User talk:Zsero

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Tisha B'Av

I've removed the list of "recent calamaties" entirely as a violation of WP:SYN. Please provide a source for any claim that an historical event is associated with the religious meaning of Tisha B'Av. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

29 years.

Thanks for pointing that out... didn't notice the user had only one warning (it's a problem with huggle: if the user is on AIV, it recommends a block). · AndonicO ^Hail! 19:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no problem with a 29 year block (technically shorter than indefinite ;) ), what is a problem is blocking after only 1 warning, which wasn't even a level 4. :/ · AndonicO ^Hail! 19:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea, and I think it looks more aesthetically pleasing than that other template. To me, it is just a good idea. The {{Days of the week}} template is too small for my liking, and {{Day header}} can go at the top, {{Days of the week}} at the bottom. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 10:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

our lil war

"Tziszis"? Tzis-zis? What's incorrect about that? you tell me. -- Y not? 20:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vandalism

Ok Thanks. One more edit on the article and I'll report him. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 15:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your edit to Behaalotecha

Thanks I knew I miss clicked in wiki cleaner but I wasn't sure what page it was on (as it auto closes after saving) I've been going back through all my last edits looking for it. Thanks for finding it!Ayls (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Superscripted ordinals

I don't want to bother you, but maybe you'd know:

Ordinal numbers are given as words using the same rules as for cardinal numbers.

Unfortunately the FMOS has confused me further by saying "are given as words". By 'words', does it mean that George H. W. Bush should be the "Forty-first President of the United States"? Here, is 41st considered a 'word'? Or is it 'read' as a 'word'? I looked at the referenced cardinal numbers, but didn't see MOS-style 'rules'.

I admit I gave up on relying on common-sense with regard to the MOS after the extended wrangling over the one-and-only allowed binary number format. (I still haven't checked what they 'decided') But I would have thought 23rd was some kind of abbreviation.... ? Shenme (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aieeee! Head hurt! Need flowchart! :-) I found the reference you mentioned. It makes sense (space constraints), but it is an example that it is hard to know when you have dug deeply enough into the rules to know the 'answer'.

The controversy I was talking about was over at the MOSNUM#Binary_prefixes section and related areas. (I got to fix a link on the way to finding the section) Small reference to "no consensus" and "follow the lead of the initial contributor". Makes it kinda hard to change with the times, or even reference modernity.

Thanks for tracking down the sanity hidden in MOS! Shenme (talk) 06:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Adams Coles

Did Nathaniel Adams Coles use Charles G. Dawes of his 1912 composition "Melody in A Major," actually Nathaniel Adams Coles started only in the mid thirties ?Sorry if I am wrong felt he had not and felt the IP editor was mistaken.Not when he was the Vice president.My apologies if i am wrong and Thank you for correcting me.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bush reference

Who cares if you see no need? There are plenty of articles that have references that I might find unnecessary, but I don't remove any of them. Information in an article is supposed to be sourced, so I added a source. Stop removing it. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

~~{{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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sandbox

Responed on its talk page:

Wikipedia MoS states it.

68.148.164.166 (talk) 10:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the opposite: The sections make disamguation pages organized.68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I disagree. It will make the page more organized and more readable if they are headlined, as with all other disambig pages. Actually, the current format is required only in some pages, but in this case it isn't. The current format is only required when bluelinks are required in section headings, because headlines can not have bluelinks.Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator?

Are you an admin? Please repond on my talk page because I don't go on wikipedia much.68.148.164.166 (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you violated 3rr.68.148.164.166 (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your block discussion was right on top of mine, so it became extremely natural that happened across it. Wikipedia drama is the most interesting thing anyone can spectate.68.148.164.166 (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pine Nuts

Zsero,

I live in a small city in Minnesota. We have three grocery stores in town. The other day, I was at the smallest of the three, and I came across pine nuts, which were located in the baking section with all of the other nuts. I had two options: the pine nuts in the glass bottle from Europe, or the less expensive cellophane-packaged pine nuts from Asia.

Pine nuts do come in unshelled form in grocery stores. I urge you to check yours.

I can send you a photo of the package, along with the receipt, if you like.

