User talk:Zsero

The Case of the Indiana Archives

Removal of another editor's comments

Please do not remove comments left by an editor on someone else's talk page. I understand you have a running disagreement with this editor, but right or wrong, it is not your place to remove someone else's comments on someone else's page, as you did here [1] [2] [3]. In addition, do not edit another another editor's comments as you did on WP:AIV here [4]. Wikipedia has a place for discussions and administrator intervention, as you know, at WP:AIV. Please wait for admin help there, and do not engage in an edit war while waiting. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comments at WP:ANI

Please don't continually revert. Please realize that by refusing to discuss these issues and abide by wikipedia rules, you are willfully violating WP:3RR and engaging in edit war. Discuss the matters at WP:AIV, please. I understand that you're upset at the situation, but violating the policies of wikipedia just to make a point won't help. Snowfire51 (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a game. Even if I were violating WP policies, which I'm not, are those policies more important than doing the right thing? There are real people behind those accounts and IPs, with real feelings, and real legal rights not to be defamed. Put yourself in their shoes and think how you'd feel to find those accusations on your talk page. -- Zsero (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, please don't. Regardless of your feelings, you're not qualified to judge another editor's comments and warnings by yourself. Please let due process handle this. Snowfire51 (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

and if you need help, ask for it. DGG (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for the random comment that a banned sockpuppet left on your page, I seem to be making friends of the wrong sort today.

By the way, I didn't further revert anything last night, and I won't. Other admins have defended your actions, and that's good enough for me to verify something's going on that will take some investigation. Good luck with the situation at WP:ANI, hopefully with other editors and admins getting involved, that situation will be resolved soon. Good luck! Snowfire51 (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Vegetationlife (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

—slakr^\ talk / 22:56, 24 February 2008 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

removing a personal attack from a user talk page is not subject to 3RR

Decline reason:

There are many exceptions to the three revert rule, but removing a personal attack from another user's talk page is not one of them. Additionally, this was not a removal of personal attacks. - auburnpilot talk 23:09, 24 February 2008 (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.

Except that it isn't a personal attack. It is a warning from another editor who believes what they saw was link spamming. Daedalus (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

An accusation of spamming is inherently defamatory and a personal attack. -- Zsero (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NPA. I'm afraid you're wrong. - auburnpilot talk 23:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Spammers are objects of intense hatred. Alleged spammers routinely get threats. Just look around the 'net to see how much they are despised. Nowadays an accusation of spamming is almost as bad as one of paedophilia or racism. It's per se defamation, just as in an earlier era accusations of homosexuality or having "a loathsome disease" were per se defamation. This was no gentle warning template, it was a page-full of near-gibberish (to an outsider) like a scarlet letter. No user should have to log on to WP and confront such an accusation on their talk page, when they had in fact done nothing wrong. -- Zsero (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You also removed conflict of interest warnings ({{coi}}), which usually draws considerably less heat on the internet than spammers. --slakr^\ talk / 23:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If the coi template had been the only such warning there, I'd have left it, with an assurance to the user that she should ignore it and was entitled to remove it if she liked. But as it was, it was part of a whole, the total effect of which was a false and defamatory accusation. I point out that removal of libelous material is in fact one of the listed exceptions from 3RR. -- Zsero (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That may be the case sometimes, however, this is Wikipedia. If there is a warning, it will be looked into. It is how things work around here. Warnings aren't supposed to be gentle, nor are they supposed to be hard. Only blunt. Walking around the bush is unncessary. Although some of your opinions may be just, it still stands that you are not allowed to remove such warnings, only the user or an admin is. Those are the rules for this site, whether you like them or not, you need to follow them. Daedalus (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I keep trying to tell you, this is not a game. WP rules are not the most important thing, and they must give way before common sense and decency. An accusation likely to hurt the user and scare them away from WP should not be left up because of overly-zealous adherence to some picayune rule (not that I believe I have actual broken any such rule). -- Zsero (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, hasn't Daedalus gone over 3RR too? Considering that the consensus at ANI seemed to be that the warnings he was restoring was unwarranted, he can't claim to be undoing vandalism. He certainly can't claim to be undoing defamation. So what exactly justifies his edit-warring? -- Zsero (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And I keep telling you to stop saying that, I know it isn't a game. But guess what, rules are not always a thing in games. Such as rules we have in the USA to not kill another person. Rules are not strictly for games, as it seems you think. As for common sense and decency, you were already told you were wrong by two admins. They are important here, whether you believe so or not. If they were not, vandalism would run rampant, with no sign of stopping. We wouldn't have a police force(the admins) to keep others in check who do such things. Rules are dearly important here.

The USA has laws, not rules. But even laws are not the most important thing in the world, and there are times when it is right to ignore them. Here, however, we are not discussing a law, let along a divine edict, but an internal rule of one web site, and what's more, one that has a provision for IAR. Such rules certainly do not stand before more important considerations. In this case I do not concede that I broke any rules, but in the even that I did those rules needed to be broken. -- Zsero (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

However, if this was not a time that they needed to be broken, and in fact, as stated by an an op. You were wrong. Also:

1. In general, a rule of being or of conduct, established by an authority able to enforce its will; a controlling regulation; the mode or order according to which an agent or a power acts. [1913 Webster]

So yes, they are the same thing, at least at WP. And although you did not state it in your post again, the fact that you were implying that I think WP is a game is insulting. Daedalus (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In reguards to your above post, yes. It takes two to edit-war. However, I justify my reverts, in that they were reverts to the orignal, as stated, only the user in question, or an admin, may remove said warnings. Later I made a mistake, and reverted my own mistake, noting it. You however did not see your own mistakes, and used mine as 'justification' to continue what you thought was right. Second. I read the discussion at ANI, it did not state that they were unwarnnted, simply that they were overkill. However, whatever the consensus at ANI may be, it is not your place to remove said warnings.

And last, but not least, is it an edit war when one continuely removes vandalism by another user? Removeing warnings is. Whether you think it or not. Daedalus (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have contacted User:Ashleylmack and explained the situation to her, and she has blanked her talk page, which she has every right to do. And if the false accusation is reposted to her talk page she will know what is going on and she will blank it herself. Therefore I can in good conscience promise that I will not do so for her. Thus there is no longer any reason for me to remain blocked, whichever way you look at it. -- Zsero (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have requested additional eyes on this at the administrators' noticeboard diff. R. Baley (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that User:Daedalus969 is at it again, restoring false accusations to User talk:Klpalmer‎, User talk:Stephena‎, User talk:134.68.173.135‎ and User talk:134.68.172.247‎. K. L . Palmer and Stephen A. have not edited since mid-2006, so they're unlikely to be directly harmed by coming across this themselves, but is that a reason for false accusations to remain there forever? Is Daedalus969 not edit-warring by restoring it, just to make a WP:POINT?

In any case, the situation is as follows: I was blocked for reverting User Talk:Ashleylmack more than 3 times, and at the time I could not promise not to keep doing so if unblocked. As soon as I contacted Ms Mack this morning I did make this promise. As far as the other pages are concerned, if unblocked, I will revert them once. If Daedalus continues to vandalise them, I will not edit-war with him/her but seek help from others. There is no issue at any other page. Thus, there is no reason for me to remain blocked. Keeping me blocked serves no preventative purpose, and is therefore by definition against the rules that the blockers hold so dear. Meanwhile, could someone try to make Daedalus see reason? -- Zsero (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not vandalizing anything. You are not the owner of others' talk pages, and therefore do not have the right to remove warnings, unjust or not. Only admins and the user in question may do such. You are not an admin, and what you are doing is closer to vandalism then what I am. The reason you should remain blocked is because you feel you have the right to remove warnings of another's userpage because of your opinion of said warnings. Until you can understand that this is wrong, and you should not do such things, I cannot see why you should be unblocked. Daedalus (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I was not blocked for removing warnings, I was blocked for 3RR. Since I have said I will not repeat that offense, I am entitled to be automatically unblocked. As for low-level edit-warring, that is exactly what you have done by restoring the false accusation. -- Zsero (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ashleylmack has removed the false accusations from her page, and the accusations on the other four pages have now been removed by an admin. I hope that satisfies Daedalus, and s/he will no longer keep restoring them. I can now promise that I will not edit-war on any of those pages, therefore there remains no reason at all why I should continue to be blocked. -- Zsero (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Reguarding those pages, it has. However, I will not be happy, not that it matters, until you understand that you cannot remove warnings on any user talk page but your own. Your wording was very specific. Daedalus (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't care whether you're happy, so long as you will not continue to put those false accusations on these users' pages, and therefore I will have no cause to remove them. Since that is the case, continuing my block would seem to be against the very rules that you feel so passionately about. -- Zsero (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Daedalus, an incorrect warning can be removed by anyone. As for the warnings in question, in the case of a GOOD FAITH user linking to an academic resource, as opposed to someone spamming their personal website, it is much more helpful to engage the user than to template them. By leaving a personal message, you can be welcoming to a new user and invite a discussion on the appropriateness of this link. We obviously have no idea who this user is relative to the school, but when academics want to contribute to Wikipedia, we should WELCOME THEM, not template them. --B (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for the clarification. I cannot remember who put the other idea in my mind, either way, thankyou. Daedalus (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi B, I wish you would talk to Hu12 about this, after his last comment at AN, I was unable to type anything in keeping with WP:Civil. Sorry Zsero, I'm going to have to step away from the Wiki for a bit. R. Baley (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote here, [5] the root of this problem still remains. No one who was involved in this edit war and three-day go-round is sorry for their actions, because the original question that inspired the WP:3RR violations hasn't been addressed and everyone still feels as if they were acting in the right. If that's not settled with admin attention, we're just setting ourselves up for another round. Snowfire51 (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a good point. We could flip a coin to see who "wins" or we could just settle with everyone was a little bit right and a little bit wrong. Both sides were wrong to edit war. Both sides were wrong to use the rollback button in a dispute. Daedalus969 and Hu12 were wrong to reinstate the warnings and not consider something more appropriate (like a personal message). Call it a draw? --B (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|issue has become moot.}} And in the meantime, while we're doing all this, can we unblock me? I remind you that according to the rules, since there is no prospect that unblocking me will lead to an edit war or other rule violation, there is no reason for my remaining blocked. -- Zsero (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I 100% agree, but I'm also not going to unilaterally override the blocking admin on this. It's probably moot at this point as it will expire in 2 hours on its own, but except for an incorrect/abusive block, admins tend to get desysopped for undoing each other's blocks without overwhelming support from other admins. --B (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Then what's the point of the unblock template? Isn't that supposed to be reviewed by any uninvolved admin, who should make their own decision? And don't the rules require that when a block is no longer preventative it must be removed? -- Zsero (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, what the heck, it's only two hours left, the blocking admin says on AN that he doesn't care all that much. I have removed the block. Please stay away from Daedalus and the issue that resulted in the block. --B (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome. I was not aware that adding the links would cause such a fuss. I was simply hoping I could get some useful information to the public. Are you an administrator on Wikipedia? I am not too sure how the system works and I wanted to know who keeps tabs on all of the information going in and who is it that makes these kinds of "spamming" accusations and such. If nothing else I will be sure to keep tabs on my account from now on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleylmack (talk • contribs) 15:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Go you

Just wanted to say how nice it is to see someone stand up against injustice - well done. Vegetationlife (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback restored

I've restored your rollback. Using it on Hu12 and Daedalus969 was not a great idea, but fair enough, they did the same and since they've still got it, so why should you be picked on? Like I said, if you come across something like this in the future, please get other admins involved. I'll be glad to help. Mistakes happen, people over-react, we are none of us perfect. All the best and good luck! Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Re "I fail to see..."

