User talk:Zsero/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

avir comes from greek

You said that hebrew awir comes from greek awer. This is interesting. Could you provide a source for this assertion? Everything I've read says that nobody knows whether the one got it from the other, which way the borrowing went, or if they both borrowed it from somewhere else. Tomer ^TALK 20:31, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

The fact that it doesn't appear at all in the Bible, but is used extensively in the Mishnah and Talmud, which also contain many other Greek and Latin loanwords, strongly suggests that it came into Hebrew from Greek or Latin. And since the Latin word came from Greek anyway, I wrote that it came from Greek, which I think is a fair way of putting it even if the path was via Latin.

Is it possible that it was a Hebrew word that happened not to be used in the Bible (there must have been many such words, which are now completely lost), or that was coined or borrowed after Biblical times, and that Greek and Latin borrowed it from Hebrew? I guess it's possible, since I don't know the earliest Greek use, but it just doesn't seem to me very likely. In any case, it seems to me extremely unlikely that it developed independently in both Hebrew and Greek, which means it's not a false cognate.

As for the Welsh word, no I have no source for it coming from Greek or Latin, but again it seems almost impossible that it didn't. I think the burden of proof would have to be on someone asserting that it had a different origin.

Be that as it may, "strongly suggests" is not an acceptable rationale to make an assertion and call it fact. Do you have a source you can cite that says that the one was borrowed from the other? Otherwise what you've done is technically a violation of Wikipedia's ban on "original research". Tomer ^TALK 20:49, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Better question: does anyone have a souce they can cite showing that the two words are false cognates? If not, then it seems to me that including them on the page in the first place is "original research", which I have merely corrected...

My guess is that whoever put it there in the first place just thought it unlikely that Hebrew and Welsh would have come in contact with each other, or would have a source in common. Except that that isn't the case, at least with regard to Mishnaic and later Hebrew.

I'm sure somebody does, just not me. User:Angr or User:Dbachmann or User:Mustafaa may. I'm not trying to push it too hard, it's just that everything I've read says that "nobody knows", just like origin of Greek oine vs. Hebrew yayin. Tomer ^TALK 01:26, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Except that yayin and oine are both attested farther back in their respective languages than the time when they came into such extensive contact. While I guess it's theoretically possible that Hebrew picked up yayin from the Philistines, and hence from Greek, that would need proof. But avir is first attested in Hebrew at a period when it included hundreds of Greek and Latin loanwords. And Latin and Greek definitely had a far greater impact on Hebrew than vice versa, because practically all Hebrew speakers were in contact with Roman soldiers in Judaea, while the vast majority of Latin and Greek speakers had little or no contact with Jews. It seems to me that the default assumption must be that avir is just another loanword, from either Latin or Greek, and that the burden of proof rests on anyone claiming that it was a native Hebrew word that just happened never to be used by any of the authors of the Bible.

Two points

1. We need a source for whoever said that critics claim that Kerry has a record of insulting troops. It's not unreasonable (and is Wiki policy), and it's not difficult to find one critic who agrees with your statement and then include it and attribute it in the article. On the other side, it would be akin to me including a statement, "It was obvious that Kerry did not mean that as an attack against the troops, but President Bush." which you would probably revert immediately, claiming the same reason.

2. Deleting the second part of the quote which starts off that: "We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply 'doing its job.'" The second part takes Kerry's quote into context, and it's deceitful to readers by withholding part of the truth. What is wrong with letting readers decide their reaction to the quote instead of stacking the cards against Kerry? Also, a personal interpretation of Kerry's statement by deleting part of it is potentially libelous. --Folksong 08:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

1. The news is full of critics. You can't deny that they exist, or that they've made this argument. (For that matter, I'm one such critic, if you need names! But you know very well that I'm very far from the only one.) I just don't see the point in compiling a list of references to blogs and commenters making this point.

