User talk:Zad68

Berg v. Obama

Congratulation on creating Berg v. Obama. :) Here are some more things you can add:

His birth certificate confirmed by the court and three independent forensic experts to be a forgery.
His school registration stating that his name is "Barry Soetoro", that his nationality is Indonesian, and that his religion is (not joking) Islam.

Angie Y. (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need a source for that. If what you're saying (the first part) is true Obama would probably not be allowed to run for office and the news would be all over it. 66.53.208.37 (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does obamacrimes.com count? It has both things on there. Angie Y. (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"obamacrimes.com" can hardly be called a reputable, impartial source: It is in fact run by Berg! Besides, this is NOT the page to discuss what we personally think about whether Obama is qualified to become President, and this is NOT the page where we try to argue Berg v. Obama ourselves. We are not the lawyers, litigants or judges here. We are only to be recording the facts on this case as it progresses.

Zad68 (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism's view of Jesus

I just saw your post @ talk there explaining how the view of Jesus is peripheral. I have to say, I thought what you wrote was clear, concise, and accurate. Well done! Kaisershatner (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Socratic Barnstar
		I cannot say it better than Kaiser above: this statement is clear, concise, accurate, and elegant. -- Avi (talk) 08:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again…

Well done! I respect and appreciate when the logical fallacy in an argument can be clearly enunciated. Not only does it repudiate the previous statement, it also goes a long way in preventing ill-will, as the proposer of the flawed argument is not attacked; merely the logic (or lack thereof). However, to be persnickety, I think the fallacy involved is denying the antecedent and not the fallacy of the undistributed middle. Let statement A be "If MJ is Christianity (P), then it is not Judaism (~Q)". Statement B, at least according to DeknMike, is "MJ is not Christianity (~P)". From this, he wanted to state MJ is Judaism, but that is the fallacy of denying the antecedent, as ((P --> ~Q) ^ ~P) does not imply Q. -- Avi (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ALL CAPS is inappropriate

In internet speech, using ALL CAPS [1]is considered shouting. In all my editing, I refrained from namecalling and personal attacks, even though I have been the object of many. I laid out a case proving the term 'Messianic Judaism' existed since the 1800, but you and other editors continue to hang onto one source that has one line that might be interpreted to say it was created in the 1960. All my edit said was that after half a century of slow growth, the term came into prominence during the 1960s. I was deeply offended by your inappropriate behavior when 'piling on' to someone else's point of view. --DeknMike (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Zora Andrich

Hello Zad68. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Zora Andrich, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Ged UK 21:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Messianic Judaism

Thanks for your work on Messianic Judaism. Still not perfect, but the organizational changes and cleanup you did makes it much more readable. --DeknMike (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am glad you found the edits valuable! Zad68 (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DISCLAIM

Please talk before you delete/edit when a discussion is going on. Anyway, what has this policy got to do with whether articles should describe minority views? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of Messianic Jewish organizations

I have removed the prod tag you placed on List of Messianic Jewish organizations, as it was discussed at AfD in 2007 and is therefore permanently ineligible for deletion via prod. I only did this to comply with policy, and have no opinion one way or the other on the merits of deletion. If you wish to pursue deletion, please open another AfD. Thank you. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure you want to use the justification "directly lifted from each organization's own promotional copy in its web sites"? Most of the anti-missionary articles on Wikipedia have similar or even less-well-sourced references, and I've been told many times those sources were viable and valid (even the ones with a single editor expousing opinions). For example, Proselytization and counter-proselytization of Jews has six such sources in paragraph form that are less neutral than this list.--DeknMike (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policies apply to all articles, regardless of their subject. You must take into account what statement you are trying to use the source to support to see if it is appropriate to use it. Please review WP:RS and WP:PSTS. Zad68 (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In ictu oculi

I'm making a last ditch attempt to reason with User:In ictu oculi before dispute resolution becomes necessary. Would you mind going to his talk page and contributing to the discussion? Thanks. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zad68

I wasn't notified of this canvas, but don't have an enormous issue with it.

