User talk:Zsero

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

Contents 1 The Case of the Indiana Archives 1.1 Removal of another editor's comments 1.2 Your comments at WP:ANI 1.3 Sorry 1.4 Block 1.5 Thanks 1.6 Go you 1.7 Rollback restored 2 Vandalism by Gettingitdone 3 Your edit to my talk page. 4 Shannonez 5 Contentious Editor 6 Remmo 7 The Unbroken Semicha Debate 8 Nuclear option 9 Gregory Edwards 10 Categories, Pt. II 11 Zev 12 Your reinsertion of politicalfamily.com spam 13 Image source 14 Story with the Strashelyer 15 odd bush reversion... 16 George W. Bush 17 James Rogers 18 Please don't remove my { {or} } tags. 19 Cheney 20 why the revert? 21 Nikki Sixx 22 Re: Your deletion of Image:Books fishing for fun.jpg 23 Edits to James L Gray 24 War of 1812 25 Re:Famous Hoosiers 26 LBJ and the Christadelphians 27 Too Cute? 28 Nikki Sixx 29 Murdered American police officers 30 AfD 31 regarding Image:NYPD-Blue-tv-03.jpg 32 Re "I fail to see..." 33 Le Grand Bleu (yacht) 34 Age when R' Henoch took over 35 Jeri Kehn Thompson. 36 Minchas Elozor pictures 37 Re: User 90.196.3.1 and Disruptive Edits 38 Bill Moyers

[edit] The Case of the Indiana Archives

[edit] Removal of another editor's comments

Please do not remove comments left by an editor on someone else's talk page. I understand you have a running disagreement with this editor, but right or wrong, it is not your place to remove someone else's comments on someone else's page, as you did here [1] [2] [3]. In addition, do not edit another another editor's comments as you did on WP:AIV here [4]. Wikipedia has a place for discussions and administrator intervention, as you know, at WP:AIV. Please wait for admin help there, and do not engage in an edit war while waiting. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments at WP:ANI

Please don't continually revert. Please realize that by refusing to discuss these issues and abide by wikipedia rules, you are willfully violating WP:3RR and engaging in edit war. Discuss the matters at WP:AIV, please. I understand that you're upset at the situation, but violating the policies of wikipedia just to make a point won't help. Snowfire51 (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a game. Even if I were violating WP policies, which I'm not, are those policies more important than doing the right thing? There are real people behind those accounts and IPs, with real feelings, and real legal rights not to be defamed. Put yourself in their shoes and think how you'd feel to find those accusations on your talk page. -- Zsero (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, please don't. Regardless of your feelings, you're not qualified to judge another editor's comments and warnings by yourself. Please let due process handle this. Snowfire51 (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

and if you need help, ask for it. DGG (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Sorry for the random comment that a banned sockpuppet left on your page, I seem to be making friends of the wrong sort today.

By the way, I didn't further revert anything last night, and I won't. Other admins have defended your actions, and that's good enough for me to verify something's going on that will take some investigation. Good luck with the situation at WP:ANI, hopefully with other editors and admins getting involved, that situation will be resolved soon. Good luck! Snowfire51 (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Vegetationlife (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Block

—slakr^\ talk / 22:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Except that it isn't a personal attack. It is a warning from another editor who believes what they saw was link spamming. Daedalus (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

An accusation of spamming is inherently defamatory and a personal attack. -- Zsero (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NPA. I'm afraid you're wrong. - auburnpilot talk 23:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Spammers are objects of intense hatred. Alleged spammers routinely get threats. Just look around the 'net to see how much they are despised. Nowadays an accusation of spamming is almost as bad as one of paedophilia or racism. It's per se defamation, just as in an earlier era accusations of homosexuality or having "a loathsome disease" were per se defamation. This was no gentle warning template, it was a page-full of near-gibberish (to an outsider) like a scarlet letter. No user should have to log on to WP and confront such an accusation on their talk page, when they had in fact done nothing wrong. -- Zsero (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You also removed conflict of interest warnings ({{coi}}), which usually draws considerably less heat on the internet than spammers. --slakr^\ talk / 23:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If the coi template had been the only such warning there, I'd have left it, with an assurance to the user that she should ignore it and was entitled to remove it if she liked. But as it was, it was part of a whole, the total effect of which was a false and defamatory accusation. I point out that removal of libelous material is in fact one of the listed exceptions from 3RR. -- Zsero (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That may be the case sometimes, however, this is Wikipedia. If there is a warning, it will be looked into. It is how things work around here. Warnings aren't supposed to be gentle, nor are they supposed to be hard. Only blunt. Walking around the bush is unncessary. Although some of your opinions may be just, it still stands that you are not allowed to remove such warnings, only the user or an admin is. Those are the rules for this site, whether you like them or not, you need to follow them. Daedalus (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I keep trying to tell you, this is not a game. WP rules are not the most important thing, and they must give way before common sense and decency. An accusation likely to hurt the user and scare them away from WP should not be left up because of overly-zealous adherence to some picayune rule (not that I believe I have actual broken any such rule). -- Zsero (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, hasn't Daedalus gone over 3RR too? Considering that the consensus at ANI seemed to be that the warnings he was restoring was unwarranted, he can't claim to be undoing vandalism. He certainly can't claim to be undoing defamation. So what exactly justifies his edit-warring? -- Zsero (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And I keep telling you to stop saying that, I know it isn't a game. But guess what, rules are not always a thing in games. Such as rules we have in the USA to not kill another person. Rules are not strictly for games, as it seems you think. As for common sense and decency, you were already told you were wrong by two admins. They are important here, whether you believe so or not. If they were not, vandalism would run rampant, with no sign of stopping. We wouldn't have a police force(the admins) to keep others in check who do such things. Rules are dearly important here.