Re "I fail to see... ": Sir: Thank you for judging my efforts of contributing to Wikipedia (Pride and Prejudice article, edit of 03:08, 09 April 2008); however, without a better understanding of your objection(s), I'm finding it difficult to learn what you require. Please be more clear of what exactly fails your standards here, especially when your judgement dismisses an entire section of work. Please explain, re specifically these questions:

1. Re the source material quoted (by others), are you deleting the reference and the bibliographical source I provided because: --the full text of the novel is linked online? --or/also, because the source cited is a print-only publication that is not published online? Please explain why you feel, for either case, it is a bad thing to do.

2. As corollary, is it ok with you --if the full text is linked online-- that quotations placed around source material are (per se) sufficient without further citation? (If so, doesn't this presume the typical Wikipedia reader will know that the the quote is from an online text, and that the link for same will be found below, or somewhere, in the article?; --is that your policy?).

3. Again, as corollary, is it your requirement --if the full text is linked online-- that no additional specific reference may be provided?; i.e., that it is not ok to further tell the reader where exactly --e.g., which link, page, chapter-- the cited material can be located within the online source?

4. Re 3, do you see no advantage for the reader, especially a new reader, that such information be placed readily at hand? --especially if that reader is not yet comfortable with interpreting all the information at hand on a typical Wikipedia page?)

5. Finally, in response to your "fail to see" any improvement in the edits I offered:

Obviously, you provided no explanatory remarks of your objections; but because I cannot read your mind, and because I still wish to feel I can learn and contribute here, I offer to review the article again, specifically the plot summary, to learn if I can find a better manner of wording that improves what is now installed, and resubmit same to your appraisal. I will try to limit my concerns to the problems that originally attracted me to that section --some time ago-- which is, to the promiscuous use of pronouns, even when their respective nouns serve the reader better. (I'll try!)

Thank you for your time and answers to my questions; and for your long record of service to Wikipedia. [--Jbeans (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)]

Your edit:

1. Removed wikilinks for no apparent reason.
2. Inserted a bibliography consisting of one specific edition of the book, for no apparent reason. The entire book is linked from the article. We know what book we're talking about. There's nothing special about that edition.
3. In most cases, the context is enough for any reader to realise that quoted text is from the book itself.
4. Page numbers obviously refer to specific editions, for a book with many editions. Chapter numbers would be more useful, since they're the same in every edition. Though since the entire text is online and linked directly from the article, the absence of chapter numbers is no big deal, because readers can just search the entire text for a quote.
5. Have I addressed all your questions?

-- Zsero (talk) 09:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Le Grand Bleu (yacht)

Thanks for your note, and I have to admit I'm a little mystified. I looked at it and thought, "This is crazy -- it's a talk page for a page that exists, I would have no reason to delete that." Then I saw that it was somehow connected to a page that I DID remember deleting because it was tagged as an orphaned talk page of a deleted page -- something called Sral ples, although I may have the spelling wrong. I have to admit that I don't really know what happened, since my examination of the edit history tells me that another administrator did the deletion that my memory tells me I did. Anyway, I hope you will accept my apology -- I will immediately restore the page in question, and I'm still scratching my head trying to remember exactly what went on. I know I wouldn't have deleted a talk page without confirming that it was orphaned, but beyond that, wow, I'm very sorry, I just don't know what happened. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the talk page in question. All I can figure is that somehow when I was in the middle of checking the links to the page, it got redirected or moved by NawlinWiki and I didn't notice that I had been redirected to a different page than the one I left. If you have any idea what happened, I'd appreciate knowing -- it's a little scary. At any rate, I do apologize again for your extra trouble and inconvenience and hope you will accept that it was entirely accidental on my part. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and for your courtesy and understanding. I'm still scratching my head about what the !@#$@!# could have happened. If there's anything further you require with respect to this or any other topic, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Age when R' Henoch took over

Wasn't R' Henoch 24 when R' Dovid was niftar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danthecan (talk • contribs) 11:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Jeri Kehn Thompson.

Your use of rollback to restore a link to an offsite copyright violation was wrong on two counts: first, it's a copyright violation and wilfully linking to offsite copyright violations places the Foundation in legal jeopardy due to a principle known as "contributory infringement"; and using rollback to do it because the site is blacklisted was particularly foolish as it renders the article un-editable by others, as well as ignoring the obvious fact that we don't blacklist without good reason. I am assuming that this was a naive error on your part, so will not remove your rollback flag for it, but please be aware that if you do this again, your rollback privilieges may be revoked. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Minchas Elozor pictures

I restored the images and moved the discussion to Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_April_28. I do not have a response to your comments so hopefully someone else will. I did not interpret your comments as supporting keeping the images the first time I read through them. Reading them again, I see what you are saying. -Regards Nv8200p talk 14:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: User 90.196.3.1 and Disruptive Edits

Hi, I am having problems with this fellow who seems to be doing disruptive edits on all Sikh articles in order to press forward a POV. Is there anything you can do?--Sikh-history (talk) 08:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Bill Moyers

It's been almost a couple of years since you weighed in on this article, but there is a content impasse at the moment on the same issue you addressed then. A couple resident editors have combined to fight off at least a couple attempts since July 2005(!) to mention Laurence Silberman's anecdote about Moyers claiming his memo, requesting FBI info on Goldwater staff, was a CIA forgery. Silberman was, they said, an unsupported liar to suggest Moyers might have been involved in such activity. (This is the point you had addressed.) I came to the page just as they were squelching an IP doing this and did something unheard of, a little research. It turns out that Moyers was not only, as Silberman said, mentioned in the papers of the time as having done this, but the Church Committee's report on misuse of the FBI prominently featured Moyers. Nothing abashed (well to be fair, Osbojos may be a bit abashed but Ratel is not at all) the resident claque insist they have "consensus" for a highly minimalist and misleading edit[6] on the basis of very thin participation (four editors, including me) in a poll. I'll try an RfC too before this is out, but haven't seen much result from that in the past. And apart from the ip (who disappeared before I engaged) and JCarriker (who's Wikiretired) you're the only one other than the four who has ever posted to the talk page at all, much less on this issue. So I hope you'll find time to make a comment. nb: The material I want to add is this (plus a cite to Amazon's excerpt of Deloach's book, which I didn't have before the page was protected). Andyvphil (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

James Polk Edit

Please do not accost me for "adding nonsense to Wikipedia". It was perhaps insignificant, but definitely not "nonsense" (which is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as "words or signs having no intelligible meaning, or "subject matter, behavior, or language that is foolish or absurd", as you have stated on my talk page, to say that David Rice Atchison was de jure the President of the United States for one day. If Taylor and Fillmore refused to be sworn in on the Sunday, March 4, then Atchison would have been (de jure or to clarify: by law) the Acting President on March 4. Imhyunho (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

A President must, under Article II of the Constitution, take the oath before being sworn into office. If Polk left the White House on the noon of March 4 and neither Fillmore or Taylor took the oath of office, then, by technicality, Atchison was the President for one day (read David Rice Atchison article). But again, my complaint is not that you removed the information, but that you labeled it as "nonsense". Again, consult the definition I gave you from the American Heritage Dictionary above, and tell me exactly why it would be nonsense. Imhyunho (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:Johnpemberton.jpg

Image:Johnpemberton.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:John Pemberton.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:John Pemberton.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no grounds to delete it from Commons this time, as there is a source and it's PD in the US, the source country. If someone does delete it, let me know and I'll address it on Commons. Superm401 - Talk 04:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That's incorrect. It doesn't matter who the author was, since it was taken in the United States. Superm401 - Talk 05:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

But was it first published in the USA? Anyway, the fact is that's what happened, and I was not able to fight it. -- Zsero (talk) 05:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of Source

It seems to be more of an independent blog. The writer states no credentials nor does the site appear to be more than an inexact aggregate/overview of news stories. Therefore I do not think calling Todd Palin's maternal grandmother an "elder" is correct until otherwise proven via a more authentic news source.Kitchawan (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The cited source is an opinion piece written by a stated friend of the Palin family. Let's wait until we can find a better source than that.Kitchawan (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Also "highly respected" is POV, again not acceptable re Wiki rules of neutrality. I am searching for a better source re use of the word "elder" to describe Palin's grandmother.Kitchawan (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Cachefly & Palin

That is not an acceptable source--please don't like to copyright violations like that. rootology (C)(T) 19:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Those are the voter registration records - how can they be copyright? -- Zsero (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a random image hosting page/site/URL. We don't know if that one that you linked is real, or legit. It could be a Federal record, or a party one, or something I made in photoshop and uploaded there while you weren't looking. There's any number of better sources than that one. :) rootology (C)(T) 19:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That still doesn't make it a copyvio. As far as reliability, this is the PDF distributed by the campaign, linked to from here. -- Zsero (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not just use the CNN story on it as a source instead? CNN > Hotair.com. rootology (C)(T) 19:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Because CNN doesn't link to the actual documents. -- Zsero (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The McCain campaign has posted Palin's voter registration documents here, if that matters for copyvio purposes. Coemgenus 19:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It doesn't matter for copyvio, since public documents are by definition not copyright, but it does matter for provenance. -- Zsero (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ketchup

You, sir, are very serious about your Catsup, but I think it's laudable. I'm thinking Ketchup needs an overhaul to get it back to grade-a. Primarily, I'm wondering why they got rid of those great historical recipes. That's good stuff, right there. ∴Walkeraj 01:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What recipes? The 1801 recipe is still there. I don't recall any others. I still want to restore the ketchup/catsup section. I put a bit of work a long time ago into distilling it down from a long and random list to a short collection of iconic instances, each presenting the confusion in a slightly different way. But so far it's 2-1 against me on the talk page. -- Zsero (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I've had some work reverted in the past, and it makes you feel like all the work you did was for naught, but I think that in this case it's really best to just leave the section out entirely. Think of it this way: there are two different spellings. That's worth knowing, but there is no further information on the why of those different spellings. In other words, it's notable that it's extant, but it's not notable that someone made note of it (which is all that list was). Perhaps if there had been a political reason or some historical event responsible for the variation in spelling it should be included, but here it definitely seems like a case of good old American phoneticization.