01:00, 11 December 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Zad68 ‎ (→In ictu oculi: new section) (top)
00:55, 11 December 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:PiMaster3 ‎ (→In ictu oculi: new section) (top)
00:54, 11 December 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Kauffner ‎ (→In ictu oculi: new section) (top)
00:53, 11 December 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:StAnselm ‎ (→In ictu oculi: new section) (top)
00:53, 11 December 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:IZAK ‎ (→In ictu oculi: new section) (top)
00:52, 11 December 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Marecheth Ho'eElohuth ‎ (→In ictu oculi: new section) (top)
00:52, 11 December 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Debresser ‎ (→In ictu oculi: new section)
00:52, 11 December 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Jayjg ‎ (→In ictu oculi: new section)
00:51, 11 December 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Musashiaharon ‎ (→In ictu oculi: new section) (top)
00:50, 11 December 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Mzk1 ‎ (→In ictu oculi: new section) (top)

However like other editors I decide what goes on my Talk page, so with all respect I have moved it back to Lisa's. 03:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Messiah

Hey Zad86, if you leave a warning for IPs, it's less likely to continue or, if it does, easier to block. BTW, you can apply for rollback (I don't think you have that), which will make certain things easier for you. See WP:ROLLBACK. Thank you. 207.157.121.147 (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... I will look into ROLLBACK. Technically I couldn't call that one IP user's edit to Messiah "vandalism" because it did not seem to be an attempt to deliberately worsen the page. There are sometimes well-intentioned edits that are entirely unhelpful, but not vandalism. It'll remain to be seen whether that IP editor will listen to reason regarding his edits, but thanks for going ahead and putting a warning on that editor's page. Zad68 (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smurf

Sorry, you can't A7 a Smurf. They ain't real people. Has to be prod or AfD for fictional ones, if all else fails - which I think it does. Not spam, not vandalism, enough context (and if there's enough context there must be content...), and neither hoax nor attack. Another possibility is redirect to the film article, as it doesn't really add much. Peridon (talk) 18:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is my first round of tryig CSD's, too bad there isn't a CSD for fictional characters! Zad68 (talk) 18:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few I'd like to see, but the Great God Kon-Sen-Sus has decreed otherwise... A tip for A7 is that (apart from web content) there are real people or animals in it. Could be a multi-national, a subaqua knitting circle, The Church of the Migratory Herring, Mrs Wiggins at No 48 Acacia Avenue, or Fluffy the Ninja Hamster (but not Hamsterus ninjoides - that's a species). Animals have to have names, people are assumed to. Web content is stuff on the web that is used (or even just read) where it is. Stuff that you download and use at home is not A7 material (but the site you get it from might well be...). You can get an author, but not the book. Not unless it's spammy enough... The main problem with A7 is what is and is not a credible assertion of significance. If it's a company run by a 12 year old, the assertion of offices in New York, Putney and Ouagadougou is hardly credible, except to those who believe that they have won prizes in competitions they never entered. (I knew someone who turned out to have gone through thousands that way - and they didn't even have a computer.) But if it's a 45 year old, it could be real. In my example, I'd say unlikely - do a Google and get it as a hoax or copyvio instead. I must get some of this onto a subpage - save making it up afresh each time... Peridon (talk) 20:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Peridon, very helpful! Always learning, and you should do some stand-up Wikipedia comedy... :D The more I am working with Wikipedia the more ... um... areas I see for improvement. Zad68 (talk) 03:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate Speedy Tags

