User talk:Zahd

Your user page

I just blanked your user page as it appeared to be inappropriate per WP:UP#NOT. – ukexpat (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I was forced to do the same. We are allowed enormous leeway on the content of our userpages, but that polemic and dogmatic statement was a total violation of our rules here. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Dude, you can't keep violating WP:UP#NOT: "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia; in particular, statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive." Consider using userboxes instead. You might find something of interest here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

How is what I said "attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons?" -Zahd (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Emphasis on "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia." I just quoted the whole thing. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Those aren't polemical as much as they are apologetic. Judging by how much I have to defend them... -Zahd (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

They are polemical, and they are completely unrelated to Wikipedia. This site is not a personal blog or webhost. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I want to remind you that WP:3RR applies to edit warring on your user page. —teb728 t c 02:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC) PS You might find life better if you switched to Conservapedia. —teb728 t c 02:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Im pretty tired of these pro-choice people chiming about how much polemics don't belong, when every single edit they do is motivated by their bias. -Zahd (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You've passed 3RR with that one. I've protected the page for 24h. I don't care about your bias, their bias, or any of that. Polemics do not belong on user pages, plain and simple. Hiding the crap in comments doesn't help (and I would argue that "God exists" is polemical; that may be debatable, but I'm sure if an atheist put "God does not exist" on his userpage, someone would complain). It's not difficult to simply put "I am Zahd, I believe in God and am pro-life" on your userpage, and I doubt anyone would have an issue with that. Your persistence seems to indicate that you are intentionally acting disruptive, however. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You've taken the step of violating my userpage, because of the statement "there is a God?" Anything else on that page I had hid from view, and it therefore is no business of yours. -Zahd (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You passed 3RR, and the other elements on the page were still there, commented out or not. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but they were not "commented out." They were hidden from view in the page, were they not? Therefore the only thing actually visible on the page was "There is a God," correct? Now, why did you remove this statement from my user page, when a short statement of that kind on my user page is my business and noone elses? -Zahd (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:UP, WP:NOT. I'm not repeating this again. Your userpage is not your personal website. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask you again; why did you remove a short and simple statement about God from my userpage? Is it because you are an atheist? Is it because you think the Flying Spaghetti Monster concept is the perfect retort to religious belief? Why, in the name of UP and NOT are you violating DBAD? -Zahd (talk) 05:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The supposed secret intents of other users is none of your business Zahd, nor is it acceptable to cast aspersions and accusations of bad faith.--Tznkai (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that what people are saying about me? That I'm somehow acting in "bad faith" because I state on my userpage "there is a God?" The "bad faith" (note the irony) in fact is not mine. -Zahd (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No. You're being disruptive - but probably for entirely genuine reasons, or at least I assume so. Believing that the only reason your behavior is being called to task is because you're being persecuted (or so you have been implying) is an assumption of bad faith. I believe you have come to Wikipedia to improve it - but what you're doing with the abortion article is the opposite.--Tznkai (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not being disruptive. I've simply insisted that the pro-life side be adequately represented, to balance out the pro-abortion bias called consensus on Wikipedia. The abortion article should state clearly that "many in the pro-life camp consider abortion to be murder." You won't find it in the medical journals, but its substantiated. -Zahd (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

How you do something is about as important as why, more so in fact in many ways. I have no problem with you insisting that Pro-lifers get fair treatment. In fact, I encourage it, just as I would encourage you to make sure that pro-choicers get a fair shake. Additionally, I want to make sure that the third forgotten group gets a fair shake - the people round the world who don't want to keep fighting the culture wars. The way you have been pursuing your goal has been disruptive, tendentious, shrill, and against a number of our conduct and content policies. You're capable of much more than just editing narrowly on controversial issues, abortion in particular.--Tznkai (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

As to the particular edit, sure. I'm about to try something out on the abortion article.--Tznkai (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Zahd.2C_WP:UP. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

And again. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Supermassive black hole (disambiguation)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Supermassive black hole (disambiguation), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Unneeded disambig.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Remurmur (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I vandalized your user page.

I'm sorry I vandalized your user page. I made what I thought was a funny edit. Most importantly, I thought you wouldn't really mind that much. Veecort (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 3 days for the trolling and disruption on ANI, along with the highly inflammatory rhetoric on both ANI and your userpage. If you wish to contest the block, please use the {{unblock}} template. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you're acting in bad faith. At my last edit, the only thing on my user page was "there is a God"; (mental note to self: which some people seem to have a problem with). The concepts expressed on the ANI page were explicit, exact, and proper in dealing directly with the statements and points made against me. In all, I think you are violating policy by blocking me. Thanks. -Zahd (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This was the final straw. The There is God statement doesn't bother me. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You said: "You're suggesting the pro-choicers will burn in hell" which was not true. I suggested no such thing. Your statement was incorrect, and I attempted to offer a more correct summary of the "suggested" implications of the text I wrote on my userpage (hidden, no less). I was of course, answering your assertion directly. -Zahd (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: you may not have a problem with it, but Baseball did, and removed it, even though it was not germane to the discussion on ANI. Why? -Zahd (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I restored "There is God". If you don't understand why the "fire and brimstone" sort of discourse is unacceptable on Wikipedia, then I'm not sure that you should continue editing. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being reasonable. Love is salvation. -Zahd (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

When your block expires, you could say, "I am Zahd, I believe in God and am pro-life" as Consumed Crustacean suggested above. Or you could switch to Conservapedia; they probably would welcome what you have to say. —teb728 t c 05:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "Hello I'm Zahd \ There is a God" sounds like verse, assuming I'm pronouncing Zahd correctly. May I suggest: "My position is pro-life \ Please end this wiki-strife". (Obvious disclaimer: I suck at poetry) -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has butted heads with Zahd, I'd like to suggest that maybe this would be a good time for him to edit less controversial articles. The alternative is to either give up on Wikipedia or annoy the mods until they boot him for good. Spotfixer (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I see, so you think only someone like you; someone who's stated he thinks that God is like Santa Claus in that he is only something the children believe in; should edit controversial articles. People like you, who if asked "should I get an abortion?" you might say "have a great abortion, and by the way don't forget 'there is no God.'" I certainly think otherwise, and though my edits are NPOV, I make no secret of it on talk. -Zahd (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that if your edits are persistently POV, then the predictable endgame is you being indefinitely blocked. Per WP:NPOV, "This (NPOV) is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.". Black Kite 19:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"I certainly think otherwise, and though my [article] edits are NPOV, I make no secret of it on talk [pages]" -Zahd (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really the point, because as you've found out, you then fall foul of WP:UP. Black Kite 19:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You said "This (NPOV) is non-negotiable and expected of all articles," and I answered accordingly. Now you say "[that's] not really the point" even though that's what you wrote. Now youre onto the userpage concept, which is something else entirely. -Zahd (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

FG an "important phenomenon"?

Hey there, could you please take a look at this discussion? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cognition

Template:Cognition has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Buckethead (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Buckethead (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Widefox; talk 13:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Galactic Center (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Galactic Center (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galactic Center (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Sola scriptura (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sola scriptura (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sola scriptura (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 16:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)