Kerry's previous criticism of USA soldiers is too well-known to need documenting. See Winter Soldier earlier in the Wikipedia article, and see his widely reported statement in 2005 that USA troops in Iraq were terrorising women and children. (Now if I were to include those as examples, I would have to document them, since they're statements of fact, not of opinion.)

2. The rest of the quote isn't relevant here. You seem not to understand for what purpose the quote has been cited. Kerry's original joke seems to refer to a common but erroneous belief that the army is composed primarily of the uneducated, the poor, and minorities. To decide whether Kerry actually meant to say what he said, it's relevant to look into whether he holds that common belief, at least subconsciously. A quote from 34 years ago shows that at that time he did think this was what a volunteer army would look like. That doesn't prove he still has that picture in the back of his mind, but it significantly increases the likelihood. The other ills he thought might come from a volunteer army don't shed any light on the current question, so there's no reason to cite them. Indeed, citing them is something of a red herring; it hides the point in verbiage, and distracts the reader with irrelevant matters.

Zsero 08:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

First off, your edit history shows a pattern of editing against liberals and progressives and promoting a conservative viewpoints. Do you believe Wikipedia is a place to promote conservative thought?

1. Have you read Wikipedia rules? It doesn't matter what you think here, and it doesn't matter what I think either, because we need verifiable sources. Is it so difficult to find one name (Coulter, Malkin, O'Reilly) and add their specific commentary? I didn't say all, I just said one.

2. Your reply makes it seem that you want to take the quote out of context and make John Kerry look bad. Whether you like him or not, that's not in accordance with Wikipedia's goals. Your quote about believing he "still has this picture in the back of this mind" strengthens my belief that you are pushing an ideological viewpoint. Did you read about the part where he says it's disproportionate, and did you ever consider that he was talking about the imbalance of poor people to rich in the military? Or were you just trying to look for that "silver bullet" to make Kerry look bad? Hell, I used to be a Republican myself, I know (and used to engage) in those tactics.--Folksong 10:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Rashi B-day

You obviously did not read part of my original comment: “If it was held in 2006 to commemorate his 900th b-day [death, typo] in 2005, I'm sorry for changing it.” Read the comments better next time. You need to explain the fact that it was held in 2006 for the 2005 anniversary of his death.(!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 22:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC))

I don't need to explain anything. You find a page that says an exhibit was held in 2006. If you have reason to believe that it was actually held in 2005, then you should feel free to change it. But if you have no such reason, then you have no business editing the article, based merely on a guess that if the anniversary was in 2005 then the exhibit "must" have been held in that year. Wikipedia is for facts, or at least alleged facts, not random guesses. Zsero 23:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you do need to explain the matter better as it is misleading to those who are unaware of his death date (just in case they overlook it at the top). It might lead someone to believe there is conflicting information on the page. I’m sure you have noticed it by now that I have slightly changed the sentence to show the difference. You are correct in saying “Wikipedia is for facts”. So present all the facts the next time you try to edit a page. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 23:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC))

Stalker

I seem to have picked up a stalker. On 28-Dec-06, between 00:34 and 00:47 (UTC), 172.209.253.72 appeared, vandalised five pages that I had edited, made a racist comment in his edit of John Monash, and disappeared. Then on the same day, between 10:03 and 10:07 (UTC), 172.201.220.183 appeared, vandalised six pages I'd edited, with no other activity. Then on the same day, between 23:38 and 23:52 (UTC), 84.13.136.207 showed up, vandalised 9 pages I'd edited, and left a racist comment on this page. I don't think it takes a genius to say that all three are the same person. Zsero 00:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: On 20-Dec at 01:57, 84.13.4.119 showed up, reverted one edit of mine, and then proceeded to vandalise this page, thus demonstrating his lack of good faith. Zsero 02:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my previous comments and edits. I was merely frustrated at your repeated revisions to the Shinseki article and was trying to "get your goat". Still no amount of frustration can justify any racist or nationalist comments. If you will allow me, I will work from now on within the constraints of Wikipedia. -- SR