Please do not try to force articles into speedy deletion criteria. When you tag something like Spotting a fake rolex as vandalism when it is blatantly not vandalism you potentially chase away good faith contributors who made a misguided attempt at first contribution. Instead, politely inform that editor how they can better use their time building the encyclopedia and use a more friendly deletion process, such as WP:PROD. Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be put off by the above. Better to remember WP:SNOW. I would probably have deleted spotting a fake rolex on the strength of your tag, if I had seen it before ThaddeusB. By a curious coincidence we have both been involved recently with the deletion of two completely unrelated articles. Re this edit: using naked URIs is very bad taste. And using a naked URI for an internal link screams "newbie". You should of course have written: User:FTS MD/Kindergarten.com. As to DePiep, probably least said the better. Your response of "why whatever test you were conducting could not have been performed in your own user space" was absolutely correct. If he happens to stalk this message and comes back with a still more angry response, we should both simply keep saying "why". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW is not a speedy deletion criteria and calling a good faith attempt at a (useless) article vandalism is really quite inappropriate no matter how you try to justify it. There is no hurry to delete such things and PROD works just fine with exactly the same editor & admin effort needed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RHaworth. I intentionally put a 'naked' URL there because I thought it would be more obvious and user-friendly to the newly registered user that was trying to create the page. I now see it's one of your 'groans'! :) I hope the editor trying to create Kindergarten.com sticks around and tries to get the page right. I put a notice at that editor's talk page, giving suggestions and offering to help. Zad68 (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with not putting newbies off with wiki jargon - indeed some more experienced editors may need help - see this discussion - I make no apology for having to ask what BRD stands for. But I draw the line at using naked URIs. I don't even think it more user-friendly. Someone who is familiar with this page (they probably wrote it!) can be expected to recognise a link when they see one. (That page also contains another deprecated style feature: "click here" - click here to read W3C's advice on the subject.) Kindergarten.com is very worthy but we must treat FTS MD (talk · contribs) with the usual suspicion we afford to apparent SPAs - did you see their comments about walled gardens - I think that is a blatant case of the kettle calling the pan black. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ThaddeusB do you really find PROD useful for new articles? It would seem that the same contributor who would click on the contest button of their article up for speedy-delete (or would even just remove the speedy-delete tag) would be the same user that would contest the PROD in a heartbeat. For new articles, it's either speedy-delete, or go down the AfD road. Zad68 (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are tagging articles that are one minute old (which IMO shouldn't be done except for copyright violation and blatant vandalism/attack pages anyway), it may or may not work that well. But, if the author has a chance to finish their work (say 1 hour old), it certainly works just fine. (For example, I have PRODed about 10 new pages this week and none have been contested yet.) Good faith contributors will often realize their error once alerted of it and not contest the deletion. Speedy deletion exists primarily to get rid of bad faith contributions (spam, vandalism) and autobiographies of non-notable people. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ThaddeusB this is helpful. In the past few days I've been trying patrolling new pages. Almost all my speedy-deletes have gone through but I've had a "learning experience" with a few of them. I haven't really understood why someone would put a brand new page into the main space with only like a sentence or two, saying "I'll finish it later." I've been watching the new pages and the "wait an hour" rule seems to apply. The one area I don't think it would work would be for advertisers/spammers--these people seem to brute-force revert or recreate articles until their ability to do so is removed. But what the heck I'll give it a try! Thanks again... Zad68 (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, speedy criteria are hard to get a hang of, so a learning curve is expected. As an FYI, if the same page is deleted ~3 times, the admin will SALT the page so at most the spam gets posted a few times (although I find most people give up and/or are blocked as purely promotional accounts after the first quick deletion.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OT: Does Wikipedia auto-notify you when some replies to something you wrote on a user talk page that isn't yours? I thought you had to notify with a TB notification. Zad68 (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I watchlist talk pages where I've left a message so I generally see the reply fairly quickly. A lot, but not all, users do this for a {{tb}} doesn't hurt if you are unsure/want to make sure something is seen. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fake watches

Thanks for this - sometimes I go too fast and don't preview my changes. You fixed an embarrassing mistake! :-P

No problem! Now I'm off to fix Recursion, as soon as I get to the bottom of the redirect chain.... :) Zad68 (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (sports)

I'm sure you didn't mean to nominate Wikipedia:Notability (sports) for deletion at AfD, so I've undone your edits and deleted the AfD. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS, and that was fast!! I was just in the middle of trying to undo it myself! Darn Twinkle doesn't handle tabs well, or something. Zad68 (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That thing with the title

I've changed 'content' to 'context'. There is content (and no links), but the text is completely irrelevant to the title. It's in Arabic, and seems to be about the Names of God. Nothing whatever to do with hieroglyphics, or the Macedonians or Ptolemies. (Ptolemys?) (Who cares?) Peridon (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... From my viewpoint, the article had no useful content to the intended readers of English Wikipedia, that's why I tagged it that way. I'm not totally satisfied with the speedy-delete criteria. Anyway, it's gone now. Zad68 (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Winston

I saw you tag Winston for a BLPprod. The article already had a reference to IMDb. Only use BLPprod tag when there are no references at all... can be reliable or unreliable. Bgwhite (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb credits count as BLP references? Ok. Zad68 (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any ref that backs up a statement in the article. There is some wiggle room on social networking sites and personal websites.... twitter ref? remove it and put up the BLPprod tag. If a Facebook, myspace or a person website ref is making statements about 3rd parties, blast the ref and put up a BLPprod.

