User talk:Zsero/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Re: Jat Article

Hi Z, I was wondering if you could help out with this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jat_people. As you can see John Hill who has tried to edit the page has recieved an incredible amount of abuse. Not only is the article in question promoting a POV it is very poorly written and the refrences are questionable. Burdak, DrBrij and Ravi Chaudry seem to be treating wikipedia as there own personal property. I think John Hill needs some help from other wikipedia authors. This Jat article really is a disgrace to wikipedia and needs some serious editing.--Sikh-history 09:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Project tags

Please do not remove project tags from article talk pages. If a WikiProject wishes to include an article within its area of expertise, that is not only the project's prerogative, but a benefit to the encyclopedia as a whole. Specifically, please stop removing the WP Alabama tag from Talk:Fred Thompson. Thompson was born and educated in Alabama, and he falls within our scope. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 14:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Hendel Lieberman

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Hendel Lieberman meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hendel Lieberman. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. IZAK 13:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes they are

Please read WP:SPAM. As far as for encyclopedia content it is considered spam. 124.170.172.142 08:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage

I notice it was vandalised / edited in error in the past. If you'd rather it deleted instead of blanked, just let me know - Alison ☺ 22:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Deirdre McCloskey

Re. "McCloskey also participated in a campaign of harassment against Bailey." - I just had to remove that one line. It's a serious accusation to make and it is not supported by the NYT article. In fact, they steer clear of stating that (and rightly so). Per WP:BLP, that should not be in there without an explicit, cited source for it - Alison ☺ 23:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning at Fred Thompson

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fred Thompson. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.

Please be aware that you do not own articles which you edit. You are not the gate-keeper to determine what can and cannot appear in the Fred Thompson article. Italia^vivi 14:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Italiavivi's WP:OWN point here, and we have disagreed more than agreed in the past. This edit summary is out of line - no one editor has to demonstrate relevance for something to be included - that's what consensus is about. I don't particularly like Ferrylodge's solution, but it's better than leaving the whole thing out, and meanwhile we can keep discussing this and perhaps get some outside opinions and then come up with something that acknowledges the fact that some editors feel that this information is notable and should be included. You had no justification for removing Ferrylodge's edit - it is at least in the spirit of what the discussion on talk is trying to deal with (and has been discussed in the past there too). Tvoz |talk 18:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Zsero, what part of the above did you not understand? You do not have consensus to remove the age difference from the article. It is being discussed - and several other editors have weighed in with comments about this. You can't unilaterally decide to take it out when others want it in. Again, you have no justification for removing Ferrylodge's words which were a suggested compromise and to which several editors have reluctantly agreed as an reasonable possibility. Make your argument on the Talk page for why it should be out, but don't just take it out - unless you are trying to fan the flamses instead of extinguishing them. Tvoz |talk 03:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You may be angry at Italiavivi, but try to separate that from what other editors say to you. I posted the previous comment yesterday to you about demonstrating relevance and you ignored it - or at least did not respond to me about it - only to come back in today and again remove the wording that Ferrylodge had posted, and which is under discussion on Talk. That's provocative and unilateral. This is not just Italiavivi and me - there are several others who agree that the age difference is notable and should be included. Sbowers3 has tried to move the discussion on to how it should be worded, and Ferrylodge's reluctant addition was one possibility - at least he was trying to compromise on this. There are several other editors on Talk who have said they see relevance to having either the specific ages or the age difference included. Just like on Kucinich and Edwards. I did, in fact, say that its notability derives from the fact that independent press reports have talked about it, such as the New York Times article. Whatever the history may be, the fact is that people have commented in favor of including some statement about the age difference, and you are unilaterally removing it - I don't really know what your motives are, nor do I care - I am interested in getting the rhetoric toned down so we can have a productive discussion, and your removing the words only makes it worse. Is it so offensive to you to see what ages they were when they married that you can't leave it alone until we reach agreement on the specific phrasing? If this is about your dispute with Italiavivi, please take it elsewhere. Yes, he can be difficult, and I've clashed with him too - but that doesn't mean I won't point out when I think his position is correct and support it, even if I don't like his tactics or approach. This isn't high school. Tvoz |talk 04:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Italiavivi

This editor has repeatedly deleted your comments at the Fred Thompson talk page.

Today, Italiavivi deleted my comments here and here. Italiavivi has also been uncivil here (“You are a liar") and here (“telling the same lies”) and here (accusing others of “screaming”) and here (more accusations of “screaming” and “goading").