Chabad

Thanks. Knew it had nothing to do with Chabad, but remembered reading that Nusach Sfard was started by the Baal Shem Tov based upon Ari. --ChosidFrumBirth 13:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Hiram Bingham IV

Do not add any links to isurvived.org without attaining consensus on the talk page. As you can see if you take a look at it, the majority of editors feel that the link is not appropriate and does not represent the historical consensus on Bingham. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for the dissemination of minority viewpoints on this kind of issue. Thanks. -Elmer Clark 01:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

First, there is nothing on the talk page about the appropriateness of links to isurvived.org. Not a word.

Second, "historical consensus" or not, it's still a relevant point of view. Unless you can prove that its allegations are false, it deserves to be linked. WP is certainly not restricted to a "historical consensus", alleged or real. Why don't you try reading the "soapbox" guideline you kindly linked to, and explain exactly how I am violating it. In the meantime, I am restoring the links. Zsero 02:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm?? This statement: "The editor of iSurvived.org (Kalman Brattman) is presently the subject of a significant news story which outlines how the editor of the site (with his disturbing arrest record) has attempted to destroy the reputation of various Holocaust survivors." sure seems to say something about the appropriateness of links to isurvived.org.

It says nothing of the sort. It doesn't even address the question of links. Nor, even if it did, does a single post by an anonymous poster represent the view of "the majority of editors". On the contrary, the substance of this anonymous person's post is highly debatable, but there's no point in debating it here since it's irrelevant to the current matter.

It says nothing of the sort? I lifted that exact quote off the page! I agree with that editor as well, there's two, as did User:Shimgray, to the extent that he blocked Webville for repeatedly adding the link! -Elmer Clark 12:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

And Wikipedia does not seek to show all points of view on issues, simply the general consensus point of view and other views that are notable. A link to such a dubious website certainly does not support the notability of this view.

It's certainly worth a link. Pretending that it doesn't exist is outright censorship.

Please see Wikipedia:NN. "It exists" does not justify inclusion. -Elmer Clark 12:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I may think that 9/11 was a Ugandan conspiracy and put up a website supporting my view, but that wouldn't justify my adding that info to Wikipedia.

Oh yeah? Take a look at the 9/11 pages; all sorts of conspiracy theories are not only linked to but actually described, together with their evidence or lack thereof.

Those theories are notable and their prevalence has been attested to by multiple reliable sources. -Elmer Clark 12:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this section. isurvived.org certainly does not qualify as "exceptional evidence."

First, it's not an extraordinary claim. You seem to think that anything contradicting an existing article constitutes an extraordinary claim; that privileges the opinions of the first poster on a subject, an absurd proposition.

This clearly falls under bullet points one, three, and four. Please read them. -Elmer Clark 12:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not know whether you are User:Webville, who embarked on a similar crusade against Bingham some months ago

And I don't know whether you are the Emperor Napoleon. But the odds are that you're not.

The similarity of your actions is rather suspicious though. -Elmer Clark 12:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

but if not, please check out User talk:Webville, where this issue was debated. I am willing to reopen this issue through proper channels, that is, if you attempt to gain consensus on the talk page, but unilateral moves against consensus with comments like "i say the links belong here" are very unlikely to get you anywhere.

You are the one acting unilaterally here, by deleting the links with no discussion whatsoever. And I'm not going to put up with it. If you want me to agree that the links don't belong, you have to persuade me, instead of acting as if you own the page.