Personally, I think it is stupid that you can't add the BLPprod tag for an IMDb ref, but a IMDb ref isn't good enough to take down a BLPprod tag.

For just an IMDb ref, you can place the {{BLP IMDb refimprove}} template. Bgwhite (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Dead Chill

Hello Zad68. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Dead Chill, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to movies or TV shows. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a mistake based on my comments above. Films and TV do have people in them, but they're a product not an assembly of people. (They're the product OF the assembly of people who are the cast and company. 'Nasturtium United Film Co' can be A7ed, but 'Return of the Nasturtium' can't - unless it's only found on YouTube, in which case it's web content... Peridon (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, so my lesson here is: You cannot speedy-delete any article (except spam) about a "thing" that is (claimed to be a) work product? Souls (for lack of a better word) or groups of souls like people, animals, companies, bands can be speedy-deleted, but if I put up a page about "Booyah!" and say it's a book and give even a one-sentence description of what it might be, it can't be speedy-deleted? FWIW, I tagged for speedy-delete something called Minglepong that was a game some college guys made up 3 days prior. I didn't find the right speedy-delete bucket and that time I didn't try to stuff it in a different bucket (I've gotten yelled at for that!), so I made up my own "speedy-delete because Wikipedia isn't for something you make up one day." That worked, but technically it should not have been a candidate for speedy-delete, because it was a work-product just like "Dead Chill". If them's the rules, them's the rules, OK... I think I'm getting closer to making fewer mistakes with CSD, thanks. Zad68 (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Although, some administrators may delete things outside the CSD criteria, they certainly should not. Things like games, books, neologisms, etc. are not (properly) speedy deletable (unless blatant advertising) because there is not community consensus that one person's judgement is sufficient in such cases. Anyone who deletes such things by his own volition is acting against community consensus that says administrators should not do so. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As ThaddeusB wrote, articles about products, including creative works, are not eligible for A7 speedy deletion. (Sometimes another criterion, such as G11 or G4, may apply.) Keep up the good work with NPP. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Danish Trade Council

Copyvio's gone now, so I declined speedy. What's there now is one sentence... Peridon (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sadly article is not very useful now. Zad68 (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Peridon - selective deletion should be used to redact the copyright violating edits when possible. (I have done so for you.)

General comment - a one sentence stub is not super useful, but it does encourage someone to write an article more so than a non-existant page does. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helmmatt

Hehehe, caught me right in the middle of moving the article to the editor's user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh... Wikipedia's lack of a data model strikes again. Is there anybody discussing making the sweeping, fundamental data modeling changes that really need to happen? Zad68 (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno! I tend not to be interested in those kinds of things. No worries about the CSD tagging and notice to me. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whisky with food

This article is not eligible for speedy deletion, because I already deleted the duplicate article per the author's request. Therefore, if you feel it ought to be deleted,. you must take the conversation to WP:AfD. I removed your 'speedy' tag. Bearian (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spam warnings