I am hereby re-adding those few sentences of mine that you deleted. Thank you. --SweetNightmares (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unshelled? I'd like to see that. I live in NYC and I don't think I've ever seen unshelled pine nuts, at a grocery or anywhere else. All the ones for sale here are shelled. I'd like to see a photo, if it's not too much trouble. Or just tell me the brand name and I'll try looking up the manufacturer's web site or something. -- Zsero (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have the photo for you. Where shall I send it? It's from some company called "Baking Classics," which appears to be some generic brand distributed by SuperValu. I don't recall the brand of the other pine nuts I saw.--SweetNightmares (talk) 03:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Indiana citations needed

No, well-known facts do not indicate that it do not need any citation as readers know about it. In wikipedia, source must be given, for facts no matter well-known, or not. You can look at the article Continent. The article, for every fact, there is citation given. So source should be given. In the article there are more incited facts, and needs more sources. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for the location, you can remove the fact tags, but not for the other unsourced information. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the fact tags except "The Hoosier National Forest is a 200,000 acre (80,900 ha) nature preserve in south central Indiana". It need citation to clarify the fact "200,000 acre". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. If it is linked to main article, that does not mean this article do not link citation. Bring some citation from the main article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your and RebCoh's dispute

I have taken a quick look. There are concerns with both sides, but more with user:RebCoh:

Zsero - I'm at a loss to understand edits like this, which seem to show a revert of no real value at all and have an inflammatory effect on the matter. Also reverts like this with inflammatory edit summaries, that have lacked discussion. When it's clear a matter is the subject of dispute, then reverting with no discussion may not be best every time.

RebCoh - your editing is actually far more the concerning of the two. Epithets such as "Mr Apostrophe Hater!" [6] count as personal attacks, edits such as visiting an article specifically adding apostrophes everywhere [7], labelling a revert that is actually, quite reasonable (the lack of apostrophes is indeed a communal norm) as "vandalism" [8], edits such as this adding many quotes/apostrophes, edits such as this, this and this are childish and provocative, edits like this are disruptive (even if others have done the same sometimes), and posting the identical comment here here here here is unnecessarily flooding user pages and poor conduct.

You may find genuine discussion - rather than argument - helps.

Cross-posted to both your user pages. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Apology

I am very sorry to have become disruptive but if I may I would like to explain my position. This is my very first attempt to join Wikipedia. My first contribution was a brief quote from a Rabbi which was immediately reverted. My second attempt was a brief quotation from Rabbi Worch which was reverted with the following comment "(rv nonsense sourced to a vanity press publication from some idiot)" which hurt me very deeply because of my deep reverence for the Rabbi. I next added an apostrophe after "1800's" which was immediately reverted. I provided Zsero information from "Guide to Punctuation", by Larry Trask, University of Suxxex wherein he states "In British usage, we do not use an apostrophe in pluralizing dates. American usage, however, does put an apostrophe here." After which he instructs his British readers not to adopt this American practice unless writing for an American audience. Zsero, however, continued to revert the apostrophe. Now that apostrophe was not important to me but he insulted me in my very first editing experience in Wikipedia and then makes a big deal out of an apostrophe,which angered me. So I kept putting the apostrophe back and he kept reverting it, over and over. Finally I just gave up. I went to another site and he followed me there. So I decided to test him. I made a "no change" edit in the Halaka article. He immediately reverted it although there was nothing to revert and no reason for doing it. This angered me and I confronted him with this. He denied there was a "no change" edit and reversion although it is on record for all to see. My anger prompted me to make various comments and childish taunts. By the way, my "Apostrophe Hater" comment was meant as a joke. Obviously I do not believe the world is going to come to an end because of Apostrophe's or that Einstein quoted such. It was an attempt to turn a war into humor. To this very day I am unable to make a SINGLE contribution to Wikipedia in any way, shape, or form. I find this to be a useless place where just anyone off the streets can come in and edit, revert, and take out their frustrations on other attempting editors. I will not back to Wikipedia. RebCoh (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reguards to our earlier dispute, sorry:

Sorry. I'm not going to defend my actions, rather.. .. .. Well.. I don't know the correct wording.. Either way, they were uncalled for. After thinking back on them, I realized they were based off of an assumption, not a statement by another user. There isn't much else to say here, unless you want me to try to explain how I came to assume such. I just hope that you can forgive me, and we can both peacefully continue the ongoing fight against vandalism. Daedalus (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. Also, although I typically do not believe in grudges either, I find it hard to forgive Vanboto. For only the reason of feeling not alone in my.. .. (Can't think of word) in reguards to him, I just hope you feel the same. Just look at his talk page, and you'll see what I was refering to. Daedalus (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to let my fingers remember that, thanks. Daedalus (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks

I just wanted to thank you for keeping a close watch on the Richard Nixon and Barbara Bush pages, among others, and help stop vandals in their tracks. With Nixon, it is a tough job; being such a controversial figure, many want to smear him and add every little meaningless detail to his article, but you have greatly helped to prevent that. And I thank you. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 03:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schoolblock template

Thanks -- will try to remember that. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threat block

Please look at the history for Tony Accardo Jr, and the contribution history of its creator User:Harlempanther187 to give you some background. I have no doubt that this is the same person, trying to intimidate me. I'll undo the block if you feel strongly about it (it is an IP, after all), but would appreciate it if you have any better ideas on how to handle the situation. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I assumed you were an admin. I will ask for further advice at WP:ANI. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: numbers

I've no doubt that the MOS says numbers can be written as either numerals or as words. But I think when referring to someone's age, it makes a great deal more sense to write that he or she is "64 years old" versus "sixty-four years old". The latter just looks weird to me, and, I imagine, to most people. Cheers! Esrever ^(klaT) 23:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the {{Day header}} template...

Hi, I think that that was a really mean thing to do to just remove my template as if it were nobody's business without telling me first about it. It seems to me that you're not listening to me. Please do not brush this off as if it were a little minor comment, because it's not. You should really communicate and behave more respectfully. Cuyler91093 (Contribs) 09:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so listen. I was saying that {{Days of the week}} could be placed at the bottom of the page, should somebody want to go to another day without having to scroll up, and {{Day header}} can stay at the top, for the same reason as the former. ALSO, should this template be removed from Wikipedia, it will create an inconsistency, because all of the months are equipped with {{Month header}}. So.... if you think you know everything, then why don't you tell me what should be done? Cuyler91093 (Contribs) 09:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I won't stop you from removing whatever you want from the pages. FYI, I got those templates from the French Wikipedia, and I just thought it would be a good idea to share it on the English one, but, should my contributions go unappreciated, then that's fine too. Cuyler91093 (Contribs) 23:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Your block of 151.49.52.138

Thanks for your message [9] on my talk page. 151.49.52.138 (talk · contribs) was blocked as per an WP:AIV request [10], specifically regarding this edit. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At 15:02 the IP was given a {{uw-vandalism4im}} "last warning" message. Then at 15:11 the IP replaced the warning editor's talk page with "fuck you." For continued vandalism after their "last warning", I blocked the IP. This is perfectly consistent with our official policy on blocking. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were trying to say, but it seems like you are implying that it is improper to use template warnings with anonymous editors. The facts of this incident strike me as being quite simple:

the IP vandalizes a page and receives a {{uw-vandalism1}} warning
the IP ignores the warning, vandalizes again, and is issued a second warning
the IP ignores your warning, vandalizes again, and gets a {{uw-vandalism4im}} warning that clearly states "If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Template:X2, you will be blocked"
the IP ignores this final warning and most incivility replaces an editor's entire talk page with "fuck you"
the IP is blocked for 31 hours

The warnings given by Enigmaman, you, and Wisdom89 appear to be fully in order with each telling the IP the name of the vandalized page. Everything was done by the book, with the IP ignoring three levels of warnings before eventually being blocked for continued vandalism. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Callback

Left a response on my TP. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife)} 00:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiberius

I'm afraid I can't take credit for knowing my classics quite that well. I first went to the Oxford Classical Dictionary, and then the Cambridge Dictionary of Classical Civilization, but neither of them precisely dated Tiberius's withdrawal to Rhodes. I eventually wound up here; a Penn State historian's chronology was good enough for me (and, I think, Wikipedia). :-) Dppowell (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by Gettingitdone