Notablilty is a tricky beast because of how subjective it is. I've argued in the past that information like this might be better in its own tab, but this policy seems to contradict that.

We can all do our part to make this thing better, and you seem to be just as dedicated to that as I am. Perhaps it would be better to coordinate some work on bringing the article back to a-level status, rather than worrying about the list. I think a good start would be a sort of picking-up and dusting off. As to the recipe, I think it should be included in its entirety (maybe in a {{hidden}}), because it is an insight into the history of the condiment and how it used to be made (i.e. very very salty)
∴Walkeraj 14:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand about the recipe; it's right there, in a footnote. Is part of it missing? Is there some other recipe you'd like to include?

As far as the ketchup/catsup section, it's not just that people have noted the difference, but the fact that it has led many people to imagine that these are two slightly different condiments, and the different ways in which that confusion has been reflected in pop culture. Each of the examples in the list was chosen not only for the significance of the source (i.e. no fringe sources that nobody's ever heard of) but for the different way in which the confusion presents itself. There are surely only so many ways it can be represented, and these are examples of each of those ways. I would only add an item to the list if it did not duplicate one of the existing items. -- Zsero (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that the text of the recipe itself could be included again. Lots of articles that mention the first occurrence of something in the historical record will quote all or part of that, rather than forcing the user to follow a footnote. As to people considering them to be different condiments, I'd say that's a bit too much assumption in regards to notability. Given that all of those examples are humerous/tongue-in-cheek (indeed, they are all fictional), it is more likely to assume that they are using the different spellings (and the character's subsequent confusion) as a humorous device rather than as an illustration of a genuine cultural phenomenon of confusion. I'd say actual confusion regarding this is extremely rare. If anything, people would be curious as to why there are two different spellings. In any case, all of the references are either humorous or fictional (mostly both), so it's more of a gag or a pun than a reflection on our culture. I guess that's what I've been getting at. I wasn't trying to belittle your dedication to noting cultural phenomena.
∴Walkeraj 20:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. My mistake, I should have paid more attention to what was written. Jorge P (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

SP?

How could I have "introduced a misspelling" when all I did was revert, not edit? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverting is editing. The edit I reverted, among its other faults, includes an obvious misspelling. By reinstating that edit, you also reintroduced the misspelling. Which means your reversion was at the very least not well thought out. -- Zsero (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The wonders of Wikipedia

"This two user are too ignorant."Ferrylodge (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Re. control of the zone, I don't usually feed the trolls. But in this instance I thought it might help to get him trolling somewhere else. We'll see if he comes back to this article, and if so then no more feeding.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm shortly going offline until after Rosh Hashana. See you next year. -- Zsero (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Happy Rosh Hashana.  :-) Hopefully, there will still be an economy when you get back.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Horseradish

I am quite aware that maror is really a lettuce, but mentioned horseradish so as not to enter into yet another debate with an editor who would contest that as well. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Todd Palin and snowmachines

With respect, the world is bigger than Alaska and people around the world would like to get it w/o clicking and searching. WP is NOT Google. Kindest regards, --Floridianed (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Only warning

Please do not remove reports from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. If a report is indeed a "bullshit accusation" [7], then the investigating administrator will determine that conclusion. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit war at Andrew P. Harris

Hi, someone brought up on my talk page that you and another editor are edit warring over Andrew P. Harris; from a look at the page history I'd say they're right. I see very little activity on the talk page, so I urge you to try to discuss matters with them there rather than just reverting. Please also understand that edit warring is blockable whether or not you're technically making more than 3 reverts in a 24-hour period. I (hope I'm not displaying myself to be totally ignorant here but) have never heard of the guy and have no interest in the content aside from adhering to the highest standard of accuracy and referencing because it's a BLP. If the other party's breaking rules, you can report that, you shouldn't do something that's going to wind up getting you in trouble too. You're better off being a model wikipedian and using the talk page, and letting them dig themselves into a hole! Don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions or need anything, I'm always glad to help. Peace, delldot ∇. 21:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for getting back to me. I replied on my talk page. delldot ∇. 22:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

eloped to marry

This goes back to archive 19...about mid-Sept...a result of a looooong discussion. Its not really redundant, altho they convey two expressions of the same thing...a personal committment. Briefly stated, eloped to marry was an accurate description of what happened. But, you can leave it. Just thought I'd let you know.--Buster7 (talk) 01:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin, Ahmadinejad

What she said is a reference to what he said (or, actually, didn't say). Without the context of what he said, (or, actually, didn't say) what she said makes no sense. Not that that's unusual, of course. — Writegeist (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What he said is the subject of a whole article, to which you linked. It is not at all clear, as you claim, that he didn't say it, and it's certainly not clear, as you wish to insinuate, that he and his superiors don't mean it, whether or not he said it. It's certainly more than reasonable for Palin to say and believe that Iran intends to wipe Israel out — the Israelis certainly believe it — and there's no need to discuss it in her article. All that matters in this article is what she said. -- Zsero (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

With respect, you appear to have missed my point: Ahmadinejad's statement is the progenitor of Palin's. Without knowledge of his, hers is without reason. Contrary to your uncalled-for accusation, the purpose of including the reference is not to "insinuate" anything. It is to clarify the origin of and reason for her statement, and to clarify that the statement, which appears as a statement of fact, is (in fact) contested. (Balance.) What I, and the Israelis for that matter, may or may not believe about it is irrelevant to Palin's use of the statement. Please note that in my edits to this part of the article I did not include any POV "claim" that Armydinnerjacket "didn't say it." However I have no compunction about making the "claim" here, not least because a Persian (not, she insists, Iranian) friend is adamant that, according to the Farsi original, Armydinnerjacket did not say it. (Never mind the corroborations on record from numerous Farsi scholars.) It is correct, however, to link to evidence that the statement's meaning, as expressed by la Palin, is contested. (Balance.) Thank you. — Writegeist (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Where's your evidence that his statement is the "progenitor" of hers? All she said was that Iran would like to wipe Israel out. Did anyone doubt that before A-jad opened up his mouth? The furor over his speech wasn't over some new revelation, but over the fact that he dared to actually say what he was thinking. In any case, whether he actually said it in that speech or not, the fact that his office claims he said it (which you surely don't dispute) is enough to validate his intent and that of his superiors. The only time it matters whether he actually said it on that particular occasion is if someone directly claims that he said it on that particular occasion; but Palin didn't claim that, so the whole debate doesn't matter. -- Zsero (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Los Angeles May Day Melee

Thanks for the good word you left at Talk:Los_Angeles_May_Day_mêlée. Frotz (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain

Well, I've full-protected the article for the time being; hopefully what is and isn't consensus will emerge on the talk page during that period. And I'm glad you took no offense to my reminder; I figure better an unnecessary reminder than a block of a good faith editor. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber

You had not summarized when you reverted my edit. Please explain. My entry is intended to avoid WP:SOAP problems. Just reverting without editing recreates the original problem. --VictorC (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You were editorialising. That's right out. Do it again and I'll revert it again. -- Zsero (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. The quote states a non-factual scenario as being factual. Wikipedia can quote someone saying "the earth is flat" but the article should reflect that this isn't a factual statement. Joe's statement isn't factual. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Let's figure out how to enter this into the article. --VictorC (talk) 08:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Not on your life. Your opinion about what he said is your opinion, and does not belong in the article. -- Zsero (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If it is my "opinion" that Joe has an elected congresswoman and two senators to represent him? Is that what you mean? --VictorC (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's your opinion that this discredits what he said. -- Zsero (talk) 08:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. I have no opinion on this topic. I'm having trouble understanding what your point is. Please clarify with some detail. He said he's not represented. That is false. How can you tell me otherwise? Please substantiate your position. --VictorC (talk) 08:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

My point is simple. You do not get to put your own opinion on whether what someone says is right or wrong. You do not get to contrast a notable person's statement with facts that you think contradict it. If a RS brings up the contradiction then it can go in; your own analysis doesn't. I'm done talking about this. -- Zsero (talk) 08:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You just repeated what you said above. I already answered. I have no opinion on this. You seem be to taking a dogmatic position, which is wp:soap. Just repeating that it is my opinion that Joe's senator is John Voinavich and his congressional representative is Marcy Kaptur, for example will not change the facts. The fact is Joe has representatives. Sorry to belabor this, but you aren't explaining anything to me. You just seem to keep repeating that this is "my" opinion. --VictorC (talk) 09:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Those are facts, but it is your opinion that they contradict what Joe said. And that has to stay out unless a RS says there's a contradiction. -- Zsero (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. The quote "taxation without representation" is false, it's not just an opinion of Joe's it's a factually false statement. There is no RS to say it. It isn't needed. It would be like saying we need an RS to say the earth isn't flat, do you see? Thanks for explicitly clarifying what you were getting at. You had me completely confused there. --VictorC (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

JtP Wikiquote

There is a valid reason for that to be there- the fact that a wikiquote page exists. Just because it is a stub doesn't warrant its removal. It will invite readers to add to it being there. Do not remove it again without bringing it to the discussion page, please. Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The game plays

"It's not nonsense, on the contrary it's pretty readable, and if the subject were at all notable it would be a decent start to an article. It would need wikifying, sources, all that good stuff, but it would not be a deletion candidate."

I stand by my tagging of this 'article' as nonsense. And it makes a nonsense out of Wikipedia NOT to delete it as such. Wikipedia is not the place for reports of new schoolyard games.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 12:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:CSD#G1. To label this page "patent nonsense", "gibberish", "incoherent" or "with no meaningful content", is, to put it bluntly, to lie. It is quite clearly none of those things. Nor does it fit any of the other CSD. -- Zsero (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you calling me a liar?? If so, then I suggest you brush up on Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It is a complete load of nonsense, as several other editors have now pointed put.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 18:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I am calling a lie a lie. There is nothing else it can be called. No matter how many editors repeat a lie it remains a lie. The article as written is very far from nonsensical or gibberish, and any English speaker with a basic knowledge of the game of American Football can derive its meaning. To deny this can only be called a lie. -- Zsero (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the only one in denial then. I don't intend wasting any more time on this completely pointless argument with you. The whole thing has turned into a nonsense now - from the article itself, to your protestations that it is 'worthy' if not notable article. Goodbye.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 19:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Dude, how did you know I was a ninth grader? Bigkid72 (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In the article you gave your school name, and the names of the game's inventors. The first thing I did was to google those, to see whether there was anything to this game — was it real, was it mentioned anywhere, did the inventors become famous? And the first hit I got was the "Class of 2012" list for your school, with all three inventors on it. The conclusion was obvious. -- 23:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Spam

Regarding your comments at User talk:Barriodude, you might want to read Barriodude's user page, WP:EL, WP:Spam and WP:COI. To sum it all up, you don't add links to your own website, and you don't add links for the purpose of promoting a website, and you don't add links to pages that merely contain material that belongs in the article itself. And when you see a user's contribution history showing links being added one per minute, you can be sure that the user is not reading the articles he's adding the links to in order to determine whether the link will actually be useful-- he's just pumping them out. Please don't encourage spamming behavior-- we see way to much spamming as it is. Thanks! -- Mwanner | Talk 12:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit. The content at Shmoop doesn't belong in the WP articles themselves. And one doesn't have to read a whole article to know that a link belongs on it. At most all one has to do is check that none of the existing ELs provide something so similar as to make the new link redundant. The reason for adding a link doesn't invalidate the link itself. Which means the only issue left is COI; well, I have no COI, and I concur that the Shmoop links belong. -- Zsero (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

So let's see: Shmoop is a commercial enterprise (CEO Ellen Siminoff) that according to their site pretty clearly plans to cover all of Literature and History. Just how many links to it do you plan to add? Further, I'd be interested in your views on what content Shmoop provides to Mending Wall, for example, that constitutes "a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article" (WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, #1). That's why I mentioned taking the time to read both our article and their material before one can possibly know whether an external link of this type should be added. There's more to our external links policy than whether the linked site is generally a good one or not. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That it's a commercial enterprise makes absolutely no difference, and that you think it does speaks volumes about your motives. Are you hostile to enterprise? Do you think WP should be hostile to people making money? I'll add as many links as I feel like. How many links exist from articles on movies and actors to IMDB?

