User talk:ZHurlihee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, ZHurlihee! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking Insert-signature.png if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles

hydraulic fracturing article[edit]

Hi ZHurlihee,

Thanks for your solid work on the article on hydraulic fracturing. I was a little confused by one of your deletions, though. You deleted a large chunk of well-sourced text (which someone had no doubt worked hard on) under the rationale that it was redundant with the article on the FRAC act. However, that text wasn't to be found in the latter article, nor was an even remotely equivalent section. I agree that it's good to cut down redundancies and tighten up articles, but valuable information can get lost if we're overzealous with deletion. I've added the text you deleted to the FRAC act article, and added a template - {{main|Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act}} - to the section in the hydrofracking article so that interested users can know that there's another article that deals with the subject in more depth. I hope you find this solution satisfactory. Sindinero (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I honestly didn’t know the material wasn’t in the parent article. I'm glad you fixed that. ZHurlihee (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

John Walker Lindh[edit]

Hi, before an edit war started, I posted on the JWL Talk page my reasoning for why the National Geographic link should be kept on the page. Feel free to discuss it with me there! jlcoving (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well done[edit]

Barnstar-stone2-noback.png The Epic Barnstar
For your contributions and adding a dose of reality to the Phoenix Program

Well done on your up hill effort to bring a little balance to the article. The tough part is trying to keep it balanced. V7-sport (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! ZHurlihee (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

July 2011[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jamie Leigh Jones. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You have re-added the False accusation of rape article to the see also section of Jamie Leigh Jones today. You are already in violation of the 3RR, but I won't block you at this point, though should you continue, the odds are great of you being blocked. Courcelles 20:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

RFC on Roscelese‎[edit]

What RFC is that? I can only help if it is quick, since I am very late in delivering a university project. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation[edit]

These edits by yourself appear to have copy and pasted some material (entire, or almost entire sentences) from this source, without directly quoting the source. It is likely that this is a copyright violation. Would you be able to re-write in your own words, any additions to the article that were copy and pasted from copyrighted sources, and have not already been directly quoted? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Not my edits .. nosirey! I simply tried to trim down what was superfluous. The material was originally added by this guy with these edits. Please go yell at him :). ZHurlihee (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
This guy too it looks like. ZHurlihee (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
My mistake, sorry. It looks like there's even more copyvio in that article than I thought, then.
Can you comment on this edit? Appears to introduce unquoted copy-and-pasted material from this source, but again it's possible it's just material that was present earlier and you've merely moved around in the article? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I honestly cant recall. ZHurlihee (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Another one to look at ... these edits seem to introduce very close paraphrasing of this source, specifically of the phrasing it uses Stewart was a "movement" lawyer -- she didn't just defend the legal rights of her clients; she also advocated their politics. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Could you suggest the best way to correct this? I am at a bit of a loss. I thought the citation was enough in many of these cases. ZHurlihee (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
It really isn't, especially for the Jamie Leigh Jones problems, where most of a sentence is copy and pasted word-for-word with not even small changes in phrasing. I know it can sometimes be very hard to re-write an idea effectively while still retaining accuracy and readability. For the Lynne Stewart sentence I have gone with "who took a wider interest in promoting the general political interests of those she represented, rather than only dealing with the specific charges against them".
If there's a possibility that there is more outstanding material that's still copy and pasted or very closely paraphrased (in these articles or in others) then really you should review that material with a view to dealing with any problems. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I will, would you mind checking back on them in a day or two and letting me know what you think? ZHurlihee (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes I'll try and remember to do that. Thanks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


Hello Z! Noticed your work on Koch articles, and also that there is no nav box for Koch-related articles. There are plenty of articles, see Category:Koch family. Wondering if you were up to creating a box? – Lionel (talk) 09:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I wouldnt know how to go about doing that. ZHurlihee (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and created it. I basically copied "Bush family" to a new template, swapped the Bush stuff with Koch stuff, and saved it. In case your interested this group can be of assistance in improving you're editing skills [1]. – Lionel (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


For any appeals, please contact BASC. –xenotalk 01:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User talk:ZHurlihee/Chomksy[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg User talk:ZHurlihee/Chomksy, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:ZHurlihee/Chomksy and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:ZHurlihee/Chomksy during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)