No discussion? The matter has been discussed on the talk page, at User:Webville, and here. Consensus clearly is against the site at the moment. The responsibility of changing that lies with you. -Elmer Clark 12:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to comment on my talk page or the help desk for general questions about consensus building and Wikipedia procedure, or at Talk:Hiram Bingham IV for debate specific to this issue. Regards, Elmer Clark 03:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Zsero 07:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It has become clear that you are utterly unwilling to respect Wikipedia procedure on this point. I am bringing this up at the administrator's noticeboard. -Elmer Clark 12:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Webville is a Sock Puppet and Kelman Brattman. Disseminating false information for personal attacks. Kalman Brattman Report

---

The report above on Kelman Brattman was made by Eric Saul --a purpoted Holocaust educator with no academic credentials that was exposed by no one else but Brattman. Please see The Eric Saul Case: An Issue of Credibility and Accountability

See also Eric Saul's beef with Isurvived.org that says it all.

Music of Ireland

How can you refuse to let an Irish musician of such significance as 50 Cent be referenced in the article of the body of music which he has contributed so much to over his lifetime? 68.98.50.49 01:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Very funny. But if you continue vandalising WP, you will be blocked. -- Zsero 02:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Get a sense of humor, boyo. 68.98.50.49 03:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I get the feeling you're the sort that proves Godwin's law true very often. Do you have Aspergers, or something? 68.98.50.49 14:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Pidyon HaBen

Hi! I believe the obligation of Pidyon HaBen exists regardless of whether the parents are married. Also, I understand that while as a matter of contemporary civil law and practice a father couldn't legally turn a child over to a Kohen, so far as Halakha is concerned the choice is still a theoretical possibility. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

1. The father's declaration says "My Israelite wife gave birth to this, her first born son". I suppose the father of an illegitimate boy is also obligated in pidyon haben, and would have to change the declaration accordingly, but the article describes the standard declaration.

2. Nope. It was never an option, no matter how theoretical. The kohen's question is not "would you like to redeem him or not?", but rather "which do you value more, your son or the money?". Instead of focusing on how much money he has to pay, he should focus on how little it is compared with what he has received from God.

Zsero 06:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-warning

I hope I didn't look like I was trying to bite the user, which I wouldn't do intentionally, but I've been noticing lately with a lot of one time vandals that leave really obvious vandalism that if you give them one warning, they stop. I don't do it for most cases like accidents or somebody putting "hi" on a page, but when you put something vulgar like this editor did, I felt it was warranted. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't, but if I was an administrator, I wouldn't block a user with just two vandalisms/edits and never as a punitive block or long term. I hope that gives you more insight on why I did that. Sorry if I seemed to be hasty or in violation of WP:BITE. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 00:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have also added an apology on the IP talk page, I feel I may have been too hasty and will not be such in the future. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 00:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have reported them to AIV for a first time warning or blocked them had I been an administrator acting on it, but I highly doubt the user thought the subject of the article was made of poop or penises. But for future situations I will go back to issuing lower warnings first. Unless the user is a repeat vandal and has been reverted many times but with no warning, then the user does need a test4. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 00:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with DarthGriz's solo warning - to a degree. If the user added a couple random letters into the article, I could understand starting with a simple test. The uesr made some rather offensive comments. Although I would've preferred to see test3, I don't believe it's a significant issue whatsoever. Afterall, vandals shouldn't be given five "tokens" to vandalize. When I first started, I couldn't count the amount of times that I'd use all the warnings, and then at the last warning, the IP would vanish and never make an edit again. It's a waste of time to go through the entire chain for obvious vandals. — Deckiller 01:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with that AIV rationale. I'm an admin, so I naturally have a different outlook than those who have to go through the channel. — Deckiller 03:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sikhism Prohibitions

Hi ,

Just a couple of comments about above topic.

Line 10 reads:

Eating meat. Sikhs are strictly prohibited from eating Halal meat, or any meat during the langar. In some Sikh groups, eating meat is believed to be forbidden, but this is not a universally held belief.