The USA has laws, not rules. But even laws are not the most important thing in the world, and there are times when it is right to ignore them. Here, however, we are not discussing a law, let along a divine edict, but an internal rule of one web site, and what's more, one that has a provision for IAR. Such rules certainly do not stand before more important considerations. In this case I do not concede that I broke any rules, but in the even that I did those rules needed to be broken. -- Zsero (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

However, if this was not a time that they needed to be broken, and in fact, as stated by an an op. You were wrong. Also:

1. In general, a rule of being or of conduct, established by an authority able to enforce its will; a controlling regulation; the mode or order according to which an agent or a power acts. [1913 Webster]

So yes, they are the same thing, at least at WP. And although you did not state it in your post again, the fact that you were implying that I think WP is a game is insulting. Daedalus (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In reguards to your above post, yes. It takes two to edit-war. However, I justify my reverts, in that they were reverts to the orignal, as stated, only the user in question, or an admin, may remove said warnings. Later I made a mistake, and reverted my own mistake, noting it. You however did not see your own mistakes, and used mine as 'justification' to continue what you thought was right. Second. I read the discussion at ANI, it did not state that they were unwarnnted, simply that they were overkill. However, whatever the consensus at ANI may be, it is not your place to remove said warnings.

And last, but not least, is it an edit war when one continuely removes vandalism by another user? Removeing warnings is. Whether you think it or not. Daedalus (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have contacted User:Ashleylmack and explained the situation to her, and she has blanked her talk page, which she has every right to do. And if the false accusation is reposted to her talk page she will know what is going on and she will blank it herself. Therefore I can in good conscience promise that I will not do so for her. Thus there is no longer any reason for me to remain blocked, whichever way you look at it. -- Zsero (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have requested additional eyes on this at the administrators' noticeboard diff. R. Baley (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that User:Daedalus969 is at it again, restoring false accusations to User talk:Klpalmer‎, User talk:Stephena‎, User talk:134.68.173.135‎ and User talk:134.68.172.247‎. K. L . Palmer and Stephen A. have not edited since mid-2006, so they're unlikely to be directly harmed by coming across this themselves, but is that a reason for false accusations to remain there forever? Is Daedalus969 not edit-warring by restoring it, just to make a WP:POINT?

In any case, the situation is as follows: I was blocked for reverting User Talk:Ashleylmack more than 3 times, and at the time I could not promise not to keep doing so if unblocked. As soon as I contacted Ms Mack this morning I did make this promise. As far as the other pages are concerned, if unblocked, I will revert them once. If Daedalus continues to vandalise them, I will not edit-war with him/her but seek help from others. There is no issue at any other page. Thus, there is no reason for me to remain blocked. Keeping me blocked serves no preventative purpose, and is therefore by definition against the rules that the blockers hold so dear. Meanwhile, could someone try to make Daedalus see reason? -- Zsero (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not vandalizing anything. You are not the owner of others' talk pages, and therefore do not have the right to remove warnings, unjust or not. Only admins and the user in question may do such. You are not an admin, and what you are doing is closer to vandalism then what I am. The reason you should remain blocked is because you feel you have the right to remove warnings of another's userpage because of your opinion of said warnings. Until you can understand that this is wrong, and you should not do such things, I cannot see why you should be unblocked. Daedalus (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I was not blocked for removing warnings, I was blocked for 3RR. Since I have said I will not repeat that offense, I am entitled to be automatically unblocked. As for low-level edit-warring, that is exactly what you have done by restoring the false accusation. -- Zsero (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ashleylmack has removed the false accusations from her page, and the accusations on the other four pages have now been removed by an admin. I hope that satisfies Daedalus, and s/he will no longer keep restoring them. I can now promise that I will not edit-war on any of those pages, therefore there remains no reason at all why I should continue to be blocked. -- Zsero (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Reguarding those pages, it has. However, I will not be happy, not that it matters, until you understand that you cannot remove warnings on any user talk page but your own. Your wording was very specific. Daedalus (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't care whether you're happy, so long as you will not continue to put those false accusations on these users' pages, and therefore I will have no cause to remove them. Since that is the case, continuing my block would seem to be against the very rules that you feel so passionately about. -- Zsero (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Daedalus, an incorrect warning can be removed by anyone. As for the warnings in question, in the case of a GOOD FAITH user linking to an academic resource, as opposed to someone spamming their personal website, it is much more helpful to engage the user than to template them. By leaving a personal message, you can be welcoming to a new user and invite a discussion on the appropriateness of this link. We obviously have no idea who this user is relative to the school, but when academics want to contribute to Wikipedia, we should WELCOME THEM, not template them. --B (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for the clarification. I cannot remember who put the other idea in my mind, either way, thankyou. Daedalus (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi B, I wish you would talk to Hu12 about this, after his last comment at AN, I was unable to type anything in keeping with WP:Civil. Sorry Zsero, I'm going to have to step away from the Wiki for a bit. R. Baley (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote here, [5] the root of this problem still remains. No one who was involved in this edit war and three-day go-round is sorry for their actions, because the original question that inspired the WP:3RR violations hasn't been addressed and everyone still feels as if they were acting in the right. If that's not settled with admin attention, we're just setting ourselves up for another round. Snowfire51 (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a good point. We could flip a coin to see who "wins" or we could just settle with everyone was a little bit right and a little bit wrong. Both sides were wrong to edit war. Both sides were wrong to use the rollback button in a dispute. Daedalus969 and Hu12 were wrong to reinstate the warnings and not consider something more appropriate (like a personal message). Call it a draw? --B (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|issue has become moot.}} And in the meantime, while we're doing all this, can we unblock me? I remind you that according to the rules, since there is no prospect that unblocking me will lead to an edit war or other rule violation, there is no reason for my remaining blocked. -- Zsero (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I 100% agree, but I'm also not going to unilaterally override the blocking admin on this. It's probably moot at this point as it will expire in 2 hours on its own, but except for an incorrect/abusive block, admins tend to get desysopped for undoing each other's blocks without overwhelming support from other admins. --B (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Then what's the point of the unblock template? Isn't that supposed to be reviewed by any uninvolved admin, who should make their own decision? And don't the rules require that when a block is no longer preventative it must be removed? -- Zsero (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, what the heck, it's only two hours left, the blocking admin says on AN that he doesn't care all that much. I have removed the block. Please stay away from Daedalus and the issue that resulted in the block. --B (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the welcome. I was not aware that adding the links would cause such a fuss. I was simply hoping I could get some useful information to the public. Are you an administrator on Wikipedia? I am not too sure how the system works and I wanted to know who keeps tabs on all of the information going in and who is it that makes these kinds of "spamming" accusations and such. If nothing else I will be sure to keep tabs on my account from now on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleylmack (talk • contribs) 15:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Go you