It's quite obvious that the content of Shmoop doesn't belong in the article itself: it's a resource for learning about the subject of the article, not new information. Its main advantage over similar resources is in its fresh presentation, rather than in any deep insights it may offer. What could possibly exist in our article that would make a Shmoop link less useful, other than an EL that already links to something so similar as to make it redundant? -- Zsero (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not hostile to people making money, but I am hostile to people using Wikipedia to make money. As to the value of Shmoop to Wikipedia, see Talk:Mending Wall. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What policy or guideline justifies hostility to people using WP to make money? Capitalism is a great and wonderful thing; if someone can make money by being useful to others, more power to them. Most if not all of the works Shmoop discusses were themselves written to make money. As for your criticism of Shmoop's actual content, that's a different matter entirely. Erroneous content doesn't make something spam, though it does make it less useful. The only Shmoop link I've looked at in any detail at all was Pride and Prejudice, and I didn't notice anything terribly wrong there. Nothing earthshattering either, but the presentation seemed fresh. -- Zsero (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL and WP:Spam, in my mind justify hostility to people using WP to make money. And if you've followed the Village pump discussion on advertising in wikipedia, you'd see there are a lot of people who see things that way. Jimmy Wales notably said that "Wikipedia makes the web not suck", and for me, and a lot of people, what makes wikipedia not suck, first and foremost, is that it's not constantly trying to sell you something. You seem to disagree. OK. I can live with that. Let's agree, though, that the contents of the external links that we add need to be looked at pretty closely. And (I would argue) especially when they have been added by someone who stands to make money on the issue. That's where conflict of interest enters in, and raises Good Faith issues.

Anyway, peace. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 18:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that WP shouldn't be trying to sell you something, at least not obtrusively. (A discreet ad here or there to make money for the Foundation wouldn't hurt.) But that standard doesn't apply to ELs. We link to newspapers all the time, for instance, even though they all exist for the explicit purpose of making money. The point is that we link to them for their content, not for their advertising. If this helps them make money, more luck to them. Shmoop should be regarded the same way; it should be evaluated for its content, and if that's valuable, as from a brief look I think it is, then its links should be allowed. In the case of "Mended Wall" I agree with you that the Shmoop article itself is sub-standard; but the P&P article seems to be OK and one bad article hardly invalidates an entire project, or WP would be in terrible straits! As for COI, the problem is not that the links themselves are bad - in principle there's nothing wrong with someone adding a good link despite a COI. The problem with COI is simply that it impairs someone's judgment on what is a good link. But I'm afraid a militant "anti-spam" attitude, such as that seen on "Project Spam" creates a very similar impairment, and a tendency to view all such links as bad regardless of their content. See the top of this page, and the case of the Indiana archives. -- Zsero (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR

You're close to violating 3RR on the Sarah Palin article. Some might say you already have. 3RR prohibits more than three reverts (or changes that amount to a revert) in 24 hours, even if they're not related, and content disputes are not exempt from that limit no matter what happens on the talk page. These topics are going to be edited intensely over the next few days, so remember: There are no emergencies on Wikipedia. Let someone else take over for a little while. It will all be worked out eventually. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 04:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on John McCain

Thank goodness someone put semi up again. That was a real mess. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 07:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Edits of Judah Loew ben Bezalel's Death Date

You recently edited the Judah Loew ben Bezalel page to remove the Julian/Gregorian dates. You will notice that the talk page as a discussion regarding the actual death date since there seems to be a discrepancy regarding this. It is likely that the Julian/Gregorian dates would be of value given that there is confusing data as to the actual dates. Most early sources would likely show the Julian date even though Bohemia and Moravia switched to the Gregorian calendar prior to the Maharal's death, while contemporary sources and current computations would use the Gregorian dates. The day of teh week is also important in ensuring that the date computation is correct. This information might belong in a footnote. KosherJava (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. It was very confusing, though. I'll revisit it, maybe move the details down into the body of the article, where they can be expanded into something comprehensible.

By the way, if you are the person behind kosherjava.com, thank you for the "bearing to J'm" map. I use it all the time. (I had previously used this site, but yours is so much more useful for this purpose.) -- Zsero (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Capezebra.jpg

Thank you for locating the source. The image has been deleted. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sex/gender

You reverted Deed of change of name while I was writing a rationale for doing the same on the discussion page. Well done; I get really sick of people using these two words incorrectly. Emeraude (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Let's take this too the talk page. The Kerry campaign that you cited didn't have an infobox while it was going on, while the Obama and McCain campaigns have and they've maintained past statuses. Perhaps an initiative should be undertaken to include past statuses for Kerry, Bush, etc. campaigns. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

John McCain presidential campaign, 2008

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 06:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Campaign status

Hello Zsero,

With all the attention given to the McCain and Obama campaign pages, I decided to check out the campaign pages for the other candidates such as Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Guiliani, etc. and noticed that there doesn't seem to be a clear convention for campaign status in the infobox. I intend on discussing the matter with the U.S. Elections WikiProject, even though they're probably entering hibernation, to see if there is a convention for the field. And if there is - what is the convention, and if there isn't - what should the convention be. I was wondering if you'd like to contribute your 2 cents on the matter. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

New JTT photo

I found it on Teenidols4you.com and Teenidols4you.com I believe is a public site, correct me if I didnt respond right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallaway2 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Are you a Wiki moderator?

YHWH in archaeology

Under the pages with the name Yahweh, Jehovah, YHWH or whatever that is based upon the same ancient Hebrew symbols is all well and good to talk about pronouncing, writing sytles and etc., but there should also be the archaeological findings that have those symbols on them. To be honest I could intergret a section on the subject into each article but it is easier to link them to one page that will discuss the subject. Stop needlessly editing out this link, because there are a number of real problems on each one of those pages that need more attention than you are giving what I'm doing. I'm still working on the pages so give me some room to work. If you have a problem put it on my talk page or the discussion page of the articles. You should know better than to get into an edit war with me. Saverx (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC) ~

---

The information on the House of J articles are not original research, theories or etc. Everything that was stated I gave the reference to scriptural sources from text citing them. As for the link to the Pharisees page it will take me adding in the addition sources that state those ideas, but they shouldn't be assumed to be MY THOUGHTS.Saverx (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry,Zsero!

I'm so sorry! Yesterday I was revising my geography homework and patrolling Wikipedia. As I was very tired, I went to have a cup of coffee. Unknowingly, my cousin, who was a vandal, - User:Kelsi Wales (I think her account has been deleted) did something in my account and I luckily managed to catch him red-handed. She was using my Twinkle stuff and unfortunately I didn't cancel it soon enough. I really did scolded her for this, but her overprotective mother scolded me back (unfortunately):"Is your willy Wikipedia more important than your little cousin? Must you shout at her?" I said:"But she shouldn't use my account to vandalize Wikipedia or else I'll get banned!" but she won't listen! Anyway, I'm terribly sorry for any troubles caused.

Will I get banned for this?

--Mark Chung (talk) 05:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama note

FYI... Obama is constitutionally required to resign any other governmental office by the time he assumes the Presidency. Or perhaps more to the point, he is not allowed to be compensated by either the federal or any state government while he's President, aside from the salary granted to him for the Presidency. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That isn't as clear as you might think. It's not clear that the presidency is an "office under the United States". No president has yet tried to be a member of Congress at the same time, and no president is ever likely to try it, but a good case can be made that it is constitutionally possible. In any case, Obama certainly didn't have to resign before noon on 20-Jan. He could have attended not just this year's lame duck session, but even the first two weeks of next year's session, and vote on bills that would then be sent to him to sign. Of course he has much more important things to do with his time. -- Zsero (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to Article 2, which says this: "The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them. " Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

And in addition to having other things to do, I would assume he would want to avoid any appearance of impropriety. In theory, he might have voted for a bill in late January, and also end up signing it as President, if Bush didn't taken action on it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing improper in that, any more than there is in a Supreme Court justice ruling on the constitutionality of an appointment he made as Secretary of State. As for the compensation clause, he could give back his Senate pay. -- Zsero (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

They always resign their Senate or House seats, so it may be that there are federal laws prohibiting the holding of multiple offices. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

While not citing the specific law, this article [8] explicitly states that Biden (who has not yet resigned) must resign by noon on January 20. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No federal law could override the constitution. If the constitution doesn't prevent a president from being in Congress, no law can do so. That no president has ever tried to do so doesn't prove anything, because it would be silly; a president hardly has enough time for his own job, let alone that of a congressman. It's natural that a congressman who is elected president will resign his previous job, even if he doesn't have to. As for Reuters, it is not an expert on the constitution, and its legal opinions are worthless. -- Zsero (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If the constitution is silent on this matter, I would think that would open the door to the Congress passing such a law. But before jumping to that conclusion, we would have to find which specific law or rule compels a Senator or Congressman to resign. It seems to be a "given", so it's got to be out there somewhere. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Presumably "no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office" means that the President can't also be a Congressman or Senator - which makes sense, given the painstaking care the founding fathers took to keep the three branches separate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I already addressed this in my first response. It is not at all clear that the presidency is an "office under the United States". -- Zsero (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Not clear to you, perhaps. If the Presidency is not an office under the United States, I don't know what would be. But there must be some information somewhere that addresses this question. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Offices under the United States are people who are responsible to the president. The president himself is not. For instance, George Washington did not consider himself subject to the foreign emoluments clause. Oh, and the founders did not take "painstaking care...to keep the three branches separate". The separation of the branches was mostly invented during the Era of Good Feelings. At the time of the founding it was possible for the Chief Justice to also serve as Secretary of State -- Zsero (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, in any case, it seems certain that a Senator has to resign by noon on January 20th, so there must be a law covering it, we just haven't turned it up yet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anything in the constitution requiring it, and no law can override the constitution, so I don't believe they do have to resign; they do it because it makes sense, not because they have to. -- Zsero (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That article I showed you states unequivocally that they have to resign, so there must be a law or ruling somewhere that covers it. Either that, or it's simply an established precedent. Obviously, it would be a conflict of interest, and certainly no one would have time for both jobs (maybe they would have in 1800, but not now). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The Reuters article is simply wrong. And I agree that nobody has time for both jobs - that was my argument just above! But there's no law stopping someone from being stupid enough to try. -- Zsero (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