Shouldn't the title read Eating Halal Meat. On a side note, I thought the word Halal was to be substituted with Kutha (which includes any ritually slaughtered meat? Its the Sikh term. Just a thought. --Sikh-history 09:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The question is what exactly counts as Kutha meat. My understanding is that the generally accepted Sikh authorities have ruled that the Zabiha procedure is enough like a sacrifice that it renders the meat Kutha. As far as I know they have not ruled that way about any other kind of meat, so it remains up to the conscience of the individual Sikh, relying on his own research and understanding to decide whether a particular slaughtering procedure makes meat Kutha. The article is designed to be read by non-Sikhs, and therefore should wherever possible use terms likely to be familiar to a wider audience. Halal is a widely-understood term. Kutha is not. -- Zsero 18:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. On a side note.Is the Current title Eating Halal Meat acceptable.--Sikh-history 10:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply

There appeared to be an edit war which needs to be addressed on the talk page rather than through constant moving and reverting. The protection wasn't an endorsement of the current title. John Reaves (talk) 05:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Der Rebbe Rayatz

Google R' Yosef Yitzchok Schneersohn, and you will get more results than R' Joseph Isaac Schneersohn. --Shuli 13:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Mill (currency)

You might be interested in Talk:Mill (currency)#Recent edit. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No

Copyvio videos are to be removed from Wikipedia, per policy. Anyway, I found the direct transcript and changed the cite, so it's a moot point, but one you should consider in the future. - Crockspot 19:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC) BTW, blogs are not reliable sources, and I will not allow them to be used as sources in the Thompson articles. WP:BLP will be strictly applied. - Crockspot 20:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The video isn't on Wikipedia; it's on hotair, which may or may not have the right to have it. It doesn't matter. There's no policy against citing sources just because they may be in violation of copyright laws. Violating copyright laws (let alone possibly violating them) doesn't affect the reliability of a source.

And blogs may be less reliable than other sources, but it depends on what it is that's being cited. In this case the video speaks for itself, so it doesn't matter where it's being hosted. It could be hosted on my own server, in flagrant violation of all sorts of laws, and it would still be perfectly valid to cite it on WP.

Zsero 20:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely wrong. See my reply on my talk page. - Crockspot 20:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The Rebbe

BS"D
I wasn't speculating about your background, I was speculating the other contributors based on his information. --Shuliavrumi 17:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rashi.jpg

The uploader was of course already asked and I could have deleted the image after being listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images but I wanted to give the uploader some more time with providing a source. It probably is old and fall in the Public Domain. But we don't know for sure. If you can, please provide a source but don't remove the no source tag unless you do. Garion96 (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care where the uploader got the picture. I want some proof the picture is indeed centuries old. For instance, is it somewhere in a museum, who is the artist, but most importantly when was it made? Right now there is no info on the image, just that it is an image of Rashi. Garion96 (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Images#Uploading images for instance. I guess those other images also will be tagged eventually. A good example how it should is Image:Elizabeth I Darnley Portrait.jpg and Image:Elizabeth I of England - coronation portrait.jpg. If this picture is so famous it should be quite easy so please go ahead. And yes, I did searched a bit but couldn't find it. The picture needs a source to prove it is public domain. If you want to keep the image, do your own research. Garion96 (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If I would have wanted to delete the image I could have already done so after it was listed at WP:PUI but I didn't. Since I didn't delete it, I added the nosource tag to give more time. Assume a bit good faith here thank you. Garion96 (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User Sikh4life

Sikh4life has vandalised my page once already and seems to be treating the wikipedia NPOV with contempt. Shall I report him? --Sikh-history 14:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Eruv

Demark - you're correct. That word was not the aim of my edit and it was an oversight not to return the more recent edit of that issue to demarcate. Thank you for correcting it. Juda S. Engelmayer 16:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yosef Eliyahu Henkin

The relevancy here is that his position is the prevailing one on this issue. Juda S. Engelmayer 17:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I have put it back to standard version that I personally checked over one month ago. There is a anon vandal vandalising 68.241.250.155- check his talk page he has been warned many time. His versions are being reverted by other wikipedians.--Sikh historian 13:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've reverted anon vandalism again and put it back to your last addition on 12 July.--Sikh historian 03:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)