Just wanted to say how nice it is to see someone stand up against injustice - well done. Vegetationlife (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback restored

I've restored your rollback. Using it on Hu12 and Daedalus969 was not a great idea, but fair enough, they did the same and since they've still got it, so why should you be picked on? Like I said, if you come across something like this in the future, please get other admins involved. I'll be glad to help. Mistakes happen, people over-react, we are none of us perfect. All the best and good luck! Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism by Gettingitdone

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken in by saying I have made a false claim. Please examine this diff, it clearly shows my entire statement was removed by Gattingitdone. I am reverting your edit as per the following... **: If you look at the edit history of this AFD you will clearly see where I had made a comment at 05:28, 7 March 2008, which was removed as of the edit by Gettingitdone at 05:47, 7 March 2008. Where is your evidence to the contrary? --Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • The Diff [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchwoodwho (talk • contribs) 08:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Then I ask you how my comment was removed between my edit and his, which are back to back.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I have evidence that it was deleted and I've provided it to you in substance. I suggest we seek an admin to interpret our differing points of view, but please do not be say I'm insulting you when I have provided evidence.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I am a little put off by your comments about lack of sleep considering I have only been awake for a few hours, the tone seemed a little rude. I also at a loss for why you seem to not care that the diff doesn't match with the edit history and suggest I did something wrong. Why is my comment removed from the content of the diff in question if it appears in the top section? Is this a problem with Wikipedia that can lead to further confusion? As an editor I don't understand why you are so set against understanding what has happened here and instead seem to be finding fault with me personally. If there is a problem with the diff's content, as clearly there is, there is a larger issue that needs to be directly addressed to the correct administrative body so that further confusion on other edits is not encountered.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• If you have information as to my error I can't see how this is constructive to keep going around in circles when I have stated that I will gladly apologize if I can see what the mistake was. I feel you just trying to provoke an argument and I have raised this issue to the adminstration in hopes of a resolution that shows me exactly where I have made my mistake and thus allows me to apologize to the party I mistakenly wronged, something it seems you are hard-pressed to not to allow.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to my talk page.

I appreciate your zeal to right a perceived wrong, but please do not remove other people's comments from my talk page. I am quite capable of investigating such assertions and determining for myself whether they have any merit. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shannonez

That's fair enough, I think the reason I and others have been leaving messages is that they're not noting deletions as such in the edit summary, it's likely they're going to get more unless they start doing that. BigHairRef | Talk 22:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contentious Editor

Zsero wrote the following on the Semicha Talk Page;

The following sentences in this article are problematic:

"seems to have died out"

"ceased to exist"

"chain from Moses onward was broken"

"it is likely that formal semicha came to an end"

These uncited assumptions are not shared by all historians. These opinions should either be removed or accompanied with the opposing view. CWatchman (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought that sounded like a fair proposale, but Zsero replied:

Yes, they are shared by all authorities. Precisely when it happened can be debated, but that it happened cannot. It's no more debatable than the roundness of the earth. -- Zsero (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Watchman replied in a very nice manner:

Terms such as "seems to" and "it is likely" are obviously unsourced information. The one concrete term "ceased to exist" is just as totally unprovable as the Apostolic Succession and requires the same element of faith to accept as proven. But after all, isn't that what religion is all about? Faith? Who am I to question the Catholic historian who believes he has evidence of an unbroken succession, or an historian who believes he has evidence of an unbroken Smicha? The remaining fact is they believe it and the burden is upon us to disprove it, which we cannot. Mr Zsero I have looked over your talk page and you are a very bright and quick witted individual. I am sure you can discover a reasonable way to state that while most do not believe it continued there are some that do. It is just that simple. I will leave this to your fluent and concise editing skill to make whatever changes are necessary. editing skill to make whatever changes are necessary. CWatchman (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Zsero shot back (you can read the whole discussion on the Talk Page):

Good Grief !....... This is Wikipedia, not Uncyclopedia. Zsero (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Watchman continues to complement zsero here:

The bottom line is this: There are those that believe their is sufficient evidence that Semicha was unbroken and you cannot disprove them anymore then they can conclusively verify it.