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken in by saying I have made a false claim. Please examine this diff, it clearly shows my entire statement was removed by Gattingitdone. I am reverting your edit as per the following... **: If you look at the edit history of this AFD you will clearly see where I had made a comment at 05:28, 7 March 2008, which was removed as of the edit by Gettingitdone at 05:47, 7 March 2008. Where is your evidence to the contrary? --Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - The Diff [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchwoodwho (talk • contribs) 08:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then I ask you how my comment was removed between my edit and his, which are back to back.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have evidence that it was deleted and I've provided it to you in substance. I suggest we seek an admin to interpret our differing points of view, but please do not be say I'm insulting you when I have provided evidence.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I am a little put off by your comments about lack of sleep considering I have only been awake for a few hours, the tone seemed a little rude. I also at a loss for why you seem to not care that the diff doesn't match with the edit history and suggest I did something wrong. Why is my comment removed from the content of the diff in question if it appears in the top section? Is this a problem with Wikipedia that can lead to further confusion? As an editor I don't understand why you are so set against understanding what has happened here and instead seem to be finding fault with me personally. If there is a problem with the diff's content, as clearly there is, there is a larger issue that needs to be directly addressed to the correct administrative body so that further confusion on other edits is not encountered.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you have information as to my error I can't see how this is constructive to keep going around in circles when I have stated that I will gladly apologize if I can see what the mistake was. I feel you just trying to provoke an argument and I have raised this issue to the adminstration in hopes of a resolution that shows me exactly where I have made my mistake and thus allows me to apologize to the party I mistakenly wronged, something it seems you are hard-pressed to not to allow.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to my talk page.

I appreciate your zeal to right a perceived wrong, but please do not remove other people's comments from my talk page. I am quite capable of investigating such assertions and determining for myself whether they have any merit. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shannonez

That's fair enough, I think the reason I and others have been leaving messages is that they're not noting deletions as such in the edit summary, it's likely they're going to get more unless they start doing that. BigHairRef | Talk 22:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious Editor

Zsero wrote the following on the Semicha Talk Page;

The following sentences in this article are problematic:

"seems to have died out"

"ceased to exist"

"chain from Moses onward was broken"

"it is likely that formal semicha came to an end"

These uncited assumptions are not shared by all historians. These opinions should either be removed or accompanied with the opposing view. CWatchman (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought that sounded like a fair proposale, but Zsero replied:

Yes, they are shared by all authorities. Precisely when it happened can be debated, but that it happened cannot. It's no more debatable than the roundness of the earth. -- Zsero (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Watchman replied in a very nice manner:

Terms such as "seems to" and "it is likely" are obviously unsourced information. The one concrete term "ceased to exist" is just as totally unprovable as the Apostolic Succession and requires the same element of faith to accept as proven. But after all, isn't that what religion is all about? Faith? Who am I to question the Catholic historian who believes he has evidence of an unbroken succession, or an historian who believes he has evidence of an unbroken Smicha? The remaining fact is they believe it and the burden is upon us to disprove it, which we cannot. Mr Zsero I have looked over your talk page and you are a very bright and quick witted individual. I am sure you can discover a reasonable way to state that while most do not believe it continued there are some that do. It is just that simple. I will leave this to your fluent and concise editing skill to make whatever changes are necessary. editing skill to make whatever changes are necessary. CWatchman (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Zsero shot back (you can read the whole discussion on the Talk Page):

Good Grief !....... This is Wikipedia, not Uncyclopedia. Zsero (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Watchman continues to complement zsero here:

The bottom line is this: There are those that believe their is sufficient evidence that Semicha was unbroken and you cannot disprove them anymore then they can conclusively verify it.

I am a bit stymied as to why there seems to be an anger in your tone. I am trying to be as amicable as possible and even said I would leave editing of this article to you. Please try to bit a bit more open minded. You are a very intelligent person and have very much to offer not only this article but Wikipedia as a whole. CWatchman (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Zsero shot back:

This is not a place for lunatic fringe theories. -- Zsero (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Watchman said:

Thank you for your scholarly reply and amicable responses. Have a pleasant life. CWatchman (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Watchman later wrote what seemed to be a afair and reasonable proposal:

Editing Needed This article is parsimonious in content and fails to deliver a neutral point of view. Rather then barging in selfishly editing I would prefer to civilly discuss this matter further and attempt a joint edit text that we can then propose on the basis of our mutual agreement. CWatchman (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Zsero flatly refuses saying:

That's not going to happen, because the position you are trying to promote is complete bollocks. It's not even a notable fringe theory. It doesn't belong in this article. -- Zsero (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Now i enter the arena : Even if it was not a notable fringe theory, if you continue to provoke people to defend it, it will soon become popular just from the exposure. Nothing makes people come out and speak up more then persecution. Natzi's should know that by now. Remmo (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I also found this statement made by another editor Zsero was warring with:

