Weller: Someone already reverted the reply I assume you're referring to, which I posted a few days ago, so I already understood from that that replying on talk pages is also not allowed (which was unclear at first). This warning is unnecessary. As per your other warning above in regards to post 1992 politics, care to specify what you're referring to? I've edited an article on Trump's legal issues, but that page isn't protected. Also, I would've expected you to revert my edits there. JoeJShmo^💌 15:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoeJShmo I reverted the reply. American politics does not have the restrictions that the Arab-Israeli conflict area has. And please note that most pages in that area probably are not protected, so that technically you could edit them but that would be against the restrictions which would probably result in a block. Doug Weller talk 15:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller I hope the page I'm referring to is not restricted for me, as I've edited extensively there and no one's said a word, though I wouldn't mind if you clarified its status. Also, if you weren't referring to my edits there, why did you post a separate notice on my page in regards to American politics specifically? JoeJShmo^💌 15:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoeJShmo You were posting in the area, so I gave you a routine alert, nothing special. Different topic areas, different restrictions. Always good though to read the top of a talk page. Doug Weller talk 15:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks. JoeJShmo^💌 16:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoeJShmo: And yet despite Doug's comments above and despite the warning banner, you again engaged in a discussion on a restricted page[1]. Are you asking for a community sanction? — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Kashmiri. As I'm sure you noticed if you looked at that page, I assumed that because I was the one who requested the edit in the first place (which is allowed), I was allowed to respond. If I was wrong, I would've appreciated if you would've assumed good faith and had let me known in a more respectful manner. JoeJShmo^💌 20:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I assumed good faith, otherwise I'd have gone straight to WP:AE to report your breach of sanctions. For the avoidance of doubt, non extended confirmed accounts are allowed only to post edit requests on (talk) pages under sanctions, preferably using the {{EPER}} template, but not to engage in further discussion. Rest assured that more experienced editors will take up your initial suggestion if they believe it to be an improvement. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Are you asking for a community sanction" doesn't seem like a logical thing to say to someone who didn't realize he was breaking the rules, but I digress. I'm not sure what you mean by 'for the avoidance of doubt etc.'; is this something against the rules or not? Or perhaps it is unclear, in which case I'd ask @Doug Weller or someone with more information to clarify. Either way, thank you for bringing this to my attention. JoeJShmo^💌 22:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"For the avoidance of doubt" just means I think to make sure you understand. WP:Edit request is what you need to follow. Doug Weller talk 07:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller, @Kashmiri: WP:Edit request does not state anywhere explicitly whether further replies on a user's own edit request are banned. However, it strongly implies that the idea of replying on a user's own thread is indeed allowed: simply open a new thread... to discuss the edit you want and try to reach consensus. Kashmiri, I will assume you were unaware of this. However, in light of the above, I would advise to refrain from warning editors in the future against such actions, until you can confirm with the community that such actions are actually against the rules.

I currently have a thread open in WP:Village pump (policy) raising this question, currently with 0 replies. JoeJShmo^💌 07:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoeJShmo The ER advice is drafted with protected pages in mind, where editors are technically blocked from editing articles but are able to discuss at Talk at will. ARBCOM 30/500 sanctions, however, restrict non-EC users from engaging in discussion beyond posting edit requests, and the ER information page doesn't overrule that. I agree it may be confusing to new editors, though. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmiri: Thanks for the clarification. I'm still not sure how clear it is that the allowance for edit requests shouldn't logically further allow for responses within that edit requests, so I hope no-one will take issue if I continue to engage in non controversial discussions within my own edit requests on ECP pages, such as that Mossad one (a riveting and exciting edit suggestion on using the word 'the' :). JoeJShmo^💌 08:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's there, otherwise Talk pages would be flooded with newly registered accounts (so-called single-purpose accounts) inceasingly arguing their point of view. The sanction system came out of a real need. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're confusing the regular talk page restriction, which exists, and the specific example of a user responding on their own edit reques, which not only precludes the POV spamming concern, but is also not clarified in the policy. See the page I linked above; opinions have been divided so far. JoeJShmo^💌 13:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not as divided as you think, there is an element of (EC) editorial discretion involved, in any case whatever is done in any particular case, you literally have no standing to argue about it. Selfstudier (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Selfstudier, thank you for dropping by. The aggressive tone is not necessary, please be cordial. I agree with you that editor discretion is important; that's why I assumed no-one would take issue with a discussion on grammar in this instance. I suppose my presumptions that editors will apply good judgement could be proven wrong, but I sure hope not. :) JoeJShmo^💌 13:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Selfstudier was simply stating the situation as it is, not being aggressive. Maybe blunt, but it's better to be blunt than vague. In any case I think the last reply to your question at the Village Pump is sufficient, "If the decline is at all an indication that the change itself is opposed, further replies from the IP could not reasonably be an edit request, since edit requests are for uncontroversial changes." Doug Weller talk 14:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose combining cordiality and clarity can be a challenge for some. Regarding that reply, I still would've assumed most/some editors would allow for simple responses to non-arguments that blatantly oppose policy, and again, I don't see a real consensus towards that view yet either way. Perhaps there will be more responses to come. JoeJShmo^💌 14:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoeJShmo I don't want to be rude, but has it occurred to you that sometimes you might come over as passive aggressive? Doug Weller talk 14:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty Doug, I just try to do my best to keep a civil tone without letting others' breach of cordiality go unnoticed. I'd rather not encourage those kind of tones. My ideal discussion would be totally civil- I really do appreciate the fair manner of your remarks. JoeJShmo^💌 15:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but sometimes it's better just to shrug it off. Which can be hard at times but hopefully you won't experience the worst. Doug Weller talk 15:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. Thanks. JoeJShmo^💌 16:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Continuing ARBPIA4 violations by User:JoeJShmo. Thank you. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 109: / Line 109: @@
 :::::::::::::::::Thanks, but sometimes it's better just to shrug it off.  Which can be hard at times but hopefully you won't experience the worst. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 15:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 ::::::::::::::::::I hear you. Thanks. '''[[User:JoeJShmo|<span style="color:#ffadbe">Jo</span><span style="color:#dbafff">e</span><span style="color:#afd0ff">J</span><span style="color:#aafff8">Sh</span><span style="color:#b6fcd5">mo</span>]]'''[[User talk:JoeJShmo|<sup>💌</sup>]] 16:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
+== Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion ==
+Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement]] regarding a possible violation of an [[WP:AC|Arbitration Committee]] decision. The thread is '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Continuing ARBPIA4 violations by User:JoeJShmo|Continuing ARBPIA4 violations by User:JoeJShmo]]'''.  <!--Template:AE-notice--> Thank you. — [[User:Kashmiri|<span style="color:#30c;font:italic bold 1em 'Candara';text-shadow:#aaf 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;">kashmīrī</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Kashmiri|<sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK</sup>]] 22:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)