I am a bit stymied as to why there seems to be an anger in your tone. I am trying to be as amicable as possible and even said I would leave editing of this article to you. Please try to bit a bit more open minded. You are a very intelligent person and have very much to offer not only this article but Wikipedia as a whole. CWatchman (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Zsero shot back:

This is not a place for lunatic fringe theories. -- Zsero (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Watchman said:

Thank you for your scholarly reply and amicable responses. Have a pleasant life. CWatchman (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Watchman later wrote what seemed to be a afair and reasonable proposal:

Editing Needed This article is parsimonious in content and fails to deliver a neutral point of view. Rather then barging in selfishly editing I would prefer to civilly discuss this matter further and attempt a joint edit text that we can then propose on the basis of our mutual agreement. CWatchman (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Zsero flatly refuses saying:

That's not going to happen, because the position you are trying to promote is complete bollocks. It's not even a notable fringe theory. It doesn't belong in this article. -- Zsero (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Now i enter the arena : Even if it was not a notable fringe theory, if you continue to provoke people to defend it, it will soon become popular just from the exposure. Nothing makes people come out and speak up more then persecution. Natzi's should know that by now. Remmo (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I also found this statement made by another editor Zsero was warring with:

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. RebCoh (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Anothe Editor wrote Zsero:

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. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Another editor wrote:

Hi, I think that that was a really mean thing to do to just remove my template as if it were nobody's business without telling me first about it. It seems to me that you're not listening to me. Please do not brush this off as if it were a little minor comment, because it's not. You should really communicate and behave more respectfully. Cuyler91093 (Contribs) 09:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. I won't stop you from removing whatever you want from the pages. FYI, I got those templates from the French Wikipedia, and I just thought it would be a good idea to share it on the English one, but, should my contributions go unappreciated, then that's fine too. Cuyler91093 (Contribs) 23:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

ANOTHER editor wrote:

If you have information as to my error I can't see how this is constructive to keep going around in circles when I have stated that I will gladly apologize if I can see what the mistake was. I feel you just trying to provoke an argument and I have raised this issue to the adminstration in hopes of a resolution that shows me exactly where I have made my mistake and thus allows me to apologize to the party I mistakenly wronged, something it seems you are hard-pressed to not to allow.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And this is just what I have gathered from his most RECENT edit history.

This man is an inflammatory, obnoxious individual that refuses to reason with any other editors. One last case in point: Just go to his Talk page and read the complaints against him.

All that is being asked is that either uncited ambiguious statements be removed or give the opposing view a small bit of space. Zsero will do neither. It is his way or no way.

Please advise

Remmo (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ever hear of using Diffs? Please don't text dump on peoples talk pages--Hu12 (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Never heard of it. Sorry Remmo (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remmo

Hi. Remmo seems to be a new editor, and may not be the most knowledgeable of proper wikiquette. Please have that in mind and engage him in discussion on Talk:Semicha. Thank you for understanding. -- Avi (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Then file a WP:SSP report on them, if you believe that they are sockpuppets. -- Avi (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Unbroken Semicha Debate

I teach at a local College and I made the error of discussing the Semicha Wiki debate to my students. It is highly probable this is where these other debaters have come from. The history of the initial debater begins around the time I first began teaching the class the reversional history of unbroken Semicha and it was one of my students that insisted I become a Wiki editor to make my contributions. If my suspicions are correct I owe everyone an apology. Actually, in light of this theory, I am surprised there is not a more influx of debaters then has been heard from. I also speak other places frequently in various places in the U.S. I have also written much. But the timing with the College and the debate history seem more confluent. I will instruct the class to please leave this debate to me. I appreciate everyone's patience and my desire is not to debate and inflame but it is to enlighten and to share. Thank you for understanding.

CWatchman (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW any personal communication with me may be directed to the following email address: CWatchman2@gmail.com

CWatchman (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Zsero,

Thank you your contributions to Wikipedia articles. I am somewhat new to Wikipedia.

Please notice that I have at NO TIME interjected ANY of my opinions in ANY articles. A simple review of my edit history will reveal this. Concerning the Semicha article please take note that all my editing has been on the Talk Page ONLY discussing my position accompanied with requests to assist me in making the article a bit more NPOV by removing uncited assumptions and perhaps to add little blip of information stating a small minority do not adhere to the broken Semicha theory. At no time have I attempted any of these changes myself. I am leaving that in more Wiki-experienced hands then my own.

(There are various groups that I could cite that are much more adamant about this and although I do not wish to advertise a fringe theory is there some way we could briefly mention their existence which is a concrete reality?)

Coincidently Unbroken Semicha is but a sideline research as my forte is in Psychology, English literature, and Religion.

Again I have not added anything nor reverted anything from this article confining all my requests and comments to the Talk Page to where I understood such comments should be confined. If I am in error I humbly apologize and submissively accept proper instruction in this matter.

Thank you for your understanding.