If you would like me to help take action with you against this person (such as a Request for Comments), then please let me know.Ferrylodge 20:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You and Zsero are WP:POTs in the worst kind of way where civility is concerned. You have both accused me of being the first editor to add the Thompsons' age difference to his article, which is a falsehood, a lie. You seem to dislike this lie being highlighted, and are now colluding. I gladly await your attempts at defending your false statements, and find it unfortunate that you are unwilling to let go of them. Italia^vivi 20:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Italiavivi received at least three separate warnings from administrators on August 22, for his conduct. Both LessHeard vanU and Tango warned him here, and ElinorD warned him here.Ferrylodge 02:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Tom Smith Article up for Deletion

The article Tom Smith (filker), which you have contributed to has been listed as being considered for deletion. Please add you comments to the discussion. Shsilver 12:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Italiavivi

Since Italiavivi deleted this from his talk page, I'm adding it here: All of the above is true - a misstatement of fact need not be a lie, and it's a violation of AGF and CIVIL to call it a lie without proof. But in this case it goes beyond that, because what I wrote wasn't merely a good-faith mistake, it was true. That is, not only did I honestly think it to be true, but it actually was. In calling me a liar Italiavivi was not only uncivil and not AGF, he was also factually wrong. I could fling the L-word back at him, but I won't; unlike him I will assume that his memory was playing him false, and that he honestly believed I had got things wrong. He still should not have called me a liar for it, but he wasn't deliberately lying himself. Or at least, I'm prepared to assume that in the name of civility. Zsero 21:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not first include the Thompsons' age difference at Fred Thompson. Cease repeating this falsehood, especially in my User space. Italia^vivi 21:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. I never once claimed that you were the very first person ever to note the age difference, or to use the "junior" language. I did say that you were the one "insisting on adding it when it wasn't there before" - and that is the honest truth, as I have documented extensively. It is also the truth that you were the one who started a whole edit-war to insert the "junior" language, which had only ever been on the page for 4 hours before you came along. You also made the utterly false claim that the "first attempted removal of the info was June 6th, I didn't start editing here 'til June 12th"; a claim that you have not yet retracted. You are in no position to accuse others of lying while your own misstatement of the facts stands. Zsero 21:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You said that I added it when it wasn't there before because "it is obviously important to me for some reason," which did not assume good faith, was uncivil, and focused on the author rather than the content or merit of argument. Your false claim that I first inserted the information was a distraction and a lie. If you find it tiresome that your falsehoods are being debunked, cease spreading falsehoods and don't return to my User space again. Italia^vivi 01:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

See here.Ferrylodge 01:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC

I have requested community comment on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Italiavivi. I know you have contacted Italiavivi previously in attempts to resolve issues, your input is appreciated. This is just a friendly notice. --Hu12 19:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Revert

Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my user page. That person has been vandalizing my user page and several of my articles ever since one them was the featured article. They don't agree with my usages of BCE/CE. --Ghostexorcist 20:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding reversions[1] made on September 10 2007 to User talk:66.93.254.200‎

In the future, I'd suggest finding an admin to protect the page or block the vandal. Edit warring is not the answer, regardless of the edits. You are correct, however, that the 3RR does not apply to vandalism. I've warning DavidCharlesII appropriately. - auburnpilot talk 21:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:EW says explicitly that "Reverting vandalism is not edit-warring." -- Zsero 23:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

DavidCharlesII has now been block for 31 hours. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 21:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ownership of User talk pages

User:Italiaviviseems to be under the impression that editors own their talk pages, and can ban people from commenting on them. That is not the case. Using someone's talk page for legitimate communication is not WP:Harassment, and no editor can categorically forbid people from doing so.

Italiavivi also seems to think that editors are required to continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. That, too, is not the case. In this case I did AGF of Italiavivi, as I do of all editors, until I had far more than the evidence required to stop. Eventually I came to the conclusion that s/he was not acting in good faith, and I said so, which is perfectly within WP policy and guidelines -- Zsero 03:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's be absoultely clear Zsero. See WP:UP#Removal_of_warnings:

Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history.

This goes for any comment left by any user. Comments can be found in the history of talk pages if you wish to bring that up to an editor. If this user doesn't want you commenting there, you should respect that and not comment there. You are also likely to be blocked for WP:3RR for revert warring there as well. Reverting to readd you're comment has no benefit and makes it look like harrassment. Refran from revert warring please. Regards — Moe ε 05:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you haven't readded more than once, all I'm saying is that you have reinserted it and it could lead to those things if you weren't careful. Hopefully that won't be a issue. Regards, — Moe ε 23:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Misread

My apologies to you, I completely misread the message you left on italiavivi's talk and I have stricken the comment as a retreat from my comment. We all make mistakes... --F3rn4nd0 ^{(Roger - Out)} 01:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Joh Bjelke-Petersen

I commented on my motivation on the talk page. You are correct in that I should have simply "moved" it. Thanks for pointing that out. BTW, your talk page is getting somewhat long, have you thought about archiving part of it? Ursasapien (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thought about it, haven't got 'round to doing it. -- Zsero 05:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you like some help? MizaBot III has worked wonders for me. It does everything automatically. Ursasapien (talk) 10:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Where have I allegded that Ferrylodge is a misogynist?

