User talk:Zaathras

Talk page

Start. Zaathras (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't take objection to your removal of my talk post on Donald Trump's page, I do take odjection to your mockery of my love for wikipedia. I truely do love it. It is something I count on every day to be neutral and unbiased so I can read factual information on any random topic that has my interest. For years I have only been on the receiving end of what it has to offer, never thinking that I had anything worthwhile to contribute. But I want to start contributing so I can repay all that it has done for me and continue helping others who seek info like I have. FreshTec843 (talk) 05:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FreshTec843:, always start a new topic with a new section heading (see WP:TPG) and new stuff goes at the bottom of the page. Also, if you want to talk about what someone else said, include a WP:DIFF, in this case I think you mean this [1]], with edit sum just the usual pissing & moaning, couched in "i used to love wiki!"). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zaathras?

Zaathras have sad life, probably have sad death, but at least there is symmetry. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbs-up. Zaathras (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump

Why would you remove my good faith contribution to the talk thread of a semi-protected or protected article as "Tiring"? Is there some evidence that the blatant OR/POV text in question which I cited referencing unnamed scholars and historians has been reviewed and seemed appropriate for an online encyclopedia? 107.127.46.13 (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was not made in good faith. The question you posed has already been asked and answered numerous times, and it is really a waste of time to deal with it again. Zaathras (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not by or to me. I just came upon it. I try to avoid obviously stressful and contentious articles but this text is blatantly unsourced, POV/OR. Could you refer me to the thread on which this particular text is discussed? Thanks. 107.127.46.13 (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at Talk:Donald Trump. Stop posting here, please. Zaathras (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DRN notice

Your edit-warrior friend has neglected to notify you that he has begun a discussion at WP:DRN#Peet's Coffee. Avilich (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Predictable. Thanks for the heads-up. Zaathras (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems he's become my problem now, lel. He immediately decided to throw his weight on my own DRN discussion. Avilich (talk) 02:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DATERANGE

Hi there. Please be aware of MOS:DATERANGE. "From 2007-10" is not correct, "From 2007 to 2010" is. I've restored the correct version at Vitaly Gerasimov. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we're still referring to a dead Russian as a dead Russian, that's fine. Zaathras (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Happy editing, Robby.is.on (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DS alert US politics

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like Zaathras (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't disrupt discussions with accusations. Follow relevant policies

Meritless chest-thumping. Zaathras (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi. In the Donald Trump talk page I started a thread to discuss the number of paragraphs in the lead section, a discussion I intended to focus on the layout, per the Manual of Style. For some reason you decided to start attacking me and disrupt the discussion, taking it off-topic, against WP:READFIRST, which states, "Comment on content, not on the contributor or It's the edits that matter, not the editor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating." I requested that if you had any accusations against me to take it to my talk page, per WP:FOC, which also states, "Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor. Wikipedia is written through collaboration, and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is therefore vital. Bringing up conduct during discussions about content creates a distraction to the discussion and may inflame the situation." For some reason you decided to ignore my request and kept with the accusations and off topic comments, disrupting the discussion. I have noticed that I am not the only editor that is the target of your conduct. You should understand that some editors, like myself, spend hours researching guidelines and policies to improve articles and your warrantless and baseless accusations are completely unhelpful and damage the legitimate work of editors. Again, if you thought I made mistakes or had accusations against me, you should not have used the thread I opened to discuss the layout of the lede, you should have either used my talk page or an appropriate venue. I hope you get to act according to relevant policies and consider the efforts editors make to improve articles. Thinker78 (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone would be wise to take these bits of advice to heart

WP:Focus on content

WP:Don't take the bait

WP:Writing for the opponent

It never hurts to go back and redact <s>....</s> ill-considered comments, though one should add a comment somewhere saying something about the redaction.

Ok that's all, everyone share the sandbox and play nice.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. @Thinker78:, you are a detrimental presence in the politics topic area. Kindly do not post my talk page again. Zaathras (talk) 04:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Orbán

Hi! In Hungary, he is REALLY called cannibal. https://nepszava.hu/3076431_a-politikai-kannibal

https://m.hvg.hu/360/20220518_ParaKovacs_Imre_Megkeresztelt_kannibalok Ltbuni (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, please note that both hvg.hu and nepszava.hu are reliable sources. Ltbuni (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a stupid pejorative because he "devours" opponents or opposition. You can't make a literal link to cannibalism and call him that in an encyclopedia article. Zaathras (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you!

I got about halfway through that talk page comment and my eyes rolled out of the back of my head. Here's a pie for removing it. Fbifriday (talk) 05:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Democracy: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 02:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, thanks. Zaathras (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MLK and extremism

But as I continued to think about the matter, I gradually gained a bit of satisfaction from being considered an extremist. Was not Jesus an extremist in love? -- "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you." [...] Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist? -- "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." So the question is not whether we will be extremist, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate, or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice, or will we be extremists for the cause of justice?

