User talk:Zezen/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 1 of Talk page:

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Iryna Farion may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 2014 Odessa clashes|May 2014 massacre in Odessa]], with 38 dead after a building was set on fire), she wrote on her personal Web page: "Bravo, Odessa. (...) Let the demons burn in hell." <ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Your edit-warring on Philoumenos (Hasapis) of Jacob's Well

Hello. I have reverted your latest revert since a statement such as "After his guard left home, Philoumenos was hacked to death with axes by Jewish Zionists" requires a very solid reliable source that says exactly that (it's not possible for me to verify your reference, since it requires an account, which I don't have...). So slug it out on the talk page, with whatever references you want to add, instead of edit-warring on the article. You're already at two reverts today, BTW, so don't revert me, or I'll give you a formal edit-warring warning. Thomas.W ^talk 18:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. See your own talk page for the answer Zezen (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I just wanted to say thanks for your work in maintaining the accuracy and quality of writing in the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philoumenos_(Hasapis)_of_Jacob%27s_Well I see that there are some who would fill the article with weasel words and inaccuracies, and I am glad that you are working to prevent these from entering the article. Thebrainkid (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Explanation to readers: in short, I was right in this revert war, as I could prove by providing many more references. Zezen (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Goodluck Jonathan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• He was supported here by the Chairman of the [[Independent Corrupt Practices Commission]]), Ekpo Nta, who agreed to this new definition<ref>{{cite news|title=Nigerian Politicians are

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Simon Mol. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Please don't keep adding this without sources specifically calling this a parallel case. As an aside, Mol is not a "cases". Dougweller (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Simon Mol, apart from being a person and celebrity, was also a medical and epidemiological case. I added scientific sources, with citations. If you want, I can find the original WHO reports. Please discuss these on the Talk pages.

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Zezen, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to Simon Mol has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied without attribution. If you want to copy from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. You have to trim those quotes to no more than about 220 words. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I will remove excessive quotes. Zezen (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This is why I said there is a copyright problem and needed to know where you copied from. Dougweller (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I am perplexed. I had written in the edit summary after recreation that this article ws recreated. See the history of edits. I cannot reedit this summary now. What exactly do you want me to do? Since you are a much more experienced Wikipedian, the fastest is that you provide such a note in the place you deem fit. Zezen (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Criminal transmission of HIV. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. This might also be considered a BLP violation - with [1] you called the List of HIV-positive people the "List of perpetrators of criminal transmission of HIV" thus labelling them all criminals. Mol by the way was never found guilty so we can't suggest he was a criminal. Presumption on innocence and all that - we only label people as criminals if the court has done so first. Dougweller (talk) 07:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, Dougweller. In turn, please do not remove sourced content across articles, which is more serious POV action defeating Wikipedia's purpose. See my longer warning here with quotes and details of what you are engaging in. I hope it is not intended. Zezen (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Warnings like that on talk pages are at best deprectaed - you can link to policy and guidelines but don't use templates please. Please understand that simply providing a source that meets WP:RS isn't enough. The source must directly discuss the subject - a lot of yours actually don't, at times in major ways - editing Wikipedia is very, very different to writing a journal article where you can use sources that don't discuss a subject to build an argument about that subject. It is original research to interpret a source. Sometimes sourced material is inappropriate because it fails WP:NPOV, eg WP:UNDUE or for some other reason isn't appropriate. Dougweller (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Simon Mol may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• //web.archive.org/web/20071225100654/http://www.simonmol.com/2006/06/simon_mol_footb.html|quote=("Besides, I have had the opportunity of meeting two great Polish soccer legends; Grzegorz Lato and

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Simon Mol shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm too tried to do anything about this, but right now it looks as though you have ignored my message above and continued to 'revert'. which includes replacing material others have removed. If I did what you are doing I would expect to be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Dougweller and other readers,

I indicated the repeated problem of other user removing salient reliably sourced statements, and proposed that s/he edits the statements, as long as the sources and claims remain.

As you know, the other user declined discussion on the talk page, trying to continue to delete them, stopping short of being being banned for RR himself. Zezen (talk) 09:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You have made a false statement here. The only editor who declined discussion was you, repeatedly, as shown by the talk page history, I posted four or five comments on the talk page at that time about that edit that you didn't answer. Please retract your false claim. You asked that I keep a certain citation regardless of whether it supported the material in the article. That's backwards. The onus is on the user adding article text to find consensus for its inclusion, sourced or not.__ E L A Q U E A T E 11:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@__ E L A Q U E A T E

As I wrote in public, I decided to not touch Simon Mol here again. You PC guys win. I will continue my work on his real biography on my blog.

Have a fine day. Zezen (talk) 11:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Iryna Farion

Please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, Ymblanter. It is not an exceptional claim, either. I will revert my edit. Zezen (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Witchcraft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair use

Please see WP:FAIR, especially WP:NFCC#8. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have about the policy. --B (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

A couple of things to read up on

You might want to check out WP:WEIGHT and WP:CANVAS before you get into trouble - I see some warnings above for edit warring. You also need to read talk page comments carefully, there was no support for your edit, there was support for a brief mention. So your restoration was against consensus and some of the comments you made trespassed on criticism of editors not addressing content. That is especially important in controversial areas and anything involving child abuse is controversial by definition. Reading carefully what is said, working with other editors will get you a lot further than claims that you have 'won' when no one supports your specific edit but 4/5 editors think there should be a brief mention. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Snowded,

Thank you for your advice. My short answer: Wikipedia is collaborative effort. As long as our contributions are edited for style, length or clarity, leaving the sources and their purport, and not deleted en masse without good arguments, I am all in for that.

I am retracting my most recent comment about your edits herein, as you finally kept the sources. Thank you for agreeing to the consensus. I am sorry for my (now deleted) comment: I was basing them on your previous edits, which were removing the content and its refs en masse. Now you restored them and reedited the content for brevity. I am happy about this version now and thank you for your work.Zezen (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Note to self if smb vandalizes Campaign for Homosexual Equality again: source here. Zezen (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

National Front (UK)

Waiting for a bit then trying to reinstate edits for which you have non consensus is a form of edit waring you know. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Snowded , Thank you. 1. Which edit(s) do you mean - the one to the CHE article above, for which consensus has been reached, or one of my newer ones, e.g. today's? Please link the diff, as I have made many edits today, see my contribs page. Some were mostly stylistic, while the other ones required in-depth research.

2. I am not being ironic here: please help me understand, as an experienced Wikipedian, whose opinions and contributions I value, as you know. What is Wikipedia consensus policy for deleting somebody's bona-fide edits vs for inserting these? Once you wrote here that I (and presumably all Wikipedians) should seek consensus before (any?) edits inserting new materials. You called some of them "bold", which I deem a subjective opinion.

I believe the opposite: one should seek consensus before *removing* smb's properly sourced contributions, not before adding these. Chilling effect springs to mind.

Please answer both. Off Wikipedia now, so will be able to answer only in a few hours' time. Zezen (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The ones I reverted on National Front where you had already been reverted. Wikipedia is very clear, if you are making a change you have to have consensus on the talk page if your original edit is disputed. The fact that you have sources for something does not mean that it passes tests of weight and bias. WP:BRD is pretty clear ....----Snowded ^TALK 05:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Alas, I am none the wiser. Deja vu: you claimed the same when similar edits deleting my edits with the same sources within two related articles. As you know, these sources remained after consensus therein. I added this dispute to the article's talk page. See you there. Zezen (talk) 10:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shuysky Tribute, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page False Dmitriy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Hello, I'm AKS.9955. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to History of atheism because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2