One thing I hadn't thought of is that it might simply be a rule within each of the two Houses. The Constitution provides that the House and Senate can make their own procedural rules, and one of them might be that a sitting Senator or Congressman cannot hold any other office. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Neither house has the power to add to the qualifications laid down by the constitution for membership in that house. If someone is qualified and has been elected, the house must seat him. Powell v. McCormack. -- Zsero (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that it's merely precedent and custom that lead to Senators resigning. And the houses do have the power to expel members, right? I don't recall if that's in the constitution or not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Senate could expel Obama, by a 2/3 vote. What's that got to do with anything? -- Zsero (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The Washington Times also states that Biden "must" resign by Jan 20 [9] and I doubt they're getting this from thin air. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly where they're getting it. Do they cite a source? No. So where could they be getting it? You've seen the relevant parts of the constitution. No later law can override that. So what basis is there for this claim in the newspaper? None at all. -- Zsero (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The Senate website has a copy of the constitution along with interpretations: [10] This interpretation says, "To preserve the separation of powers, no member may be appointed to an executive of judicial office that was created or accept a salary that was increased during the term to which that senator or representative was elected, nor may anyone serving in Congress simultaneously hold office in any other branch of government." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've already shown you (and you've already quoted) the relevant constitutional clause, which refers to "office under the United States". If you want to assert that Obama could not serve as president and a senator at the same time, it's up to you to prove that the presidency is an "office under the United States". The plain language of the constitution is pretty clear that it is not. A Senate web site does not override the constitution. -- Zsero (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, my logic tells me that the Presidency is an "office under the United States", and it certainly seems like the government site agrees with me. Perhaps you could write them a note and ask what law or court ruling or other rule compels Obama and Biden to resign by Jan 20, or whether it's just tradition? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The plain language of the constitution is against you. Search for every occurrence of these words in the constitution, and see whether it makes sense, if the presidency is included. You will find that it doesn't. An office under the United States is a position to which the president appoints someone, and from which the president can dismiss him. As for some web site, since when is whoever updates that site an authority? You think just because it ends in .gov makes everything posted authoritative? Why should I write anybody a note? What do I care if some idiot gets it wrong on his web site? Is it my job to correct that person, or teach him law? -- Zsero (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's see... we have your interpretation of the constitution... and we have a number of published sources all stating opinions contrary to your interpretation, including the Senate website. And it appears that Obama and Biden are pretty well convinced that they need to resign before Jan 20. So apparently you've got it right and the entire U.S. government has it wrong? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, neither Reuters nor the Washington Times are part of the US government. Whoever maintains the Senate web site is, but is hardly a recognised expert on constitutional law. A source is not more reliable just because it's published. Newspapers get things wrong all the time, and I guarantee you nobody fact-checked this, they just assumed it was correct and let it go. So my reading is as good as theirs. Better, because I can point to every other use of that phrase in the constitution, all of which make more sense if it doesn't include the presidency. And there's the fact that George Washington accepted foreign gifts and didn't even think to ask Congress for permission, which he'd need if the foreign emoluments clause applied to him. -- Zsero (talk) 04:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet Biden seems to think he has to resign by Jan 20. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Every news source I've seen talk about this subject, from liberal to conservative to neutral, all say they have to resign by noon on Jan 20. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Then they're all wrong. Do any of them cite a source? No. They're all just making the same assumption, which they're pulling out of thin air. Or they're relying on each other, which lets one error reverberate all over the press. -- Zsero (talk) 05:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to assume that the Senators themselves know the rules. All I'm getting from you is your personal interpretation of the Constitution - no independent source verifying what you're saying, and in fact all of the sources refuting it. So unless you can find an independent source in support of your interpretation, I have to conclude that you've got it wrong. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

And have you heard a senator say that Obama and Biden would have to resign? In any case, you keep arguing from authority. You have the same access to the constitution and the English language that I do, and that all senators do. There are no court decisions that could affect interpretation, because the case has never come to court and never will, and even if it did it would be dismissed as a political question. So we are left with only the words of the constitution, and our only guide to what is an "office under the US" is how the phrase is used elsewhere; can you point to a single instance of that phrase being used anywhere, where it includes the presidency? If not then you must concede the point. -- Zsero (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that Obama and Biden resigning is strictly due to tradition? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Not even tradition - simple practicality. Obama's resignation is certainly a practical matter, since even you admit that he could have stayed until 20-Jan. He resigned because he has no time to devote to the Senate, and/or no interest in remaining there. Biden will ultimately resign either for the same reason, or because on Planet Biden the constitution reads differently (remember, on his planet Article 1 of the constitution gives the Vice President a role in the Executive Branch, and the VP can only preside over the senate if there's a tied vote). Plus in Biden's case, not resigning would mean that the Democrats would be deprived of his tie-breaking vote; he surely couldn't cast two votes! But nothing in the constitution as it actually exists on this planet requires them to resign. It would be perfectly lawful, if silly, for them to attempt to do both jobs at once, just as John Marshall spent a month as both Chief Justice and Secretary of State. (In his day the CJ didn't have a lot of work, and he did it as a favour to President Adams. He surely wouldn't have done it for a longer period. But the fact that he did it at all proves that it is constitutional.) -- Zsero (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Basically, I'm seeing every source that has anything to say about it, saying they can't be both Senator and President; and I'm seeing only you contradicting it. I have never seen anyone besides you saying this. And it's very unlikely that you've uncovered something that slipped past everyone for over 200 years. So the only logical conclusion I can reach is that you've got it wrong. You're either misinterpreting the Constitution, or there's another law or court ruling somewhere that you've overlooked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

All I see from you is argument from authority, which is itself a logical fallacy, but in this case it's not even that. None of your sources have any authority whatsoever. You cite newspapers and anonymous web site writers. I cite the constitution itself. As for later laws or court rulings, neither one can possibly exist. No law could override the constitution, and no court could rule on the matter because 1) it's never come up, and courts can't rule on hypotheticals, and 2) it's a political question, so courts can't rule on it at all. So what are you left with? Give me an example — any example — where the term "office under the US" is used in a way that includes the presidency. Or concede that I am right. -- Zsero (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Pardon my intrusion-- I happened to see this discussion. This site bases the required resignation in the Separation of Powers clause of the constitution:

1. "One person cannot hold two full-time elective positions.
2. The separation of powers prevents a person from holding a position in two different branches of government (executive, legislative & judicial) at the same time. (A few exceptions may exist when the officers are at two different levels, such as state and municipal.)"

-- Mwanner | Talk 15:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That site contains general advice for people interested in all manner of elective office. Various state and local constitutions and laws may have such provisions, but the US constitution does not. Senators may not simultaneously be Representatives, and they may not hold "offices under the US", but there is nothing preventing them from being president or vice president. Nothing except common sense, that is. As for the separation of powers, that is a doctrine undreamt of in the constitution, as evidenced by John Marshall being both Chief Justice and Secretary of State. The doctrine of the separation of powers was not invented until about the 1820s. -- Zsero (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I find it really hard to believe that all of these different sources are making it up. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution for a living, and I suspect the matter has been decided there, though I can't handily prove it. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

What different sources? All we have are some newspapers, and some Senate employee who wrote a piece for the web site. None of them are better authorities than you or me. As for the Supreme Court, how could it have decided this? Has any congressman elected to the presidency ever attempted to keep his seat? If not, then how can the Court have decided it? And even if there were such an attempt, how could the Court rule on a political question? In any case, it's up to you to show such a ruling; all you're doing is accepting on faith that it must exist, as if it were some sort of religious doctrine, which you received from — where? Reuters? -- Zsero (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's an academic source (see "Separation of Personnel") Still doesn't mention a Supreme Court Decision, though. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The author of this piece is very clearly wrong, as proven by the fact that John Marshall served for a month as Chief Justice and Secretary of State. If this author were right, how could he possibly have done that? The separation of the three branches is not found anywhere in the constitution, and wasn't invented until the 1820s.

In any case, your source is hardly academic. What the hell is "Cyberland University of North America"? It doesn't even have a WP article! Doesn't sound like a real university to me. So who is Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., and why are his opinions more authoritative than mine or yours? -- Zsero (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The Marshall example proves nothing-- first, that was a long time ago, leaving plenty of time for the Supreme Court to promulgate case law interpreting the Separation of Powers provision. And secondly, unconstitutional stuff happens. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

And I'll grant you that Almon Leroy Way seems an uncertain source, but you know, Reuters, et al., aren't real famous for making stuff up. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, how could the Court have decided a case that has never come up? And how could it decide a political question? And no, "unconstitutional stuff happens" won't cut it. This was the Chief Justice! What greater precedent can there be that this? And nobody at the time seems to have breathed a word of protest at this arrangement; this was a time of bitter political rivalries, and if there was something even slightly improper about this someone would have complained, and yet there seems to have been none. The only explanation is that there was no separation doctrine. As for Reuters, et al, yeah, they are well known for making stuff up. They employ fact checkers, but do you really think one would have called anyone on this? -- Zsero (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Add the New York Times, November 13, 2008, "Like Mr. Obama, Mr. Biden must resign his Senate seat before noon on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20." [11]. And the court decides political questions all the time. You think there's no case law based on the Separation of Powers clause? -- Mwanner | Talk 16:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