Good stuff. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Zaathras (talk) 04:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Green/Greene

Thanks for your efforts. I decided to delete it, because the complainants were missing the point that the OP was likely just trolling, and likely won't be back anyway, at least not under that user ID. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well. Your call, but this SamuelRiv guy has been turning up like a bad penny lately. Officious, condescending, acts like an admin but obviously isn't. Zaathras (talk) 03:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope it stays that way, eh? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Green? Greene? / It's Greene they say / On the far right of the Hill…" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the official photo... see thread on talk and commons. Both are just arbitrary random free license pics of her from a convention. Turns out the official photo doesn't have the right license info. Andre🚐 02:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, self-reverted. What is amazing is that Congresswoman Q-Lady here can even manage to muck up a straightforward issue such as an official gov't photo id... Zaathras (talk) 02:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. She probably never attended the Congressional picture day because the deep state? Privacy concerns? Or she just didn't like the photo they took of her, and wanted her own to be there, but didn't realize she needed to release it under a CC license. Though MTG is a noted scholar of copyright law, of course. Andre🚐 02:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For the words of support, I wanted to say thank you. 😀 –Daveout(talk) 18:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The feathers sure are rustled tonight. You may just want to fall on your sword on this one and re-think the post on the talk page, though. Don't accept whatshisname's knee-jerk censorship, that wasn't his place. But soften the phrase in question to something of your own wording. Zaathras (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		For advancing the state of the art. Andre🚐 01:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zaathras (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Please enable your email. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Negative, Ghost Rider, the pattern is full. I have trust issues with this place.Zaathras (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's Ghost Rider? The email system works fine. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know your classic film history? And I just never wanted to associate an email address with Wikipedia is all. The place is run by pseudonymous meatballs with no accountability. Zaathras (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

election deniers

Hi, thank you for coming in at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_October_12#Category:American_election_deniers with your reasonable-IMO view. I don't think that discussion went fairly, and I don't agree with the close, but I also have come around to thinking that a good article on election denial, which would include a list of prominent election deniers, is needed. Perhaps it is better to get the terms defined well, and to create explicit understanding of what a politician is doing/saying by expressing election denial, first. Many of the participants in the CFD seemed not to care what "election denier" means, but though it was not what anyone properly expressed IMO, perhaps it would have been valid to say the category is premature if there's not yet a more developed definition of the terms in a standalone article.

I have barely began to jot some notes at Draft:Election denial; i would be happy if you chose to help develop there. --Doncram (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin close by some rando. Lovely. Yea I'll take a look at the page there. Zaathras (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Reminder

Removed

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello, I'm Cable10291. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twitter Files Investigation that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Cable10291 (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an attack there. It's an accurate description. If anything, F2Milk's comment was full of bad-faith accusations. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see anything wrong with what Zaathras said there. They simply (correctly) pointed out that this comment is not a !vote at all, but rather an inappropriate rant. Vanilla Wizard 💙 16:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cable10291: do not post here again. Zaathras (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MTG

Hello! I see that you undid my edit on MTG's page and said there was an RfC held about it. Do you remember what it said because I am notified for all of the RfC's and I haven't gotten one about that. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 04:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There have been RfCs and numerous other discussions on describing her as an extremist, a conspiracy theorist, and far-right. Search the archives. Zaathras (talk) 04:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on content, not editors

The trolls make enough heat on the talk page, let's not add to it by singling out specific editors in discussions. Slywriter (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then said editors should not be deceptive in their editing. Zaathras (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trump associates

Hi there, could you please self-revert your revert of this edit? The previous content described people associated with Donald Trump, which I reformed to be about Trump himself, as the subject of the article. The details of the convictions of these associated people are not relevant to Trump's legacy. What is at most relevant is the fact that several people associated with him were convicted of crimes. Resolution 37 states (emphasis mine) Content related to Trump's presidency should be limited to summary-level about things that are likely to have a lasting impact on his life and/or long-term presidential legacy. The details of the convictions can be found in other articles. Thank you. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The people that formed Trump's inner circle of associates are relevant to Trump's legacy. Zaathras (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but not the specific names of them. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the specific names of them. Zaathras (talk) 05:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Zaathras!

Happy New Year!

Zaathras,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 12:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 12:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Page ban from the Hunter Biden laptop controversy article (not the talk page) until 00:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

You have been sanctioned breaching the consensus required restriction at Hunter Biden laptop controversy with this edit which challenged by this revert. The article has an edit notice and talk page notice specifying the restriction and you previously edited the talk page section where the consensus required restriction was announced.