My second attempt was a brief quotation from Rabbi Worch which was reverted with the following comment "(rv nonsense sourced to a vanity press publication from some idiot)" which hurt me very deeply because of my deep reverence for the Rabbi. I next added an apostrophe after "1800's" which was immediately reverted. I provided Zsero information from "Guide to Punctuation", by Larry Trask, University of Suxxex wherein he states "In British usage, we do not use an apostrophe in pluralizing dates. American usage, however, does put an apostrophe here." After which he instructs his British readers not to adopt this American practice unless writing for an American audience. Zsero, however, continued to revert the apostrophe. Now that apostrophe was not important to me but he insulted me in my very first editing experience in Wikipedia and then makes a big deal out of an apostrophe,which angered me. So I kept putting the apostrophe back and he kept reverting it, over and over. Finally I just gave up. I went to another site and he followed me there. So I decided to test him. I made a "no change" edit in the Halaka article. He immediately reverted it although there was nothing to revert and no reason for doing it. This angered me and I confronted him with this. He denied there was a "no change" edit and reversion although it is on record for all to see. RebCoh (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Anothe Editor wrote Zsero:

Zsero - I'm at a loss to understand edits like this, which seem to show a revert of no real value at all and have an inflammatory effect on the matter. Also reverts like this with inflammatory edit summaries, that have lacked discussion. When it's clear a matter is the subject of dispute, then reverting with no discussion may not be best every time. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Another editor wrote:

Hi, I think that that was a really mean thing to do to just remove my template as if it were nobody's business without telling me first about it. It seems to me that you're not listening to me. Please do not brush this off as if it were a little minor comment, because it's not. You should really communicate and behave more respectfully. Cuyler91093 (Contribs) 09:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. I won't stop you from removing whatever you want from the pages. FYI, I got those templates from the French Wikipedia, and I just thought it would be a good idea to share it on the English one, but, should my contributions go unappreciated, then that's fine too. Cuyler91093 (Contribs) 23:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

ANOTHER editor wrote:

If you have information as to my error I can't see how this is constructive to keep going around in circles when I have stated that I will gladly apologize if I can see what the mistake was. I feel you just trying to provoke an argument and I have raised this issue to the adminstration in hopes of a resolution that shows me exactly where I have made my mistake and thus allows me to apologize to the party I mistakenly wronged, something it seems you are hard-pressed to not to allow.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And this is just what I have gathered from his most RECENT edit history.

This man is an inflammatory, obnoxious individual that refuses to reason with any other editors. One last case in point: Just go to his Talk page and read the complaints against him.

All that is being asked is that either uncited ambiguious statements be removed or give the opposing view a small bit of space. Zsero will do neither. It is his way or no way.

Please advise

Remmo (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ever hear of using Diffs? Please don't text dump on peoples talk pages--Hu12 (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of it. Sorry Remmo (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remmo

Hi. Remmo seems to be a new editor, and may not be the most knowledgeable of proper wikiquette. Please have that in mind and engage him in discussion on Talk:Semicha. Thank you for understanding. -- Avi (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then file a WP:SSP report on them, if you believe that they are sockpuppets. -- Avi (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Unbroken Semicha Debate

I teach at a local College and I made the error of discussing the Semicha Wiki debate to my students. It is highly probable this is where these other debaters have come from. The history of the initial debater begins around the time I first began teaching the class the reversional history of unbroken Semicha and it was one of my students that insisted I become a Wiki editor to make my contributions. If my suspicions are correct I owe everyone an apology. Actually, in light of this theory, I am surprised there is not a more influx of debaters then has been heard from. I also speak other places frequently in various places in the U.S. I have also written much. But the timing with the College and the debate history seem more confluent. I will instruct the class to please leave this debate to me. I appreciate everyone's patience and my desire is not to debate and inflame but it is to enlighten and to share. Thank you for understanding.

CWatchman (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW any personal communication with me may be directed to the following email address: CWatchman2@gmail.com

CWatchman (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zsero,

Thank you your contributions to Wikipedia articles. I am somewhat new to Wikipedia.

Please notice that I have at NO TIME interjected ANY of my opinions in ANY articles. A simple review of my edit history will reveal this. Concerning the Semicha article please take note that all my editing has been on the Talk Page ONLY discussing my position accompanied with requests to assist me in making the article a bit more NPOV by removing uncited assumptions and perhaps to add little blip of information stating a small minority do not adhere to the broken Semicha theory. At no time have I attempted any of these changes myself. I am leaving that in more Wiki-experienced hands then my own.