I believe you misread the Ferrlodge discussion. Nowhere have I claimed he is a misogynist. --Pleasantville 22:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Pleasantville didn't say anything like that. Ferrylodge accused Pleasantville of alleging he was a misogynist. Or he accused me, that part is unclear. I think it was probably me. However, it was a fairly typical case of Ferrylodge inflating and twisting what someone else said, so that now Zsero is left with the impression Pleasantville alleged something she didn't. I can post diffs if you like. Considering that you (Zsero) have gone so far as to say "Pleasantville's accusation of misogyny is contemptible" I would say you owe Pleasantville an apology. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Eric Shinseki

I do not object in any way to him being labeled "insubordinate". My problem is with the source you cite. I would not object to a factual article from the National Review. But the article you cite is clearly biased against Shinseki. A few points:

1. You have argued that the inaccurate "predictions" in the article (that Inouye will retire, that Shinseki will run for his seat) are immaterial. I disagree. Babbin stated that Inouye will retire at the end of his term ("the planned - but yet unannounced - retirement"). What did he base this on? Is it unreasonable to assume that he based it on an unnamed source? If he did base it on an unnamed source, this source was clearly wrong, and it is fair to call into question his other "sources". If he didn't base this on an unnamed source, then isn't he just guessing?

2. The source he cites paraphrases Shinseki as saying "Let me run things my way, and I'll make you look really good on the Hill. But forget about transformation. The Army doesn't need it, and we don't plan to do it." This is a rather colloquial paraphrase. Is it really enough to label Shinseki as insubordinate? Or does it only rise to the level of a strong disagreement from a career military man? The very next line is not attributed to a source: "Shinseki should have been fired." That sounds like an opinion to me - he is not citing his source here. Does Babbin base this on military law or laws pertaining to the U.S. Dept. of Defense? Does he have the necessary knowledge and/or experience to identify "fireable" offenses?

3. Babbin goes on to state: "That [Shinseki wasn't fired] is a tribute to the White House's fear that Sen. Inouye — ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee — would take his revenge, with ballistic-missile defense the most likely target." Again, what does he base this on? No sources are cited and it sounds like pure supposition to me. And it is misleading - did you know that Inouye co-sponsored the "Cochran-Inouye National Missile Defense Act of 1999"? (See Bill Number S.257 of the 106th Congress, 1999; co-sponsor Cochran is a R-Miss.) The bipartisan bill states "It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate)." Is it reasonable to assume that Inouye would reverse support for a project he co-sponsored simply to get revenge on Rumsfeld? Are you starting to see that perhaps Babbin is being somewhat disingenuous?

I am not some crazed ideologue trying to praise Shinseki and discredit the Bush administration. I simply want accuracy in WP and believe that the source you cited does not meet journalistic standards. Other posts on this page seem to indicate that you have a political agenda, e.g., "strengthens my belief that you are pushing an ideological viewpoint".

In short, I don't object to criticism of the way Shinseki responded to requests made by his superior, and will accept that it is possible that he rose to the level of insubordination. However, I object to quoting an article full of opinions and inaccuracies. Please find another source. -- SR

History of the Spanish Jews

Hello. I only just signed up for wikipedia, since today I was editing a few pages and ran into some problems. I was on the page of the history of the Spanish Jews since I am writing a book about the Spanish Inquisition. I found a mistake on the page: under the Edict of Expulsion, it said that the Jews were expelled the day before Tisha B'Av of 1492. Since I thought that was wrong I fixed it. This was still while I wasn't a memeber of wikipedia. When I went back to the page I found that what I had fixed was back to the incorrect information. I changed it again, this time I referred to where I found the information online, link title if that link doesn't go throught then it's http://www.jewfaq.org/holidayd.htm. I'm new to this graphics kind of stuff! But anyway, when I went back to the page it was back to the incorrect information yet again! The reason I'm telling this to you is because you sent me a message, I think, while I wasn't signed up, asking me not to post nonsense information. I also edited two other pages, about Anne Boleyn and Rashi. I edited about Anne Boleyn that she had a mole on her neck, another deformity along with the possible sixth finger, and with Rashi I said that the 'shin' that is above his grave could stand for hsi name as well as Shadai, another name of the Jewish god that is usually abbreviated with a 'shin.' Please, help!

Thank you, bookworm415

Replying To What You Said

You have a fair enough point on the Spanish Inquisiton (even though I am 99% positive that I'm right, but whatever) and on the Anne Boleyn issue, but on mezuzot there is usually a shin and stand for Shaddai, henceforth there is footing for that. I think i shall research that now. Thank you for all of your help! bookworm415