Am I missing something, or did you warn a user for spamming because they were adding inline links to a subject's official website mid-article, rather than using an "external links" section or formatting them as references? They aren't "inappropriate external links", they're appropriate external links that were just in the wrong place. --McGeddon (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I placed the warning as the editor, based on editing history, has clearly been trying to use Wikipedia to promote the organization, and promotion is the definition of WP:SPAM. The infobox already had the external link. It's in there twice now as you created the External Links section and put it there. That's allowed, it's fine now. Zad68 (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it looks like there may be some inappropriate promotion going on here, but that's no need to WP:BITE. You used two templates that said "Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia", to a user who had not added any inappropriate external links - this hardly helps them to realise what they did wrong, or how to avoid repeating their mistake. If you really had to use a template, Template:uw-advert would be more relevant to your concerns. --McGeddon (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first experience I had was where he inappropriately removed a speedy-delete tag. Then he added an embedded link to the organization's site, and added, embedded link to off-Wikipedia document, and he also goes on to create an infobox with the same link. The embedded off-Wikipedia site link was correctly removed by someone else, and the editor got a gentle warning, but then he added it back without discussion. I removed the embedded external links to the site and the off-Wikipedia PDF document, and he reverted without discussion, and in my edit summary I did ask him to talk it to Talk before reverting again, and so that's when he got the more stern warning related to links. The editor seems to be getting it now, he hasn't tried to embed the off-site link to the site in the article, and is now using the document that he was embedding links to as a reference instead. So the reason I was using the link warning was because all these issues were related to links. It is my fault for not also writing a better explanation to him about why the link he was trying to use were inappropriate in the places he was trying to use them, and I'll do better next time. Thanks for the coaching! Zad68 (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colin McCormick House

I removed the PROD on this page as the house is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. That has in the past been held as a sufficient indicator of notability, and I would argue that it holds here as well. The article needs some work, and I did a little cosmetic stuff to start with. But I don't believe it's delete-able. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at article talk page Zad68 (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For notifying editors of all opinions that were involved at a Talk:Apple media events dispute. Diego (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your work on the ESI page

I understand the piece's tone might not have been to your / Wiki's liking, and I will happily rewrite, however:

- someone deleted an image, permission for the use of which I'd already forwarded;

- you took it upon yourself to decide what does and does not constitute a department, what the institute's name should be and which faculty it 'belongs' to. None of these decisions was factually correct;

- in deleting certain portions of the article and retaining others, there are now inaccuracies on the page where previously there were none;

- the University of Exeter's Cornwall Campus page has links to other related institutions (Camborne School of Mines, Institute of Cornish Studies, for example), why not, then, to the ESI?

The page's history shows your multiple changes, but RHaworth's deletion of the page altogether. This process is by no means clear to me: can you tell me whose responsibility the deletion was? I'm working on the basis I should try for some answers to the above first - and maybe a second chance at a creating an article - before approaching the individual who appears to have deleted the page completely.

Thanks. JpESI (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JpESI, you are frustrated with your first experiences trying to contribute to Wikipedia, and I understand. Let my try to address your concerns:

Stefan2 tagged the file for deletion, and Fastily deleted with the comment "No evidence of permission for more than 7 days". Please note I had nothing to do with it. The file was deleted because apparently you didn't get the copyright information correctly applied to the file within the 7-day grace period. Frustratingly, Wikipedia does not show you edit history for a deleted item, and those edits are even removed from your Contributions log, so I can't totally tell what happened. However, if you have the correct copyright info now, you can simply re-create the file and this time include the copyright info right away. If everything is in order, the file should stay. You are discovering here that in certain areas, Wikipedia is very conservative, especially when it comes to: 1) Copyright infringement, and 2) Publishing possibly defamatory information about a living person (who might sue). Wikipedia does not want lawsuits and will err on the side of caution. However once you have the correct copyright release documented, the content can stay.
You are clearly associated with the ESI--"ESI" is even in your name. It appears you are working on behalf of ESI's publicity team. You need to be aware of Wikipedia's policy regarding conflict of interest. This potentially poses serious issues when you make edits about ESI. I have seen many, many editors who have a clear history of editing with the intention of promoting an organization be permanently banned from Wikipedia. This is not my idea, this is Wikipedia policy. Because of your conflict of interest, it is suggested that you do not edit anything related to ESI directly. Consider putting your suggested edits on Talk pages, asking other editors to make the changes. Read WP:COI for more suggestions in dealing with this issue.
Regarding your comment that I "took it upon yourself to decide," first please review: assume good faith. My edits were in good faith. I meant to improve the article based on the verifiable information I could find. I might be wrong, but my edits intended to improve. I placed the ESI text where I did after looking through the University's web site http://www.exeter.ac.uk. I guess I misinterpreted the information I was seeing on the web site. Where should it go? Let's discuss this on University of Exeter, Cornwall Campus's talk page.
Regarding the schools that have their own pages linked, it is certainly possible that ESI could have its own page. However, what happened was, after the non-encyclopedic and promotional copy was removed from the ESI article, there wasn't enough left for a stand-alone article. I'd suggest you develop the ESI article in your sandbox, and work with the new article review team to ensure it meets Wikipedia's policies regarding WP:SPAM as well as other content and quality policies. This would also get around your conflict of interest issue. The ESI article you started with (still in your sandbox) would not be more than a sentence, after editing out the non-encyclopedic content, this is why it got merged. Look at the content and tone of Camborne School of Mines, it's quite different.
Regarding RHaworth's delete, what happened was: Your initial page name was "The Environment and Sustainability Institute (ESI)". Having the abbreviation (ESI) in the name did not meet Wikipedia's article naming standards, and it was not a likely redirect or typo. Someone looking for "Environment and Sustainability Institute" would not be likely to type "Environment and Sustainability Institute (ESI)" in the search bar. So I renamed it to a better name, and did not want to leave the redirect, so I tagged the redirect for deletion, and RHaworth deleted it. This was a procedural thing, that's all.

