User talk:Zsero/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Rashi/Mezuzah Etc.

I'm just going to let the matter drop and be satisfied with myself that I have a good idea and the rest of the world will have to go without it. I'm not blaming you for anything, so don't get snippy with me. Thank you for wanting to provide for the masses so much. I appreciate your dedication. But the reason a shin for Shaddai would be there is to 'protect his eternal soul,' sort of. No, it is not documented, it is what I think, blah blah blah, but I'm sure some person out there thought of it to because in truth it makes perfect sense, more sense than the shin standing for Shlomo. But whatever. Once more, I appreciate your dedication. bookworm415

Spanish Inquisiton

Oy. I hate saying this, but you were right. link title (if that doesn't go through, then it's hebcal.com) says that Tisha B'Av is August 11, minus the ten days of the Gregorian Calendar reformation, so henceforth it is August 1, the day after the Jews were expelled from Spain. And by the way, Teh Anne Boleyn mole whoosy is documented. I read it in Carolyn Meyer's book Beware, Princess Elizabeth. So really, I am right about that one. So I will give you the Spanish Inquisition one since you were right, and I'll give a tie on the Rashi one since I think it's nice to stay fair. So we're even. bookworm415

Tisha B'Av Dates and Columbus

I'll have to take your word for that. Onto a slightly unrelated subject, Christopher Columbus-do you think that he was Jewish? I'm looking for opinions, I'm considering writing a book about him too. Because he left Spain on August 2nd, which could be almost like a mercy stroke from Ferdinand and Isabella. But why would they send a Jew? An opinion would be appreciated. bookworm415

Tisha B'Av/Columbus

Frankly, I don't know much about the Gregorian Reformation so I'll just listen to whatever you, the one who does know about this stuff, says. As for Columbus, I like your reasoning. It's said that he had a Hebrew-speaking Jew on one of the boats in case he found the Ten Lost Tribes, as a little side trivia.

Hasidism vs. Charedism

I noticed your comment that Hasidism is part of Charedism. Though this is a common conception, it makes it no less incorrect. It stems, I think, from an incorrect equating of religious Jews with Orthodox Jews when they are in fact distinct adjectives. Both Charedis and Hasidim are religious - they keep the Sabbath, attend synagogue, as well as following the many other obscure rules that the Bible and the Rabbis mandate. They are not, however, the same, or even related. (I went to a Charedi school in a largely Chassidishe neighborhood - seriously, though this may seem incidental, to many people it isn't. The differences matter.) For example - Charedim have Rabbis. Chasidim have Rebbes. The distinction is not simply lingual but also in its almost mystical emphasis on them that Chasidim place. Charedim wear business suits. Chasidim don't. Again, this may seem incidental, but it comes from a basic debate over the Jew's place in the modern world. Charedim study Hebrew. Chasidim speak Yiddish. Unimportant to be sure to those who don't speak either language and can't tell the difference between them, but the scholarly battle over the individual's place in God's world has a huge effect on political debates as are most evident in the case of the Satmar and Neturei Karta. This is only a sampling of the many major ways in which Hasidim and Charedim differ. This may seem bizarre to those who've never seen the inside of this world, but Hasidim are not ultra-Orthodox Jews; they're not even Orthodox Jews. They're something distinct.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elsaamo (talk • contribs) 05:20, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Tisha B'Av

I've removed the list of "recent calamaties" entirely as a violation of WP:SYN. Please provide a source for any claim that an historical event is associated with the religious meaning of Tisha B'Av. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

29 years.

Thanks for pointing that out... didn't notice the user had only one warning (it's a problem with huggle: if the user is on AIV, it recommends a block). · AndonicO ^Hail! 19:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no problem with a 29 year block (technically shorter than indefinite ;) ), what is a problem is blocking after only 1 warning, which wasn't even a level 4. :/ · AndonicO ^Hail! 19:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

{{Day header}}

I like this idea, and I think it looks more aesthetically pleasing than that other template. To me, it is just a good idea. The {{Days of the week}} template is too small for my liking, and {{Day header}} can go at the top, {{Days of the week}} at the bottom. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 10:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

our lil war

"Tziszis"? Tzis-zis? What's incorrect about that? you tell me. -- Y not? 20:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism

Ok Thanks. One more edit on the article and I'll report him. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 15:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your edit to Behaalotecha

Thanks I knew I miss clicked in wiki cleaner but I wasn't sure what page it was on (as it auto closes after saving) I've been going back through all my last edits looking for it. Thanks for finding it!Ayls (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Superscripted ordinals

I don't want to bother you, but maybe you'd know:

Ordinal numbers are given as words using the same rules as for cardinal numbers.

Unfortunately the FMOS has confused me further by saying "are given as words". By 'words', does it mean that George H. W. Bush should be the "Forty-first President of the United States"? Here, is 41st considered a 'word'? Or is it 'read' as a 'word'? I looked at the referenced cardinal numbers, but didn't see MOS-style 'rules'.

I admit I gave up on relying on common-sense with regard to the MOS after the extended wrangling over the one-and-only allowed binary number format. (I still haven't checked what they 'decided') But I would have thought 23rd was some kind of abbreviation.... ? Shenme (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Aieeee! Head hurt! Need flowchart! :-) I found the reference you mentioned. It makes sense (space constraints), but it is an example that it is hard to know when you have dug deeply enough into the rules to know the 'answer'.

The controversy I was talking about was over at the MOSNUM#Binary_prefixes section and related areas. (I got to fix a link on the way to finding the section) Small reference to "no consensus" and "follow the lead of the initial contributor". Makes it kinda hard to change with the times, or even reference modernity.