CWatchman (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear option

Well, I bow to your knowledge of US history :) It seems I was too hasty in my assessment. Anyway, just thought I'd make note that I have realized my rather egregious error, and that I bet you think I'm pretty dumb right now. I've made a note on the talk page about the line, since I was wrong. Anyway. Cheers! seresin | wasn't he just...? 02:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gregory Edwards

thanks for the resize i had trouble with it... im putting a caption on now... its gingham with broken glass —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devon666 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categories, Pt. II

There appear to be a few problems here. Example, George Wallace should be categorized as a survivor since he was not murdered. And Tupac Shakur's case is interesting; he received bullet wounds in the first attempt, but died years later after another shooting. Could it be that this was the wrong description or is it something amiss? Please reply on your talk page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, so Wallace is a survivor. What's the problem? And Shakur is both a survivor and a death, so he goes into both subcats. Again, what's the prob? -- Zsero (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no "problem". Just wanted to make clear that this change was appropriate. Who else is misplaced? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

All the people who are still in Category:Shooting victims, except perhaps some borderline cases like James Earl Ray, where it's hard to tell whether the death was caused by the shooting. Everyone else should be in one subcat or the other. But this is your project, not mine. All I did was change the description you had, which was incomprehensible. I helped with the initial sorting of people, down to the Ms. The rest is up to you. -- Zsero (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zev

Thanks for the link.

BTW, I want to share this, Does a site exist already translated into English?

CWatchman (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're asking whether this article has ever been translated into English, I don't know but I very much doubt it. The journal in which it appeared was not in English, nor was it published in an English-speaking country, so I don't see why anyone would have bothered to translate it. -- Zsero (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your reinsertion of politicalfamily.com spam

Not to start an edit war, but your reapplying of that spam isn't a way to improve things. Tedickey (talk) 10:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it's spam. They're references supporting the genealogical facts asserted in the text, which I suppose are of interest to some readers. I neither know nor care who owns the site, or what relationship Pres-scholar may have with it, but unless you give a solid reason why they should not be in the articles I will go on reinserting them. Merely calling something spam doesn't make it so. -- Zsero (talk) 10:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: I now see you're claiming that "on review" the site "is not a reliable source". Any particular reason for that conclusion? -- Zsero (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure - reading the charts closely, and recalling similar data on rootsweb, etc., I have a strong impression that the primary source (not given there) are unreliable sources such as rootsweb. (Do some reading and correlation on rootsweb, and you'll come to the same conclusion - the editors of that material routinely "fix" dates and names to provide connections which cannot be sourced reliably). By the way, the chart is copyright without giving a list of permissions - not something that one would want to quote from extensively. Tedickey (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright isn't an issue; facts can't be copyright. And if they're not facts then we shouldn't be citing them at all :-) Is there some previous discussion of rootsweb, showing its unreliability, or are you suggesting I just root around there, so to speak, and I'll find a bad odour? -- Zsero (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The latter (I'm citing my experience in finding google hits that point there, and finding that the data are tainted). You should become familiar with it, and similar sources. Regarding "facts" - some of the linkages are interpretations (lacking a cite in those charts to explicit external sources, you are not able to gauge which are factual, and which are research). Tedickey (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, so long as it's honest research. -- Zsero (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually it does. For instance, if pres-scholar happened to be the researcher, WP's policy wouldn't permit that. (I'm more concerned that the facts aren't supported - and for myself would not incorporate any of that unless I could support it with a separate reliable source). Tedickey (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image source

It is taken from http://www.chabad.org/special/rebbetzin/marriage.html (linked from the special web presentation section of [7]). According to this site, it was taken in Purkersdorf, Austria. I think it can still be used with Template:Non-free fair use in. Chocolatepizza (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Story with the Strashelyer

I'll ask R Raichik when I see him.Gavhathehunchback (talk) 07:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] odd bush reversion...

sorry about the hassles, was just trying to fix some vandalism and didn't realise I add some back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord of Haha (talk • contribs) 06:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] George W. Bush

I am disappointed you reverted the edit about Mr Bush winning a train race as an 8 year old. It was properly cited, shows his human side as a normal kid and describes a time that isn't covered elsewhere in the article. What some consider trivial may be considered worthwhile to others. As a learning experience, I would be interested in which Wikipedia policies and guidelines that edit violated. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

In a shorter article, about a less notable person, I'd probably have left it; but GWB has done many things in his life, and this has to be among the most trivial of all. It's simply not encyclopaedic to include it in such an article. If there were enough significant material about his early life to justify an article just on that subject, then this might well be appropriate for that article. -- Zsero (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James Rogers

Why did you remove the phot on James Rogers?(Lookinhere (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC))

1. It's not an image of him, it's not even his grave, it's just a plaque that some historical society put up recently.
2. It took up the whole damn page.
3. It's in the refs.

-- Zsero (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You could have just moved it further down the page to mak a contribution rather than rudly deleting it.(Lookinhere (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC))

It didn't belong where it was. If you want to put it lower down, as a thumb, be my guest, but I had no obligation to do so. -- Zsero (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Much better, I am trying to get rights to a drawing by Gary Zaboly , owned by my cousin, Robert J. Rogers for his photo.(Lookinhere (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC))

• R. J. Rogers just had surgery so it could be a while (Lookinhere (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Please don't remove my { {or} } tags.