And what's their source? You keep arguing from authority, which is a fallacy at the best of times, but you're not even even arguing from real authorities! If you have no real arguments then concede and drop out. The next unsupported newspaper citation you throw at me, I will treat with the contempt it deserves. -- Zsero (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Then let me quote you "The separation of the branches was mostly invented during the Era of Good Feelings. At the time of the founding it was possible for the Chief Justice to also serve as Secretary of State" (above) And James Madison wrote in The Federalist No. 47: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of the one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." That's directly about the separation of powers, and it addresses the point under discussion directly. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Zsero should write a note to Biden and tell him he doesn't have to resign after all. That should be interesting. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Biden makes stuff up all the time — he thinks Article 1 gives the VP a role in the executive branch, and that the VP can only preside over the Senate if there's a tie. So who knows what's in his constitution? And why would I want to correct his mistakes anyway? He's an idiot, and he will remain an idiot. Beside which, even if he knows he doesn't have to resign he will do so anyway, if only so as not to deprive the Democrats of an extra vote. So what good would a note do him? -- Zsero (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I was seeing it strictly for the entertainment value. Everyone else is saying he has to resign, and you're saying he doesn't. So it's your credibility that's in question, not everyone else's. It reminds me of someone I knew that had the wrong date for a well-known historical event. I showed them the newspaper that proved when it occurred. Their answer was, "I can't help it if that publication is wrong." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Did the newspaper prove the date, or did it just cite a date that it found in some book? In any case, argument from authority is a fallacy, and newspapers aren't even authorities on matters of law. Read the f---ing constitution for yourself. Look for every instance of "office under the US", and try reading each of those instances with the term including the presidency and excluding it, and see which one reads better in every case. -- Zsero (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking specifically about the JFK assassination and the date on the extra-edition newspaper reporting it - Nov 22, 1963. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No, they're all just making it up. And what you're doing is classic WP:OR. That's not how it works here. -- Mwanner | Talk 17:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? That makes no sense at all. What's OR got to do with it? In which article am I inserting this? You, OTOH, are engaged in OR, since none of the "sources" you cite are in any way authoritative; if there's any article that positively states that Biden must resign, I would certainly be within my rights to remove it. -- Zsero (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No, you wouldn't, because you're applying your own interpretation of a primary source, and that's not how wikipedia works. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Bulldust. No source is required to remove incorrect claims from WP. RS are only required to insert stuff. Since the claim that he must resign has no reliable source, I can remove it wherever I find it. So far I haven't found it anywhere, but then I haven't looked. -- Zsero (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The Times qualifies as a reliable source under wikipedia rules. Your alleged personal expertise does not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, this brew-ha-ha is all just over a curiosity question about a Zsero edit summary that stated Obama didn't have to resign by noon on Jan 20. So far, we have just that one editor making this unheard-of claim, and every other source saying he does, in fact, have to resign by noon on Jan 20. Logic and AGF say Zsero is well-meaning but wrong. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Changing other peoples' comments, even to correct what you wrongly assume are spelling errors, is against the rules. There's a joke in that spelling, i.e. I know how to spell and I spelled it that way on purpose. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Not on my talk page it isn't. -- Zsero (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You do not own your talk page. The same rules apply to your talk page as they do to any other talk page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course I don't own it, but the rules are not the same. On my talk page I can edit other people's comments, so long as I don't change the meaning. I can also remove them altogether. -- Zsero (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Which I'm sure you'll do soon, as this is a fruitless discussion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think if you start removing stuff that is sourced to Reuters, the New York Times and the BBC on the grounds that it is not reliably sourced, you will find that you are very much in the minority. But it is clear that nothing I or anyone else can say will ever persuade you otherwise, so do have a nice day! -- Mwanner | Talk 17:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

They may be considered RS for news (and they've been caught many times making stuff up there too), but not for legal opinion. -- Zsero (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If you could cite a legal opinion on this issue (by which I mean an actual legal opinion, not your personal interpretation), that would be enlightening. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Since you have not cited an actual legal opinion for your claim, I see no need to do so for mine. The plain meaning of the constitution is enough for me. If you have an actual legal opinion that treats the question and concludes that the presidency is an "office under the US", I'd love to see it. -- Zsero (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The separation of powers doctrine is probably the overriding principle. But it's clear that you are an army of 1 on this issue. And if it actually did get posted in an article and you tried to delete it, you would be shot down, because there are endless reliable sources saying he has to resign, and none saying that he doesn't. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources saying this. The list of RS is not some sort of Bible from Sinai; like everything else it needs to be treated with common sense, and common sense says that no newspaper or agency is a reliable source for legal opinions. -- Zsero (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"Common sense", a.k.a. "truth", has no bearing on the matter. The Times would be considered a reliable source in wikipedia, and you would lose the argument if it were to come to that. "Common sense" would also advise you not to get into an edit war over ketchup. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ketchup. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ninety:one 21:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware of the three revert rule, and am in no danger of violating it. I have repeatedly attempted to use the talk page, but carl.bunderson refuses to make an argument, keeps deliberately misrepresenting the truth (referring to guidelines as "policy" even after he admitted that he did know the difference), and keeps reverting. So what am I to do? He's the one edit-warring. If he wants to have an honest discussion I'm more than willing, but in the meantime the status quo ante should be restored. Are you willing to do that, as a gesture of good faith? -- Zsero (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop fooling yourself, both of us were edit-warring. And please, do not act as though I have failed to engage you on the talk page. We have both made use of it extensively. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

See article talk. ninety:one 21:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Beware of edit wars involving ketchup. Tomato stains are hard to wash out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Taylor Thomas‎

Please read: WP:V: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." (emph added) You can consider my removal twice to be a "challenge". Please condsider reversing yourself. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The key words are challenged or likely to be challenged. What are your grounds for challenging a completely uncontroversial fact? Remember that you are not entitled to challenge facts that you don't actually doubt, just to make a POINT. -- Zsero (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As I stated above, the keyword "challenged" has been met - I challenged and removed the information. If you wish further basis, continue reading down of WP:V you reach WP:PROVEIT: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. ... Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed ... Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles." Living persons is piped to WP:BLP which contains "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to ... all of our content policies, especially: * Neutral point of view (NPOV) * Verifiability * No original research. We must get the article right Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. ... The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"Challenged" is only met if you challenged it honestly. Challenging facts that you don't really doubt, merely to make a POINT, is disruptive and doesn't constitute a real challenge. The object is to build an encyclopaedia, not to jump through unnecessary hoops or to tick off boxes on some form, just for its own sake.

The key word in the long piece you quoted is contentious; if a fact about a living person is not contentious, there is no need to spend time and energy looking for a source. If everything in a BLP needed a source, every such article would be a sea of bracketed numbers, and 80% of the article would be footnotes.

Note also that "we must get the article right", and removing material whose truth you do not doubt is not making the article right, it's making it wrong. Only if you honestly doubt that the material is true may you remove it. The material you challenged was not in the least contentious, and I don't believe for a second that you had any doubt about its veracity. You challenged it merely to make a POINT, and that is not legitimate behaviour on WP. -- Zsero (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That's incorrect. All information in biographies of living persons must be properly cited or it can be removed at will. Content removal is not harmful to anything; if you see that someone removed info for lack of sourcing, all you need to do is find a reliable source to cite, put the content back in, and everything is fine. It's the BLP equivalent of using a {{cite}} tag, and it's just as easy to fix. What you can't do is debate about whether or not a source is needed. If someone wants a source, the burden is on you to provide one or it's out. End of story. That's not just BLP, that's WP:V. I tend to agree with you about the aesthetics of using footnotes all over the place, but form follows function. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 15:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That is wrong. Read it again - only contentious material must be sourced, and that means material likely to be honestly challenged. Material that is not contentious, i.e. nobody honestly doubts it, does not need a source, and it is disruptive and damaging to dishonestly challenge it or remove it just to make a POINT. Removal of truthful information is obviously harmful to the article; if the material's presence made the article better then obviously its absence makes it worse. Otherwise you're just playing a petty bureaucratic game, and not interested in building an encyclopaedia. Remember that WP is not a bureaucracy, and following rules just for the sake of following them is not the point. -- Zsero (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not up to you to decide what is "honestly" challenged. If someone removes content, consider it challenged. You're not the arbiter of verifiability. If you want to take something like that to dispute resolution then feel free to do so, but you don't have a leg to stand on. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 13:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

He won't have time for that. He'll be too busy trying to convince Obama and Biden that they didn't actually have to resign from the Senate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

John McCain presidential campaign, 2008

You're re-introducing material that irrefutably violates policy, and then advocate the removal of material that you don't like based on policy. Your motives are clear. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for violating 3RR on John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 (Reverts: 1, 2, 3, 4). Because you have been repeatedly warned about edit warring, and because this is not your first time being blocked for it, the block is now 48 hours. You may resume editing when the block expires, but continued edit warring may result in longer blocks without further warning. Making convincing arguments does not mean you are exempt from the policy against edit warring. Discuss instead of reverting, rather than in addition to it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:25, 17 November 2008 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

The first edit listed was not a revert. (There is no previous version that it matches.) On the contrary, it was a further attempt at compromise. I adopted some of the language AzureFury had just introduced, in the hope that the compromise might be reciprocated. The edit comment reflected this: "I'll take some of that". Instead AF just reverted and reverted and reverted. Right now AF and I each stand at 3 reverts, not 4. I ought therefore to be unblocked. In the alternative, if I am to be blocked for my three reverts, then AF ought to get the same block for the same violation.

As for my previous block, that is a badge of honour I wear with pride, since it was earned in defending an inexperienced editor against false and malicious warnings being posted to her talk page. That was akin to reverting vandalism, and my only mistake was in shouldering the burden on my own instead of recruiting help. It should not be taken into account now.

Decline reason:

You were clearly edit warring here, and you did violate the three-revert rule. The first edit which you claim isn't a revert, is. As you can see, the information was added by AzureFury here and you then made an action which reversed (in part) the actions of another editor. While you're blocked, please read WP:3RR (again if you already have). — Rjd0060 (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2008 (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.

Three things:

• That first edit was a revert, to this version: [12]. It may not have been a total revert to your version, but it undid someone else's edit. But if you want to wikilawyer, there was also a fifth, unrelated revert here. It wasn't vandalism, just a difference of opinion about the way data was being displayed. A different content dispute, but a content dispute nonetheless.
• As you should be abundantly aware, you are not entitled to three reverts. The persistent edit warring over several articles needs to stop. AF's edits don't show the same pattern.
• Edit warring is edit warring, whether it's with a new user or not. Previous edit warring will be taken into account - especially if you're proud of the block. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 03:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• No, check again, it was not a revert to that version or any other. It was a brand new version that had never been in the article before, and it represented an attempt at further compromise with AF, by adopting some of AF's language. I don't understand why you would call it a revert.
• The "fifth revert" you refer to was not about "a difference of opinion about the way data was being displayed", it was about the IP having changed a past-tense discussion of an event that was already over, into a present-tense discussion as if of a current event. I didn't check, but I assumed that it was a revert to some version from during the campaign, presumably just for the hell of it; otherwise I'd have given an explanation for the revert. At any rate, it was at least minor vandalism, or at least so I regarded it.
• I was not edit warring with a new user, I was editing to protect a new user from an attack on her talk page. When I finally managed to contact her she was very grateful for what I had done, and for my explanation of what had been going on, and confirmed that if she'd logged in while those false warnings were on her talk page she'd have been distressed enough to never touch WP again. The block was unjust, and I am proud to have "earned" it while doing the right thing.
• That I happen to have run today into two completely unrelated blockheads is not my fault. I have not reverted too much in any single dispute, but I can't help it if there are people who refuse to discuss things, or insist on reverting. In all cases it takes two to tango, and just because I'm involved in one dispute doesn't mean I have to give everyone else their way and just allow myself to be reverted without protest on every other article. -- Zsero (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you feel the right to "regard" something as vandalism just confirms that I was right in issuing this block. Vandalism isn't a matter of opinion; it's a very specific thing. That edit was in not vandalism in any way, shape or form.