Hope this was helpful. Zad68 (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time, it's appreciated. I need to go through all of this in detail and decide what I do next, although I think I'll start with the deleted image ... JpESI (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I see you noticed the CoI statement on my talk page. As advised, I've put it on the noticeboard, too, so far - two days later - there's been no feedback. My intention would now be to reinsert the much-rewritten ESI copy on to the Cornwall Campus page; its tone is, I think, neutral, informative, non-promotional. Hope this is all uncontentious and doesn't put at risk my rights to edit / add material. Thanks again for all the detail and explanation. JpESI (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you're taking Wikipedia's COI policies seriously. I looked at the proposed text at the COI noticeboard and it looks good to me, just make sure to provide references. I think with you being clear and "up-front" about your connection, and the sensitivity you are now displaying to maintaining an encyclopedic tone in your edits, you should be good. Zad68 (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Deletion of Bench Rules

I have removed your proposed deletion of Bench Rules. I have added content, and will continue to do so over the next few days. Thank you for your interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinsanity725 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for rollback

Hi Zad68. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war.
If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Hi, Zad! How are you? Travisplatypus (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm great. Your Operation Head Pigeons article gave me a chuckle, but I'm sure you understand that Wikipedia does not have articles about subjects like that one, which do not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, Zad68 (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLABLABLA

blabla bla bla bla bla !! . you know what i mean ?Vjiced (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't. Is this in response to the warning I put on your Talk page about your constant misuse of the Minor Edit checkbox? Was that warning really so hard to understand? Please be aware that editors who do not follow Wikipedia's core content policies and procedural rules usually do not have long editing careers here. Please stop your contentious editing. Zad68 (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		The Modest Barnstar
		In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.2.142 (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of web search engines

Hello, Zad68. You have new messages at Talk:Comparison of web search engines.
Message added 17:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

P.S.: please, don't leave me {{talkback}} – I watch that page. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3O

Hey, Zad, thanks for providing a third opinion! Just keep in mind that, when you do give one, please remove its entry from third opinion page. In fact, I usually remove the entry before even posting the 3O, so that I don't duplicate efforts with other people who see the posting while I compose my reply. Don't worry about it for now; I removed it for you. Just keep it in mind for the future. Thanks again! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for Redirecting the "Poitier Meets Plato" article for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AQuixoticLife (talk • contribs) 03:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	Thanks for redirecting the "Plato Meets Poitier" article for me. AQuixoticLife (talk) 04:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiThanks

You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.7.204 (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isaiah 7:14