I know what your thinking, because it happens a lot I'm learning. But no, I'm not some wild-ass Christian trying to remove a picture. I'm trying to find the source for it (like I said, I've ruled out two of them). The thing about that picture is that it claims to come from a "British Museum", but which one? If it was a picture that was taken by a wikipedia editor, then surely he or she knows what museum it came from! But it doesn't specify where it came from. Thats why the tags are there, clearly we have a picture of questionable origin. I'm not removing it, I'm trying to find where it came from so that we can get the museum's story behind it (which would be MUCH better than the story some random person writes for it, i.e. "probably". Just relax, if you want to help find the source, then just start searching, all I'm asking for is that we cite the material. Paladin Hammer (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a British museum; The British museum. Nothing questionable about that. -- Zsero (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cheney

The incident is notable firstly in regards that it goes directly against Cheney's image and public perception- "Cheney, who had been typecast as being "aloof" during most of the campaign was remarkably lively during his visit to Chicago where he rode the L, danced the polka, served attendees kielbasa with stuffed cabbage and addressed a cheering crowd"

From the NYTimes:

Dick Cheney danced the polka with a Polish beauty queen, spoke a little Polish and dished out a few plates of kielbasa and stuffed cabbage in Chicago yesterday. Mr. Cheney, whose campaign style has sometimes been described as aloof...

At the festival, he greeted the crowd in Polish. Sto lat, Mr. Cheney said, or May you live 100 years. Then he spoke about his role as the secretary of defense under President George Bush. We were proud to work with all of you to help bring down the wall and free the peoples of Eastern Europe, he said, to applause.

Famous incidents from the campaign belong here, and if you feel strongly about taking out this section then it should be decided with input from others than just yourself--Orestek (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Cheney is after all typecast as a dark Darth Vader figure in the public perception, The fact that there are incidents where the man showed some panache is notable--Orestek (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Only if the article first establishes this dark image in the first place, so that it needs to offset it. Better not to mention it at all, since it isn't true. Noting one time that he behaved like a normal campaigner just reinforces the idea that it was unusual, and implies that for the rest of the campaign he was dour and surly, which just doesn't match reality. If you need some more detail on the campaign, surely the vice-presidential debate, in which both candidates put in performances that put their running mates to shame, is far more noteworthy.

In any case, why is the stuff about Lieberman, and the campaigns almost-but-not-quite crossing paths, even mildly interesting? Politicians on the same campaign trail will always be hitting the same venues at similar times. And why delete the sentence about the Florida cliffhanger, which is genuinely noteworthy? -- Zsero (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] why the revert?

I changed "defeatism" to "criticism" and you reverted. Fine -- but I'm unable to parse your explanation from yesterday: "sometimes it is. it's pov so to characterise this instance." from Woodrow Wilson --ScottJ (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You changed it because you claimed that "defeatism" is just propaganda-speak for "criticism". Sometimes that is so. But to claim that it was so in this instance is POV. You did not cite a basis for claiming that when Wilson said "defeatism" he didn't mean exactly that. Defeatism is certainly not a null concept, and it's definitely damaging, however much its threat is also used as a cover for fending off legitimate criticism. -- Zsero (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nikki Sixx

"why use a $2 word when a 50c word will do?" Not everyone is American, some of us like to read English. May I just ask how old you are because from the comments you're making you sound very young. I'm not getting into an editing war with you over one word. 82.18.225.109 (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"Currently" is no better a word than "now". It's just longer. And very much more American. -- Zsero (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

How childish. 82.18.236.205 (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Your deletion of Image:Books fishing for fun.jpg

Why was no notice of this given at the pages where it's linked? How was anybody supposed to know that it was proposed for deletion? Please restore the image and notify affected parties so people can dispute it, or correct whatever's wrong with it. It's completely unfair that images suddenly disappear before anyone has a clue there's an issue. (If the issue here was the lack of a fair use rationale, then you should have taken into account that when it was uploaded there was no such requirement. When was anyone supposed to have added one?) -- Zsero (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Restored it, please remember to remove the tag after you've added a rationale. Melesse (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to James L Gray

To be honest the edits don't look necessary and to me they give the article an unnecessarily cold tone, but may that's what you mean by Wikifying it! At a brief look through, I can't see any changes that make it wrong or have lost significant meaning, so I won't argue the toss over it. Regarding references, it is generally all factual information known to me, but if there are specific facts that you feel would be much better with third-party references cited, let me know which they are and I'll see what I can do.

Incidentally, your revised version doesn't appear when I just go to the article itself, but does when I look at its revision history - is there a time delay or approval process that delays the appearance of the edited page? I only ask because I previously had the impression that edits appear immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexgray (talk • contribs) 10:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's an encylopaedia, not story time. Encyclopaedias report in a neutral tone, don't refer to their subjects by their nicknames, and don't twaddle on about trivia. Have a look at a few featured articles to see how they're written. Or have a read of the Manual of Style, and in particular the Biography section and you'll see what sort of thing we're looking for on Wikipedia.

And just about everything significant needs sources. "Factual information known to you" is not enough; we, the readers, don't know who you are or how reliable you are. If he's important enough to be in an encyclopaedia (and from your biography he certainly seems to be) he must have been written up somewhere, perhaps in newspaper articles or in professional publications. His awards must have been mentioned somewhere, as well as what they were for. If he's so prestigious then any of his colleagues who've published memoirs probably mention him. And of course if he's published anything himself that should go in. Basically anything that will tell us this person really existed and really is famous in his field, because most of us are not power generation engineers, and will never have heard of him until we read the article, so we need to know it's not all made up.