Nobody is "refusing" to discuss things with you. One anonymous user made a change (which he did not need your permission for) and you reverted him out of hand. The other user was actively discussing the situation with you. You were both edit warring, but your aggressive edit summaries and persistent edit wars elsewhere made yours worse. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 04:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"Aggressive edit summaries"? "(Undid revision 252121325 by Zsero (talk) Unexplained deletion)" is aggressive. In fact it's deliberately designed to offend. My edit summaries were not aggressive, they explained what I was doing, and why. -- Zsero (talk) 04:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I found "WTF?" particularly enlightening.[13] Edit summaries are for summarizing edits. Talk pages are for explanations. Either way, using masked profanity and caps to shout at other users is aggressive. Don't get me wrong - it's just a symptom of the problem, it's not why I blocked you. You were blocked because you violated 3RR, pure and simple. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 04:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"wtf?" was puzzlement, not aggression. Having reached out to AF, I had expected some kind of acknowledgment if not a reciprocal gesture, and was puzzled at the revert, especially with the only "explanation" being a BS claim of RS (for an article cited for its author's opinion). I use caps in edit summaries, not to shout, but in place of italics, because the whole thing is in italics.

In any case, I didn't violate 3RR, at least not on purpose. On reviewing the IP's edit I find that I was mistaken; by "current projections" the IP seems to have meant not poll numbers (which are no longer current), but post-election projections of what the final count will be, after all the postal votes are in and all the recounts are done. I do apologise for that, and would do so on the IP's talk page if I could. It looked like the sort of random vandalism I've seen a lot of, though; it looked like it was talking about "current projections" of the vote, which is how it would have read before the election. -- Zsero (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I only mentioned the IP's edit as an afterthought. You violated 3RR by edit warring with AF, based on the diffs I provided in the original block message. Here's a comparison of the version before your first revert, and after your first revert: [14] Your edit removed almost everything AF added here. That's a revert. And the three that followed it were to the same version. Looking at your talk page, I see not less than five 3RR warnings over a wide range of articles. Enough is enough. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

can't believe I'm stepping back in for this, but my recollection of Zsero's actions, for which he has a block on his record, is that he was trying to protect a new user (who added good external links) from being templated as a spammer. I was not an admin at the time but I advocated for an undo of the ridiculous block and a removal of the equally ridiculous template. No comment on the current edit-warring, but the Zsero's block record in this case has extenuating circumstances. R. Baley (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly not enough to mitigate the original block. The blocking admin was ambivalent about the unblock, but he didn't do it himself or make a statement to that effect. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 04:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

your version is best

on the John McCain presidential campaign page. It shouldnt be there at all but if it is it should be kept short like you said. AlioTheFool (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC).

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Jones-Kelley. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

external links

hi there. curious if you'd like to weigh in on the discussion happening here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links#http:.2F.2Fwww.shmoop.com.2F

to refresh your memory, you had some helpful things to say on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jane_Eyre#New_External_Link and on my talk page.

we've avoided COI/spam issues. A number of our fans took it upon themselves to post links to Shmoop articles from WP. Many of these links stayed in place for over a month - so editors didn't seem to have a problem. the user who started the thread on the External Links Talk page wiped out all of our links very quickly (his only reasoning being "we aren't encyclopedic" which seems like a vague standard). now his argument has changed to say that he doesn't like the tone of our site (again, doesn't seem like a justification to not have these in EL. if you care to weigh in, i'd be interested in your opinion. thanks! Barriodude (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI to Zsero -- this person is claiming "fans" posted links, but you can see in his/her edit history that he/she added the links and also contributed quite dramatically to an article on the company CEO. How on earth this person can mention COI & spam and pretend to have avoided issues is beyond me. DreamGuy (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Hannukah!

Template:Hebrew Template:Hebrew Template:Hebrew From Chesdovi

File:Sufganiyah.jpeg

Collect RFC

Hi, there's an ongoing RFC on User:Collect [15]. You've been an editor on Joe the Plumber so your perspective might be helpful.Mattnad (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Chotkov kloiz.jpg

Yeah, tagging as no source was a mistake. I meant to use no permission as the source doesn't show evidence of public domain status and the website itself is protected by copyright. Jay32183 (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It's PD-OLD. As is obvious by looking at the source. The web site's assertion of copyright is irrelevant; the web site owners didn't take the photo. Or even publish the Yizkor-book, for that matter, so they don't really have copyright over that either. -- Zsero (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Where does the source indicate the publication date of the image? We need proof of PD status, we can't make assumptions. The only indication of copyright I saw on the website claimed the work couldn't be reused. The image page would also need to be updated to include this information. Jay32183 (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious from its very nature. It's a pre-war photo, of a building that probably didn't survive the war, published in a Yizkor-book, which by its nature contains only pre-war photos. The web site's copyright claims are self-refuting and irrelevant, since it did not produce the Yizkor-book.

This is not some mechanical box-checking exercise. The photo IS PD-old; I assert it, Chesdovi asserts it, and anybody who knows anything about the subject will assert it. Nobody is claiming that it is not old. If you know nothing about the subject, take the word of those who do. Otherwise you sound like those who demand evidence that a 3000-year-old antiquity is PD. -- Zsero (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

{{PD-Old}} would mean the author has been dead for 100 years. What's the copyright status of the Yizkor book? If that's the first publication, which isn't indicated on the image page, then that's where the relevant copyright comes from. Assertion of PD is not sufficient, we need evidence. WP:IUP "Before you upload an image, make sure that either: * You own the rights to the image (usually meaning that you created the image yourself). * You can prove that the copyright holder has licensed the image under an acceptable free license. * You can prove that the image is in the public domain.", WP:COPYRIGHT "Someone holds the copyright unless they have been explicitly placed in the public domain". You haven't shown proof of PD and an assertion is not explicitly placing it there. I do understand Wikipedia's copyright policies and they are a lot stricter than you think. Jay32183 (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The tag on it is PD-Ukraine. It's a pre-war picture, and the publisher is unknown. Therefore it is PD. The fact that it is pre-war is evident from the fact that it's published in a Yizkor book. And old images don't have to be explicitly placed in the PD; they're automatically PD because of their age. If they're old enough, they were never IN copyright in the first place. -- Zsero (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

When was the Yizkor book published? Based on a quick search, I found 1952. {{PD-Ukraine}} says that the image needs to be published before January 1, 1951. Ukraine would also have to be the country of first publication for the tag to be relavant. Having an unknown author does not in itself make an image public domain. This image doesn't appear to be old enough for copyright to have expired. Also, to be free use on Wikipedia, hosted in the United States, the image needs to be public domain in the United States as well. Jay32183 (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You still don't get it. By its very nature it's a pre-war photo. That's why it's in the Yizkor book. That makes it before 1951. And since it's PD in its country of origin, it's also PD in the USA. -- Zsero (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

R. Belsky quote from mishpacha article

Zsero, what do you mean "it doesn't exist" [16], it's from a Mishpacha article?

Yonoson3 (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

reply

fyi, i left you a reply on Debresser's talk page. -shirulashem^(talk) 00:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion was first moved to the article's talkpage and now to the NOR Noticeboard. Debresser (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Zsero. I also disagree with the idea. But the fact remains that the non-messianist character of this site is evident only to those who know the signs, and no sources have been found to prove it. So I just don't see we have any choice. Sincerely, Dovid. Debresser (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

See my comments on the NOR thread. A fact doesn't have to be obvious to everyone in the world in order not to need sources; it needs only be obvious to those competent to judge it. No source needs to be adduced in order to describe a web site as being in the English-language, even though that is not at all obvious to someone who doesn't recognise English from French or Dutch. For exactly the same reason, no source is needed here. -- Zsero (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Rashi.jpg

Ok, thank you for explaining it to me. Good to know it is at least an authentic portrayal: guess we just don't know when it was produced, and therefore it is hard to license properly. Cheers! <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Berger

I am sorry to have to say this to you, but we have to be clear about this. Nobody asked for you to agree with this sourced information. Nobody cares whether you consider it nonsense. It is sourced. It is relevant. And that's it. I have noticed your aggressiveness of opinion and editing before, but while having clear opinions is an asset, aggressiveness can not be tolerated on Wikipedia. I myself don't like the opinions of the guy, but that may not influence my editing. So please, be reasonable in your editing. Or don't. Edit, I mean. Please understand that I am your friend. We have a lot in common. But being on the same page with you is hard. And it shouldn't be that way. Debresser (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC

You can't put anything you like on WP just by sticking a ref tag on it. Nonsense remains nonsense no matter to whom it is attributed. -- Zsero (talk) 07:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

But this is not nonsense. You don't understand it, but I do. Debresser (talk) 08:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Apart from that, you are about to violate the Wikipedia:Edit warring#The_three-revert_rule. Please be aware that that can get you blocked in no time. Please also notice that 2 editors disagree with you here. All of this points to you being a little rash, I would say. Debresser (talk) 08:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It is absolute nonsense. If you claim to give a reason why people believe something, it must be an actual reason of some kind. Nobody believes something merely because it can't be proven to be heretical, any more than anyone believes in unicorns for no other reason than that they can't be proven not to exist. Berger, of course, makes no such claim; the man is obsessed and monomaniacal, but not stupid. -- Zsero (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I might not like him either, but I really do see his argument. And I can testify to it being true. I am a Lubavitcher, even a moderate meshichist, and have seen it happen myself. Debresser (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Whose argument? Berger makes no such argument. He is not stupid, and would not make such a stupid argument, and sure enough he doesn't. Which is why I will continue to delete it whenever it is added to the article. Are you now claiming to have seen people believe something merely because it can't be proved to be heretical?! What else have you seen people believe merely because it can't be proven false? -- Zsero (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I am posting on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Edit warring on Chabad messianism. This is getting out of hand. Debresser (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Rabbi categorisation

I noticed that you placed Rashi in Category:French Orthodox rabbis. Although this is the case, that Rashi was indeed Orthodox, I think the "Orthodox" label was only introduced after new movements within Judaism started forming in the 1800's. I therefore propose that all rabbis living before the 19th century remain in the general "rabbis" category, while others, from let’s say 1800 onwards, be categorised in the relevant category which labels their modern classification, i.e. Orthodox, Reform, etc. Do you agree? Chesdovi (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, he didn't call himself "Orthodox", any more than he called himself "French", since he didn't speak English, or even Modern French! He didn't even call himself a "rab-buy". In fact, since smicha as we know it didn't exist in his day, he probably didn't call himself a "rabbi" with any pronunciation; others may have called him "rabbi" (or perhaps "ribbi"), but as a title, not as a description. But we characterise him both as French and as a rabbi, because in modern terms he was those things. Well, in modern terms he was Orthodox too. That's all there was back then, at least in France, where there were no Karaites. -- Zsero (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Result of the WP:AN3 case about Chabad Messianism