(There are various groups that I could cite that are much more adamant about this and although I do not wish to advertise a fringe theory is there some way we could briefly mention their existence which is a concrete reality?)

Coincidently Unbroken Semicha is but a sideline research as my forte is in Psychology, English literature, and Religion.

Again I have not added anything nor reverted anything from this article confining all my requests and comments to the Talk Page to where I understood such comments should be confined. If I am in error I humbly apologize and submissively accept proper instruction in this matter.

Thank you for your understanding.

CWatchman (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear option

Well, I bow to your knowledge of US history :) It seems I was too hasty in my assessment. Anyway, just thought I'd make note that I have realized my rather egregious error, and that I bet you think I'm pretty dumb right now. I've made a note on the talk page about the line, since I was wrong. Anyway. Cheers! seresin | wasn't he just...? 02:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Edwards

thanks for the resize i had trouble with it... im putting a caption on now... its gingham with broken glass —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devon666 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categories, Pt. II

There appear to be a few problems here. Example, George Wallace should be categorized as a survivor since he was not murdered. And Tupac Shakur's case is interesting; he received bullet wounds in the first attempt, but died years later after another shooting. Could it be that this was the wrong description or is it something amiss? Please reply on your talk page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so Wallace is a survivor. What's the problem? And Shakur is both a survivor and a death, so he goes into both subcats. Again, what's the prob? -- Zsero (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no "problem". Just wanted to make clear that this change was appropriate. Who else is misplaced? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the people who are still in Category:Shooting victims, except perhaps some borderline cases like James Earl Ray, where it's hard to tell whether the death was caused by the shooting. Everyone else should be in one subcat or the other. But this is your project, not mine. All I did was change the description you had, which was incomprehensible. I helped with the initial sorting of people, down to the Ms. The rest is up to you. -- Zsero (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zev

Thanks for the link.

BTW, I want to share this, Does a site exist already translated into English?

CWatchman (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking whether this article has ever been translated into English, I don't know but I very much doubt it. The journal in which it appeared was not in English, nor was it published in an English-speaking country, so I don't see why anyone would have bothered to translate it. -- Zsero (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your reinsertion of politicalfamily.com spam

Not to start an edit war, but your reapplying of that spam isn't a way to improve things. Tedickey (talk) 10:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it's spam. They're references supporting the genealogical facts asserted in the text, which I suppose are of interest to some readers. I neither know nor care who owns the site, or what relationship Pres-scholar may have with it, but unless you give a solid reason why they should not be in the articles I will go on reinserting them. Merely calling something spam doesn't make it so. -- Zsero (talk) 10:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I now see you're claiming that "on review" the site "is not a reliable source". Any particular reason for that conclusion? -- Zsero (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - reading the charts closely, and recalling similar data on rootsweb, etc., I have a strong impression that the primary source (not given there) are unreliable sources such as rootsweb. (Do some reading and correlation on rootsweb, and you'll come to the same conclusion - the editors of that material routinely "fix" dates and names to provide connections which cannot be sourced reliably). By the way, the chart is copyright without giving a list of permissions - not something that one would want to quote from extensively. Tedickey (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright isn't an issue; facts can't be copyright. And if they're not facts then we shouldn't be citing them at all :-) Is there some previous discussion of rootsweb, showing its unreliability, or are you suggesting I just root around there, so to speak, and I'll find a bad odour? -- Zsero (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The latter (I'm citing my experience in finding google hits that point there, and finding that the data are tainted). You should become familiar with it, and similar sources. Regarding "facts" - some of the linkages are interpretations (lacking a cite in those charts to explicit external sources, you are not able to gauge which are factual, and which are research). Tedickey (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter, so long as it's honest research. -- Zsero (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it does. For instance, if pres-scholar happened to be the researcher, WP's policy wouldn't permit that. (I'm more concerned that the facts aren't supported - and for myself would not incorporate any of that unless I could support it with a separate reliable source). Tedickey (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source

It is taken from http://www.chabad.org/special/rebbetzin/marriage.html (linked from the special web presentation section of [12]). According to this site, it was taken in Purkersdorf, Austria. I think it can still be used with Template:Non-free fair use in. Chocolatepizza (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Story with the Strashelyer

I'll ask R Raichik when I see him.Gavhathehunchback (talk) 07:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]