About the new version of the page not showing up, try refreshing the page (F5 on most browsers). It could be that your browser has the old version in its cache and is serving that up to you. -- Zsero (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] War of 1812

Mind addressing on the talk pages the edit war you seem to be getting into? Lets all hash this out together in the old fashioned wiki way shall we? Tirronan (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's anything like an edit war. We all seem to be working to improve the article, and taking each other's points on board. I'm not sure whether there's any actual difference of opinion that needs discussion. -- Zsero (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to discuss it some and cite it some ok? Tirronan (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Cite what? There aren't any factual disputes that I'm aware of. We're just refining the language in which the facts are expressed, step by step. If there are any substantive disagreements, by all means raise them on the talk page, but so far I don't see what there is to discuss. -- Zsero (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Famous Hoosiers

That was my mistake, I looked at the infoboxes of the people that were added and saw they weren't born in Indiana and didn't think to look any further. We could always take a long running vote (say a couple of weeks or so) and ask people to come up with the 25 most notable hoosiers. Just a thought. HoosierState^Talk 23:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LBJ and the Christadelphians

Thanks for the correction about Operation Texas not being in LBJ's administration. I'm from the UK, so didn't know administration was specifically refring to time as a president (thought it could be used as a general term for "political job", kind of thing!). So, thanks again. I've corrected that and removed the speculation from the section I added; hope it looks ok now. Thanks. --Woofboy (talk) 10:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Too Cute?

(Your revert at Pride and Prejudice article of 18:21, 30 March 2008). Sir: I disagree with your characterizing my edits as "too cute"; my edit-work, here and elsewhere, has been always in good faith. Will you please do me the favor of explaining what you mean by "too cute", and which edit(s) you find thus? Thank you.

--Jbeans (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I said exactly what it was that I found too cute. -- Zsero (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nikki Sixx

Can I ask why you keep changing one sentence on Nikki's page? At the end of the day does it really matter who he's dating, maybe it should be cut altogether. It's not really relevant is it? INXS-Girl (talk) 11:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It is the "personal life" section; if he's in a relationship that's pretty much the most significant thing about his personal life. Also, people kept adding this before there was any confirmation, and I kept removing it because it was unverifiable. So now that there's finally a reliable source available I want to keep it there. I've removed the Vanity thing, since it doesn't seem to be reliable. We have to be careful with BLP not to say things we can't be sure are true. -- Zsero (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Murdered American police officers

In what way are all American police officers killed in the line of duty murdered? The majority die in traffic accidents - that is not murder! -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll concede that not all police officers who are murdered are killed in the line of duty (although most are), but it's certainly not true that all those killed in the line of duty are murdered and it should not therefore be a subcat. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, then neither one is a subcat of the other, and those murdered in the line of duty should be in both. I've added the "Line of Duty" cat to all entries in the "Murdered" cat, except those who were not murdered in the line of duty. -- Zsero (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your comments, which you added in discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Pocceschi (2nd nomination). Please note that on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. Consider reading about the deletion policy for a brief overview for the deletion process, and how we decide what to keep and what to delete. We hope you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you! Just giving a !vote with no rationale behind it has no weight. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:DTTR. I know it's not a vote, but consensus is formed, at least in part, by the number of voices expressing their opinions, even if they don't all make speeches. I had nothing particularly earthshattering to add to what had already been said; why should I repeat other people's arguments just for the sake of adding to the word count? -- Zsero (talk)

Sorry about that. I wasn't sure if you knew already. A "per nom" probably would have been better though -- I just can't stand people who give a vote with no reasoning (although I can understand why you did that). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] regarding Image:NYPD-Blue-tv-03.jpg

Please understand that a separate detailed rationale is needed for each use. Check this image for an example.--Rockfang (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That's just silly; the two articles are closely-enough related that the same rationale applies to both. WP is not a bureaucracy; common sense trumps rules every time. -- Zsero (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the image's page. Feel free to look at it as an example of how according to policy, if a non-free/fair use image is used multiple times, it needs to have separate detailed rationales. If you need any help with image related policies, feel free to ask me.--Rockfang (talk) 07:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to consider whether it makes any sense to duplicate the rationale just because it appears on two pages, when the same reasons apply with equal force to both. Feel free to consider that WP does not exist to make busywork, and common sense always trumps rules. That people bother to jump through such hoops and insist that others do the same is contrary to what WP stands for, and I for one refuse to do so. -- Zsero (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re "I fail to see..."

Re "I fail to see... ": Sir: Thank you for judging my efforts of contributing to Wikipedia (Pride and Prejudice article, edit of 03:08, 09 April 2008); however, without a better understanding of your objection(s), I'm finding it difficult to learn what you require. Please be more clear of what exactly fails your standards here, especially when your judgement dismisses an entire section of work. Please explain, re specifically these questions:

1. Re the source material quoted (by others), are you deleting the reference and the bibliographical source I provided because: --the full text of the novel is linked online? --or/also, because the source cited is a print-only publication that is not published online? Please explain why you feel, for either case, it is a bad thing to do.

2. As corollary, is it ok with you --if the full text is linked online-- that quotations placed around source material are (per se) sufficient without further citation? (If so, doesn't this presume the typical Wikipedia reader will know that the the quote is from an online text, and that the link for same will be found below, or somewhere, in the article?; --is that your policy?).