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

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, sure, but bad actors are allowed to just remove someone's edit then walk away for 2 days citing "I don't have time to explain." No need to reply as this is not a challenge, just an observation. Zaathras (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sipping in bru,

May I possibly ask you to try scotch and irn bru, God Bless and enjoy!!!!! 2A00:23EE:1468:130:B4ED:F120:6E45:5C89 (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure? Zaathras (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Furnace Brook

You reverted all the work on my page, can you tell me why? I had good sources and gave a decent amount of information. Crova6 (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You did not have good sources, and you're being disruptive. Please stop forum shopping. Star Mississippi 02:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why cant you add any then huh? Crova6 (talk) 07:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources aren't good, as you have been told several times. An article about a place, person or thing isn't just about citing that it exists, but citing that it has received notable and significant coverage in reliable sources. Zaathras (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The schools website is a reliable source, however the fame of the schools in the area all go to the high school, why would a website want to write a article about a school that isn't notable for anything besides the people who went there (Bucs player, Pats player, NHL player, but they all went to the high school Aswell). Crova6 (talk) 07:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, please learn Wikipedia guidelines instead of continuing to demonstrate that you don't. This is exactly why we don't have articles on most middle schools. Star Mississippi 13:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake

Yep, missed that, sorry. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy note

You appear to be mentioned in a study recently (see page 11). I'm not sure if they reached out to you about this before (or after) publication, but I wanted to make sure you knew about the study, since your username was mentioned. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lolwut? No, there was no reaching out that I recall. I can't believe someone is actually paying these nerds to write 27-page papers on Wikipedia arguing. Further proof that higher academia outside of the hard sciences is a corrupt morass of fraud and grifting. Zaathras (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping to conclusions? WP:AGF only counts on-Wiki? :-P Robby.is.on (talk) 10:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No and yes. Zaathras (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessarily sharp edit summary

I don't object to the reversion here, but telling another very longstanding editor to "smarten up" is an unnecessary breach of civility. Even passing slights like this set a poor example for the kind of collaborative community we would ultimately like Wikipedia to be. BD2412 T 15:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, but, I'd say the same could be said for a user who restores a combative IP's message. They in effect adopt the message and tone. Zaathras (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, apology proffered. Zaathras (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the gesture. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Infoboxes

There was a very contentious debate about infoboxes a few years ago that ended in an arbitration ruling. I wasn't involved in any of that stuff. I noticed the topic when a RfC about Laurence Oliver came up a few months ago. Long story short it seems like editors who spent a lot of time on promoted articles don't like infoboxes and their opinions carry weight and their knowledge of rules helped prevent them from being added to several articles, mostly in the music composer project.

Now time has passed and most editors it seems don't understand why this is a contentious subject. I certainly don't really get it either. I have attempted to find some consensus to move past this, but it appears that the last remaining articles that should have an infobox will just have to go through RfCs to get boxes added. I hope that helps give you some context. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was before my time. I've spent 30 mins reading down a weird rabbit hole of, wow. Zaathras (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I generally support infoboxes, and they can be very useful in articles where there is a lot of data not easily put in prose. Some of us who wrote FA or GA articles on actors and composers opted for a simple photograph in cases where the information about the subject seemed trivial or not essential. You could argue that a list of Steiger's 5 wives and burial place is essential to our readers but to me it's like the box in Rupert Frazer, redundant and cheapens the article. I don't really care if every article on here has an infobox or not, but Zaa, can you at least understand why some editors opt not to have one and why those who put in tens of hours work writing them feel like it is intrusive when a group of editors who haven't ever edited it come along and try to enforce one? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really isn't understandable, tbh. It's like railing against a table or an image gallery. That a reader can go from Johann Sebastian Bach (infobox) to Ludwig van Beethoven (infobox) to Mozart (barely a box), to Claude Debussy (no box) it looks' silly and inconsistent. Little fiefdoms protecting "their articles" win some rfcs here, lose some rfcs there. Zaathras (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Claude Debussy RfC was a good example of how a Village Pump probably would have helped find a consensus. It's likely that the next time that comes up it will get a infobox added to it. Nemov (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Christianity and politics, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly don't template my page. I consider it extreme bad-faith, akin to vandalism, to remove that much content without even making an attempt to find sources. Zaathras (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unite the Right rally discussion

Hello, I saw you reverted my edit, and without checking the policy, I replaced what I wrote using appropriate WP:RS this time. Of course, that's a violation of the active arbitration remedies, so I've self-reverted and made it a topic for discussion on the talk page. I thought it would be appropriate to let you know since you were the one to revert the initial edit. Thanks for not biting my head off - long time lurker and obviously new editor here. PriusGod (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AE

See WP:AE#Zaathras nableezy - 21:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't interact with people who profess support for terrorism on their user pages. When you remove that, come speak to me again. Zaathras (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've been reported for consistent abuse on Wikipedia.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.