Thanks for tracking down the sanity hidden in MOS! Shenme (talk) 06:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Nathaniel Adams Coles

Did Nathaniel Adams Coles use Charles G. Dawes of his 1912 composition "Melody in A Major," actually Nathaniel Adams Coles started only in the mid thirties ?Sorry if I am wrong felt he had not and felt the IP editor was mistaken.Not when he was the Vice president.My apologies if i am wrong and Thank you for correcting me.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Bush reference

Who cares if you see no need? There are plenty of articles that have references that I might find unnecessary, but I don't remove any of them. Information in an article is supposed to be sourced, so I added a source. Stop removing it. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox

Responed on its talk page:

Wikipedia MoS states it.

68.148.164.166 (talk) 10:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite the opposite: The sections make disamguation pages organized.68.148.164.166 (talk) 08:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

In any case, I disagree. It will make the page more organized and more readable if they are headlined, as with all other disambig pages. Actually, the current format is required only in some pages, but in this case it isn't. The current format is only required when bluelinks are required in section headings, because headlines can not have bluelinks.Asrghasrhiojadrhr (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Administrator?

Are you an admin? Please repond on my talk page because I don't go on wikipedia much.68.148.164.166 (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw that you violated 3rr.68.148.164.166 (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Your block discussion was right on top of mine, so it became extremely natural that happened across it. Wikipedia drama is the most interesting thing anyone can spectate.68.148.164.166 (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Pine Nuts

Zsero,

I live in a small city in Minnesota. We have three grocery stores in town. The other day, I was at the smallest of the three, and I came across pine nuts, which were located in the baking section with all of the other nuts. I had two options: the pine nuts in the glass bottle from Europe, or the less expensive cellophane-packaged pine nuts from Asia.

Pine nuts do come in unshelled form in grocery stores. I urge you to check yours.

I can send you a photo of the package, along with the receipt, if you like.

I am hereby re-adding those few sentences of mine that you deleted. Thank you. --SweetNightmares (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Unshelled? I'd like to see that. I live in NYC and I don't think I've ever seen unshelled pine nuts, at a grocery or anywhere else. All the ones for sale here are shelled. I'd like to see a photo, if it's not too much trouble. Or just tell me the brand name and I'll try looking up the manufacturer's web site or something. -- Zsero (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have the photo for you. Where shall I send it? It's from some company called "Baking Classics," which appears to be some generic brand distributed by SuperValu. I don't recall the brand of the other pine nuts I saw.--SweetNightmares (talk) 03:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Indiana citations needed

No, well-known facts do not indicate that it do not need any citation as readers know about it. In wikipedia, source must be given, for facts no matter well-known, or not. You can look at the article Continent. The article, for every fact, there is citation given. So source should be given. In the article there are more incited facts, and needs more sources. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, for the location, you can remove the fact tags, but not for the other unsourced information. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the fact tags except "The Hoosier National Forest is a 200,000 acre (80,900 ha) nature preserve in south central Indiana". It need citation to clarify the fact "200,000 acre". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No. If it is linked to main article, that does not mean this article do not link citation. Bring some citation from the main article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your and RebCoh's dispute

I have taken a quick look. There are concerns with both sides, but more with user:RebCoh:

• Zsero - I'm at a loss to understand edits like this, which seem to show a revert of no real value at all and have an inflammatory effect on the matter. Also reverts like this with inflammatory edit summaries, that have lacked discussion. When it's clear a matter is the subject of dispute, then reverting with no discussion may not be best every time.

• RebCoh - your editing is actually far more the concerning of the two. Epithets such as "Mr Apostrophe Hater!" [1] count as personal attacks, edits such as visiting an article specifically adding apostrophes everywhere [2], labelling a revert that is actually, quite reasonable (the lack of apostrophes is indeed a communal norm) as "vandalism" [3], edits such as this adding many quotes/apostrophes, edits such as this, this and this are childish and provocative, edits like this are disruptive (even if others have done the same sometimes), and posting the identical comment here here here here is unnecessarily flooding user pages and poor conduct.

You may find genuine discussion - rather than argument - helps.

Cross-posted to both your user pages. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My Apology

I am very sorry to have become disruptive but if I may I would like to explain my position. This is my very first attempt to join Wikipedia. My first contribution was a brief quote from a Rabbi which was immediately reverted. My second attempt was a brief quotation from Rabbi Worch which was reverted with the following comment "(rv nonsense sourced to a vanity press publication from some idiot)" which hurt me very deeply because of my deep reverence for the Rabbi. I next added an apostrophe after "1800's" which was immediately reverted. I provided Zsero information from "Guide to Punctuation", by Larry Trask, University of Suxxex wherein he states "In British usage, we do not use an apostrophe in pluralizing dates. American usage, however, does put an apostrophe here." After which he instructs his British readers not to adopt this American practice unless writing for an American audience. Zsero, however, continued to revert the apostrophe. Now that apostrophe was not important to me but he insulted me in my very first editing experience in Wikipedia and then makes a big deal out of an apostrophe,which angered me. So I kept putting the apostrophe back and he kept reverting it, over and over. Finally I just gave up. I went to another site and he followed me there. So I decided to test him. I made a "no change" edit in the Halaka article. He immediately reverted it although there was nothing to revert and no reason for doing it. This angered me and I confronted him with this. He denied there was a "no change" edit and reversion although it is on record for all to see. My anger prompted me to make various comments and childish taunts. By the way, my "Apostrophe Hater" comment was meant as a joke. Obviously I do not believe the world is going to come to an end because of Apostrophe's or that Einstein quoted such. It was an attempt to turn a war into humor. To this very day I am unable to make a SINGLE contribution to Wikipedia in any way, shape, or form. I find this to be a useless place where just anyone off the streets can come in and edit, revert, and take out their frustrations on other attempting editors. I will not back to Wikipedia. RebCoh (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)