3. Again, as corollary, is it your requirement --if the full text is linked online-- that no additional specific reference may be provided?; i.e., that it is not ok to further tell the reader where exactly --e.g., which link, page, chapter-- the cited material can be located within the online source?

4. Re 3, do you see no advantage for the reader, especially a new reader, that such information be placed readily at hand? --especially if that reader is not yet comfortable with interpreting all the information at hand on a typical Wikipedia page?)

5. Finally, in response to your "fail to see" any improvement in the edits I offered:

Obviously, you provided no explanatory remarks of your objections; but because I cannot read your mind, and because I still wish to feel I can learn and contribute here, I offer to review the article again, specifically the plot summary, to learn if I can find a better manner of wording that improves what is now installed, and resubmit same to your appraisal. I will try to limit my concerns to the problems that originally attracted me to that section --some time ago-- which is, to the promiscuous use of pronouns, even when their respective nouns serve the reader better. (I'll try!)

Thank you for your time and answers to my questions; and for your long record of service to Wikipedia. [--Jbeans (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)]

Your edit:

1. Removed wikilinks for no apparent reason.
2. Inserted a bibliography consisting of one specific edition of the book, for no apparent reason. The entire book is linked from the article. We know what book we're talking about. There's nothing special about that edition.
3. In most cases, the context is enough for any reader to realise that quoted text is from the book itself.
4. Page numbers obviously refer to specific editions, for a book with many editions. Chapter numbers would be more useful, since they're the same in every edition. Though since the entire text is online and linked directly from the article, the absence of chapter numbers is no big deal, because readers can just search the entire text for a quote.
5. Have I addressed all your questions?

-- Zsero (talk) 09:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Le Grand Bleu (yacht)

Thanks for your note, and I have to admit I'm a little mystified. I looked at it and thought, "This is crazy -- it's a talk page for a page that exists, I would have no reason to delete that." Then I saw that it was somehow connected to a page that I DID remember deleting because it was tagged as an orphaned talk page of a deleted page -- something called Sral ples, although I may have the spelling wrong. I have to admit that I don't really know what happened, since my examination of the edit history tells me that another administrator did the deletion that my memory tells me I did. Anyway, I hope you will accept my apology -- I will immediately restore the page in question, and I'm still scratching my head trying to remember exactly what went on. I know I wouldn't have deleted a talk page without confirming that it was orphaned, but beyond that, wow, I'm very sorry, I just don't know what happened. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the talk page in question. All I can figure is that somehow when I was in the middle of checking the links to the page, it got redirected or moved by NawlinWiki and I didn't notice that I had been redirected to a different page than the one I left. If you have any idea what happened, I'd appreciate knowing -- it's a little scary. At any rate, I do apologize again for your extra trouble and inconvenience and hope you will accept that it was entirely accidental on my part. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and for your courtesy and understanding. I'm still scratching my head about what the !@#$@!# could have happened. If there's anything further you require with respect to this or any other topic, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Age when R' Henoch took over

Wasn't R' Henoch 24 when R' Dovid was niftar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danthecan (talk • contribs) 11:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jeri Kehn Thompson.

Your use of rollback to restore a link to an offsite copyright violation was wrong on two counts: first, it's a copyright violation and wilfully linking to offsite copyright violations places the Foundation in legal jeopardy due to a principle known as "contributory infringement"; and using rollback to do it because the site is blacklisted was particularly foolish as it renders the article un-editable by others, as well as ignoring the obvious fact that we don't blacklist without good reason. I am assuming that this was a naive error on your part, so will not remove your rollback flag for it, but please be aware that if you do this again, your rollback privilieges may be revoked. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minchas Elozor pictures

I restored the images and moved the discussion to Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_April_28. I do not have a response to your comments so hopefully someone else will. I did not interpret your comments as supporting keeping the images the first time I read through them. Reading them again, I see what you are saying. -Regards Nv8200p talk 14:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User 90.196.3.1 and Disruptive Edits

Hi, I am having problems with this fellow who seems to be doing disruptive edits on all Sikh articles in order to press forward a POV. Is there anything you can do?--Sikh-history (talk) 08:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Moyers

It's been almost a couple of years since you weighed in on this article, but there is a content impasse at the moment on the same issue you addressed then. A couple resident editors have combined to fight off at least a couple attempts since July 2005(!) to mention Laurence Silberman's anecdote about Moyers claiming his memo, requesting FBI info on Goldwater staff, was a CIA forgery. Silberman was, they said, an unsupported liar to suggest Moyers might have been involved in such activity. (This is the point you had addressed.) I came to the page just as they were squelching an IP doing this and did something unheard of, a little research. It turns out that Moyers was not only, as Silberman said, mentioned in the papers of the time as having done this, but the Church Committee's report on misuse of the FBI prominently featured Moyers. Nothing abashed (well to be fair, Osbojos may be a bit abashed but Ratel is not at all) the resident claque insist they have "consensus" for a highly minimalist and misleading edit[8] on the basis of very thin participation (four editors, including me) in a poll. I'll try an RfC too before this is out, but haven't seen much result from that in the past. And apart from the ip (who disappeared before I engaged) and JCarriker (who's Wikiretired) you're the only one other than the four who has ever posted to the talk page at all, much less on this issue. So I hope you'll find time to make a comment. nb: The material I want to add is this (plus a cite to Amazon's excerpt of Deloach's book, which I didn't have before the page was protected). Andyvphil (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)