Hello Zsero. Please see this outcome, in which both parties are warned against continuing to revert. Blocks may be issued if editors continue to revert without getting a Talk page consensus first. If agreement cannot be reached, either let the issue go or follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution, such as opening an WP:RFC or asking for a third opinion. If you think that wrong claims are being made about a specific living person you can open a report at WP:BLP. EdJohnston (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Zsero. You can still avoid a block if you are willing to undo your last edit at Chabad Messianism. Your complete certainty that you are correct is not sufficient for Wikipedia purposes; you must also make a good-faith effort to persuade other people. If you can't persuade them, you have to live with the consensus. So far you've found nobody who supports your view. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus against my edit. There is one person, who openly admits that he has no basis whatsoever for opposing it. He just does, apparently for no reason at all. The standard on WP is that those insisting on inserting something have to make their case, not those who want it out. This is a brand-new paragraph that makes a false and illogical claim, and attributes it to someone who never said anything of the kind. No argument of any kind has been made for including it. Therefore I have the right to delete it. So what authority do you claim for blocking me? I have not broken any rule, I'm not being disruptive, so what basis do you have? Are you now a dictator? -- Zsero (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed your revert in defiance of the decision on WP:WQA. You do not seem to understand the difference between believing to be right, being right, and doing the right thing. First of all, you really should recognise that you just might be wrong. But most importantly, you should know have to behave on Wikipedia even if you were 100% right. This is why I said that you are a potentially disruptive editor. No offense intended. It is like the aphorism about driving: don't be right, be wise. Debresser (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There was no "decision". There wasn't even a discussion, let alone a consensus emerging from one. One person took it on himself to "warn" us. What gives him the authority to do that? He's just an editor like you and me. Meanwhile, you have admitted that you had no basis whatsoever for the edit you introduced three times, over my objections; if that isn't disruptive behaviour, what is? Introducing information that has been objected to, for no reason at all! That is not how WP works. -- Zsero (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There was a clearly stated decision on WP:AN3#Edit warring on Chabad messianism (Result: Both warned). And the authority of the warning editor comes from Wikipedia procedure. Another minor point: I have not admitted anything of the kind. Debresser (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There was no decision. One person dictating to others what they will and won't do is not a decision. Decisions are arrived at by consensus, and consensus can only emerge from discussion. EdJohnston has no authority to dictate to anybody what they will do. And you have indeed admitted that you have no basis for adding the text you did add three times; you've admitted that you haven't read Berger, so how can you possibly know whether he wrote what you claim he did? -- Zsero (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no point in continuing to try to talk some sense into you. Debresser (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you're the one who seems incapable of understanding elementary logic, I'm not surprised. But claiming there was a decision doesn't make it so. -- Zsero (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Eliezer Gordon image

Have you seen this? I am not as well versed in these things as I used to. Chesdovi (talk) 10:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Zsero. You have new messages at Talk:Prime_Meridian.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

  Set Sail For The Seven Seas  271° 19' 15" NET   18:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Cluttered and Sloppy Ledes

Living persons are presented by current factors: "Subject is". I shall cool off for 24 hours or so to give you and the other user Loodog a chance to rephrase it so somehow it conforms to this. Only dead persons are presented with past tense verbs following headwords. This is one of the official standards here. I could give you a list of dozens of examples of this. Evlekis (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sez who? I don't believe you. Point to the policy, guideline, MOS, or other source for your claim. All you are doing is cluttering up ledes with pointless verbiage. -- Zsero (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

With infantile gestures such as "Sez who?", and insulting remarks such as "I don't believe you" which does not so much suspect incorrect judgment but merely accuses me of being a liar (a personal attack), I do not find these edits [17][18] to be in good faith. Perhaps I am not certain where one user once made a similar edit to mine and produced the guideline in the summary, but I know I have seen it. This is more likely a question of style than of biography as the latter concentrates on personal issues. Be that as it may, there is certainly no policy which supports your preferred presentation for living persons whose fame lies in the past. Your reverts are not based on any official literature, only on your own personal opinion that it amounts to "pointless verbiage". I use the term "your opinion" advisedly; meaning you think this and nobody else agrees with you. How else do you explain the intros in the following articles for former statesmen around the world? Gerhard Schröder, Jerry Rawlings, Abderrahmane Youssoufi, Kinzang Dorji, Jona Senilagakali, Laisenia Qarase, Zinaida Greceanîi, Vladimir Voronin and Ingvar Carlsson. Your argument that an intro "needs to be as tight as possible" is shallow, because I am trying to improve the article (which is my goal) and you in turn can trim it without blanket reverting which is highly impolite. Furthermore, the question of "what part is cluttering and what isn't" is also a matter of opinion despite your so-called "keep intros tight policy". If you care to examine the article of Yves Leterme, you'll see that his portfolio information does not start until the second paragraph. And indeed, if your claim of "pointless verbiage" is correct, how do you explain the following contributions by me - every one of which has survived 100% unchallenged?

[19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24], will you revert these efforts by me too? Surely you should if your policy is correct. Are we going to discuss this like two human beings? Or are we to have an edit war which will result in the matter going into the hands of admins with further consequences for the two of us? Which shall we have. Evlekis (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact remains that you have asserted a rule that I don't believe exists, and you have edited articles to make them worse rather than better. And no, it is not uncivil to call you on your claim. You can't go making up rules and expecting everyone to humour you on them. Thanks for the checklist. If you've made 100 bad edits then you've made 100 bad edits, and I can revert all or some or none of them, as I see fit. -- Zsero (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There you go again with "bad edits" and your opinion of me having made them worse. But you failed to explain how these so-called "worse edits" have survived, just as you have failed to satisfy anybody with any explanation as to how some articles come to have this particular presentation in the first place. I have asserted no rule but have made a civil suggestion as to how these articles can be made better. Your pathetic response on "tight ledes" and "pointless verbiage" makes it look as though four hundred new lines have been added based on the subject's bad dreams as children and their tantrums over rice pudding; where as in actual fact I only added a few words to make what I saw to be an improvement. It is clear to me that you have run out of arguments to support your view as your only moan on "tight ledes" is now refuted. I don't expect an editor such as you to be sympathetic on this issue and therefore I make no further efforts in persuading you otherwise. I will return to the articles and restore my original edits; I accept your threat to "revert" as you "see fit" as a declaration of war. So it is down to the admins now. Evlekis (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You have indeed repeatedly asserted that a rule exists, but have repeatedly failed to point to it. That's because it doesn't exist. So now you claim you never asserted it in the first place. WP:LEDE is all the authority I need to tighten ledes by cutting useless verbiage. The existence of sloppy writing on WP proves absolutely nothing, and is certainly not an argument for more of the same! Bad edits — and even outright vandalism! — can last for months or years, especially in articles with low traffic, but even sometimes in high-traffic articles; when they are caught they are removed or repaired, no matter how long they've stood there. Your declared intention of restoring your edits to which I have objected, without making any argument whatsoever for them (apart from the fake rule that you seem now to have abandoned) makes you the edit warrior. -- Zsero (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You have never put your finger to your skull and asked "why has no editor removed these things in the past?" and the answer is because only you call it "useless verbiatage". Your LEDE may encourage shortening intros, however, that is not a licence for chopping the section into small pieces when someone has tried to improve it. It certainly isn't better to start with "was". I can give you thousands of articles which you could spend hours of fun changing. But I'll let you find them yourself. If you're so sure that your preference is better, then let other users change them. Evlekis (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Whilst my extra few symbols are producing something slightly better, your pathetic apology "ledes must be short" makes it sound as though the entire history/background section has been thrown into the first paragraph. Evlekis (talk) 04:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"It's been like that for a long time" is not an argument. It's not "my" WP:LEDE; it's an actual guideline, unlike your made-up rule that ledes must be cluttered with whole phrases that add absolutely nothing. Actually tightening copy is an improvement anywhere in an article, but it's especially so in the lede. You are not improving the articles, you're making them worse, and the fact that thousands of articles need improvement is no reason to add to that number. -- Zsero (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Some more for you to feed your hobby: Dan Quayle, Kjell Magne Bondevik, Zeljko Sturanovic, Algirdas Brazauskas, Komlan Mally, Thabo Mbeki and Konstantinos Stephanopoulos. There's more where they came from. Any time you feel like running around like a tit, you let me know and I'll provide you with them.

Look kid. Let's talk like humans whilst we continue to battle elsewhere. What do you mean "see fit"? What is special about the ones you changed whilst you haven't touched others? Or will you seriously embark on a marathon to amend thousands of articles? Plain old "seeing fit" isn't an argument either. I wasn't claiming that having stood for a long time is an argument, but why has nobody out of hundreds of thousands of English speaking editors so much as touched them? Why is it only you? Evlekis (talk) 04:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you don't say "look kid" and then complain about incivility. Next, I mean exactly what I said: no editor is under an obligation to make an improvement to the entire encyclopaedia just because he's made it in one or several places. If there are thousands of articles with sloppy ledes that need tightening, then there's lots of work for those inclined to do it. I have no such inclination; I'll fix it in those articles I happen to see it in, but I'm not about to start a whole project. When you gave me a list you piqued my curiosity, so I fixed those articles, but I haven't gone hunting for more with the same problem. But I will not accept any limitation on my right as a WP editor in good standing to make improvements to articles when and as I see fit. -- Zsero (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Compromise

I've had an idea which may create peace. As an act of good will, I have reverted my own edit on George W Bush to put it back to yours. If we return the US leaders and Mrs.Thatcher to how they were before I changed them last week, then allow the other world leaders to keep their presentations as they had been before you began to reduce them. I won't touch the US presidents for this issue again, that's a promise. The other world leaders also sat harmlessly with their presentations before these past few hours. If we halt all further battling at this stage, all can continue as it did before we entered this personal conflict. Are you all right with that? Evlekis (talk) 05:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No deal. You do not own any articles, any more than I do. The bottom line is not how things were or who did what, but whether our respective changes are improving articles or making them worse. I am eliminating words that add nothing at all to the paragraphs in which they appear. The paragraphs mean exactly the same thing without this verbiage as they do with it; by definition that means the verbiage is excess and useless, and needs trimming, especially in a WP:LEDE, which must be kept tight. And that is "one of the official standards here", unlike the so-called "standard" you pulled out of your fundament. Let this be a lesson to you: when you start making bulk changes to articles based on a policy or guideline, make sure it exists before you start, and be ready to cite it the moment anyone challenges you. -- Zsero (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Very well. Let this be a lesson to you: I will not amend the articles which I reverted however I will stand firm on the articles you started to edit after I pointed them out. I'd like to see you obtain a concensus to explain how what you are doing is better; I can clearly see that your deliberate switch was "is" to the dead person "was" is deliberate provocation. You could have tightened those articles a million different ways. If a few words is a "bulk", how does your tiny excuse for a brain manage with whole paragraphs. One day when you start school, you'll cope better with bigger words. Evlekis (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)