As you've recently edited, ould you like to have a look at what I've done with this article and tell me any changes you think are necessary? PiCo (talk) 05:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I finally took a look at it, and I'd say you should be very proud of the serious progress you have made with the article. I'm most impressed with the sourcing, the cited sources are first-rate. However, I am not sure that the article accurately represents the sources. For example, the article says "The word almah has no exact equivalent in English: it meant a young girl of child-bearing age, i.e., one who has just entered puberty." and cites Childs 2001, p. 66., but on that page Childs goes on to explain that an almah is "a female sexually ripe for marriage," and that in most cases an almah does describe a woman who is not only "sexually ripe for marriage" but also a virgin as well. Defining almah in the lede with: "almah (young woman)" is oversimplifying to the point of misrepresentation and will probably get challenged. Regarding the wording of the article, it could use a little fiddly copy-editing but nothing major. Hope my feedback is helpful! Zad68 (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's very helpful, and thanks for taking the time to comment. I'll look into the points you raise tonight. PiCo (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zad, among other things I think it is objectionable that PiCo removed most of the material from the work, including a lot of good discussion on the exegesis of the verse. Could you take a look at the article before the edits and see if you agree?Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quark I will look. I did notice that, but I also think I remember that the original exegesis that was removed wasn't well-supported with good sources. Maybe I'm wrong about that. I'll look, thanks for drawing my attention to it. Zad68 (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richters study

Thanks for providing a link to that study. I thought I had a copy of it, but it didn't look familiar (perhaps my memory's failing — at 34 I'm getting old!). Anyway, a mid-90s study of Australian men would see a strong correlation between age and circumcision status (since circ rates dropped over time). So my guess is that the difference was due to simple confounding: younger men tend to have slightly larger penises as they have more testosterone (and are less prone to conditions such as ED that can cause shrinkage). This is OR, of course, so I won't say anything at the article, but I thought it was interesting. Jakew (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol... if you are "getting old" at 34, what hope is there for me?? You bring up a good point as to why we have such high standards for medical claims.... and anyway now that we have the original study we can discuss that and throw out that anti-circumcision conference proceedings book. Zad68 (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your thorough research, and lucid and logical comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Since you've been involved in related discussions, I thought you might like to be aware of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Circumcision. Best wishes, Jakew (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jake. Zad68 (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've yet to actually weigh-in on the evidence, merely commenting on how mediation is going. I was expecting some research out of you, as happened on the talk page. Rip-Saw (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rip-Saw, thank you for your high expectations of me, I take it as a compliment. I'll look, but as I mentioned on the DRN thread, I don't think we're going to get to consensus either there or on the article Talk page. I'm not sure what to do next. The DRN Clerk on the DRN thread mentioned that if consensus isn't achieved, whatever change is proposed won't stand. I did spend some time today trying to figure out what the previous consensus was on whether the "African men" qualifier should be added to the lead sentence, and as far as I can tell, a case can be made that the previous consensus was the sentence without the qualifier, and so those who are looking to add the qualifier would not have consensus to do so. I know, it's a cop-out, and avoids the true challenge of mounting an unassailable case, but it definitely appears there are two "camps" about this issue with no middle ground. Based on the amount of text already typed on the subject, I'm not sure I see consensus ever happening. I haven't been convinced that trying to achieve consensus on adding the qualifier is the best use of my Wikipedia time. Zad68 (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArticleSabotage

You've erased vital information about lawsuits involving the Mogen clamp from Mogen clamp. Please restore my original format. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I addressed this with MurasakiSunshine at Talk:Mogen clamp; MurasakiSunshine apologized "for claiming [I] vandalized the Mogen clamp page". Zad68 (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I notification re: Blanket removals of refs as "Not RS per RSN"

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Blanket_removals_of_refs_as_.22Not_RS_per_RSN.22_.28Moved_from_WP:RS.2FN.29. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will look. Zad68 (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was reluctant to raise it at ANI because I really don't want to make this a personal issue against an editor, but surely we can find a better way to handle "de-RSing" a site with a large number of cites. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at the AN/I. That was difficult. This is an editor behavior issue involving disruptive editing and should be treated as such. What he is doing isn't the issue as much as how he is going about doing it. Zad68 (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution advice

The two other parties are yet to respond with their views, and I certainly do not wish to undermine this dispute resolution process by precipitously implementing suggested changes. At what stage may I proceed with other editors' advice and effect these changes?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 20:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have too much experience with DRN, but I would definitely wait at least a day for their input. If the other parties don't respond on the thread within a day, I would put (additional) Talkback notices on their User pages reminding them about the discussion. Someone who clerks DRN and notices that discussion has stopped will probably close it. My little experience with DRN is that you don't really get a decision, like you might want. You'll get input from other editors, encouragement to come to consensus, and then (maybe) an evaluation from a DRN clerk that you have or have not reached consensus. That's it. Zad68 (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you for your input and assistance.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 21:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CBraro

Vaffanculo! How can you say that what I added was a lie?

It is a small page, and I AM FROM THE VILLAGE, you do not know anything about them so why do you lie and remove it?

Idiotaaaa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.102.190 (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the edit you added to Colobraro was: "A famous superstition within local villages is to touch the genitals if one mentions the village in any form, as if to prevent any bad luck occuring to the individuals involved," without any source. The sentence you added seems highly unlikely to be true, but it is possible that it is true. If it is true, then you need to add a reference to a reliable source backing up your statement, and also if it is true, please accept my apologies for tagging it as vandalism. I try to be very careful with tagging vandalism, and I do indeed do research before tagging something questionable as vandalism. I did searches on "Colobraro superstition" and although I found that the town does indeed have superstitions, there was nothing about "touching the genitals." However I am only human, I am not 100% perfect, and I occasionally make mistakes. Also, please review assume good faith--your addition looked like vandalism, and my revert of your edit was only intended to improve the encyclopedia. And there is no reason to call me an "idiot," or say I "lie." Thank you. Zad68 (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry it is because this computer is shared by many individuals using an out of country networking system in kent, and our mac addresses/ips are all the same — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.102.190 (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, please consider creating your own account to use to edit Wikipedia. Zad68 (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why

Not sure why, but lately everyone seems to have a little bit of Wiki-stress. I cannot seem to say anything without someone leaving a closing comment contrary to anything that I say. I am not here to argue, but to explain what I meant by nobility and then move on and enjoy editing Wikipedia. That is why I am coming to your page as opposed to keeping this in the public realm. I completely understand the guidelines and what you are saying (which by the way are guidelines, not law and Common Sense often needs to take their place - NO, I do not want to argue this point like we are arguing nobility). By the way, I am used to being beat over the head as I am also a lawyer in real life (gaming lawyer nonetheless) so no need to apologize about that. First, the article itself is notable. There is significant coverage, but there is a lack of independent coverage that I have found when trying to search as it is clouded up with affiliate links. This is common with other topics as well which is why I am trying to improve the article (Not argue nobility). If you fell the article is not worthy, you can recommend merge or deletion. I have no issue with that. I just don't know the reason for all of the Wiki beating lately (not you personally, but you happened to be the person I vented on - So THANKS, and SORRY!). --Morning277 (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Morning277, regarding "There is significant coverage, but there is a lack of independent coverage"--isn't "independent coverage" exactly what Wikipedia requires? Is it possible you are too close to the subject to evaluate its coverage relative to Wikipedia policies objectively? Hopefully just planting a seed for thought. I have no plans to follow you around and argue with you or try to get the articles you are interested in deleted, I'm just concerned about the apparent disconnect with what you're describing and what Wikipedia says. Am I missing something? (I know I know... "common sense"! :P ) Anyway, thanks for the beer! Sure could use one. Zad68 (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I like to keep an open mind when evaluating content. I am definitely not "too close" to the topic and online gaming is not legal in the United States (the states have the right to do it but no one as of yet has established any regulations to allow it). I am actually more of an expert on the topic of gaming which is why I would be more suitable to edit the article than someone who just came by and wanted to add a citation (which is what brought us here in the first place - someone placing a link where it should not have been). As far as Wiki-stress, I am far from it. I just happen to see it from a lot of people lately. Have you seen the same (obviously you see it from me)? Seems like every article that I stumble upon there are people arguing the nobility of the article, the objectivity of a citation, the formatting of headings, etc. Seems like people have gone crazy over the past week. I don't know, maybe it's just me. Have fun, see ya around. --Morning277 (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC) P.S.-You're not missing anything. You are correct with your contention. We are probably just on opposite ends of the spectrum with how we view the guidelines. This is what happens in most cases involving "disputes" such as these.[reply]

A beer for you!

AND ONE ON ME!!!! Morning277 (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ees

For alle versjon er oppfort nedenfor, klikk pa sin dato for a vise den. Hvis du trenger mer hjelp, kan du se hjelpesiden: historie og hjelp: Rediger sammendrag.