User talk:Ground Zero/Archive 19

?
How can i get Batches. Gyaantech (talk) 07:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry I can't help. Ground Zero | t 23:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Complaint
You are terrible in your writing skills and people are complaining about you. Why not help those trying to fix pages instead of threatening or insulting them. It is wrong and clearly criminal acting and should be apologizing to people on here. If others need help don't insult them you might be insulting a person of credentials and a professor. Your sentence structure is terrible ..where did you go to school. I think you should apologize to others on here. Try to not get into peoples articles ..if they need help offer a suggestion not start harassing them.
 * -- Unsigned comment by User:Askshoop, transferred from user page.


 * I have moved your comment from my user page to my user talk page. please don't post comments on user's pages -- please use the talk pages. Also, please sign your comments using ~.
 * On your talk page, I have provided links to pages that will help you understand how to edit in Wikipedia. If you have specific questions, please feel free to ask them, and i will try to answer them. Could you identify where I have used incorrect sentence structure in article edits? I am not aware that I have done so. Ground Zero | t 23:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations
If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

```Buster Seven   Talk  06:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Stalin/References
See my earlier comments on the Talk. Tuntable (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

British Columbian Politics
My "reliable source" is a linguistics degree and a knowledge of standard prescriptive English grammar, which requires adjectival inflections on toponyms used as modifiers (e.g. the French government, not the "France" government). For example, "Japan Airlines" is grammatically corrected to "Japanese Airlines". In a descriptive — as opposed to prescriptive — context, the names of municipalities and constituent jurisdictions in the US & Canada (states/provinces) are usually uninflected, though there is high irregularity, with some jurisdictions using both nominal and inflected forms (e.g. the California coast, the Californian legislature).

Curiously, it would be unheard of to refer to "the America congress" or "the Canada parliament". The greater prestige attributed to federal governments relative to their constituent provinces/states is operating subconsciously to ensure adherence to prescriptive grammar as opposed to pidgin-like constructions that give an impression of ignorance. While I concede that the use of adjectival forms like "British Columbian" or "Albertan" are infrequent, they are not exactly rare either. Moreover, many BC/AB nationalists prefer these inflected forms as a way of raising the attributed status of their province vis-a-vis Ottawa. (e.g. the Albertan government, the British Columbian economy).

If you want to change it back, be my guest. I don't have time to take offense or play in the Wiki-sandbox when I know I'm right and am working on getting stuff published for REAL rather than Wikipedia.

rgherbert@gmail.com (778) 867-9147

Ronald Guillermo Herbert Hermosillo &#124; Surrey, British Columbia &#124; rgherbert@gmail.com 03:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgherbert (talk • contribs)

Robert, Wikipedia isn't a place for original research. Wikipedia policies are clear that edits must be verifiable and supported by reliable sources. As you will find in trying to get things published in other places, you will have to follow the rules of the journal/magazine/whatever, and support your work with references. If you want to publish without other people having a say in what you write, then you may want to consider self-publishing or blogging. I will propose moving the article to "BC Refederation Party", which is what the party and Elections BC calls it. Ground Zero | t 15:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It's RONALD, not Robert! Common sense would dictate my position is not "original research" by any stretch of the imagination. Moreover, don't pretend Wikipedia is a collaborative effort.

Ronald Guillermo Herbert Hermosillo &#124; Surrey, British Columbia &#124; rgherbert@gmail.com 07:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr 'Ground Zero' (since you are too cowardly to display your real name):

In response to your consistently pedantic post on my talk page, I yet again remind you that grammatical correction is not tantamount to original research.

Yours sincerely,

Ronald Guillermo Herbert Hermosillo &#124; Surrey, British Columbia &#124; rgherbert@gmail.com 09:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgherbert (talk • contribs)

Ronald, please respect Wikipedia's policy on "no personal attacks". Failure to do so can lead to you being blocked from editing. Wikipedia editors are not required or expected to use their real names.

Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, is descriptive, not prescriptive. Wikipedia articles report on how the world is - even including grammatical errors - not how the world should be, i.e., a world where everyone understands and follows the rules of English grammar. While that sounds like nirvana, it is not the world we live in. As the party does not call itself the "British Columbian Refederation party", it would be incorrect for Wikipedia to do so. If you want the party's name changed, you should address your concerns to the party, and not try to get the change made through Wikipedia. Ground Zero | t 16:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Linking
I just wanted to thank you for pointing out my incorrect use of linking. I am not sure how I picked up the bad habit of over linking, especially linking the same things repeatedly. I went back to correct my latest edits and saw that you had been kind enough to correct them for me. Thank you! I will be much more careful in the future. I appreciate your assistance.--BuzyBody (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

G. K. Vasan
Edit warring again at the page that you protected last week. -- Anbu121 ( talk me ) 20:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Please contact me
Hi there - I am the Director, Community Advocacy for the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit that supports Wikipedia. It's very important that I talk to you - would you please email me at philippe@undefinedwikimedia.org at your earliest opportunity? Again, it's very important and urgent that I speak with you. Thank you. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

"is currently"
Many thanks for your efforts with this abysmal phrase. I'm tempted to say nothing irritates me more, but then there are "graduated college", "for free", "orientated", and a whole host of others. Still, your efforts brighten up my day. :) -- Mesconsing (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Graduated college" may be common American parlance, but it is uniformly criticized by grammarians. (See and  for examples.) As to "orientate", it may be Britspeak, so I'll leave it as is in British articles. Glad you've picked up on "official". That's another one of my peeves. Again, great work!  -- Mesconsing (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, I just searched WP for the term "is currently" and it returned 125,095 hits. Granted, some of them may be legitimate (when comparing conditions at two time periods), but you've really got your work cut out for you... -- Mesconsing (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh how I hate that misuse of "graduated", except that in the part of the country I live in, because of the relative scarcity of bachelor's degrees, it is far more common to hear, "I graduated high school" (or even more commonly, "he didn't graduate high school"). Argghhh!  Thanks for the links.  But I'd like to have that specific issue addressed in an authoritative looking book that I could open up for doubters. Any suggestions? 50.193.171.69 (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

"is currently" essay
Your essay looks pretty good. A couple of suggestions and a couple of thoughts: Nice work! -- Mesconsing (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You may want to change "alright" to "all right".
 * The last sentence about "presently" seems tangential and tacked on, so you might want to drop it.
 * Have you considered turning it into a Wikipedia essay? I don't know anything about that, but this might be a place to start.
 * Somewhere on WP there is a page showing problematic grammatical constructions and suggested solutions. I can't seem to locate it (sorry), but you might want to see if "is currently" is included.
 * I liked it too, and it has already impacted my editing. 50.193.171.69 (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I would submit that the difference between "is" and "is currently" is the permanence of the statement. As in:

1. The capital of the U.S.A. is Washington, D.C. (will not change in the foreseeable future)

2. Barack Obama President of the U.S.A. (will change in the normal course of events)

"Is currently" is generally used in statements of type 2.

Those who like to change "is currently" to "is" may wish to consider using the template As of, whose purpose is to mark potentially dated statements. For example,. Angusta (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I disagree. I don't think that any reasonable reader would believe that Barack Obama will be the president of the U.S. for ever and ever. Even if they are not aware that the U.S. is a democracy with elections, they will understand that he is a mortal being. Adding "currently" is therefore unnecessary, and just tedious. The use of "currently" to indicate anything that is impermanent (as opposed to providing emphasis to contrast another condition identified in the sentence) is a relatively new phenomenon. The present tense has been used to indicate an impermanent condition for centuries. Why does it need to be modified in such a clumsy way now? Ground Zero | t 12:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Next United Kingdom general election
Thanks for catching that -- I'm afraid I mistakenly overwrote your edit when I was reverting Sheffno. Apologies and thanks! –  Richard  BB  18:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thomas G. Courtney
Just in case you were thinking of going through the other Iowa legislators and removing their "currently"s (I admit it, I put them there), I'm "currently" replacing them with appropriate as of tags as I do the post-inauguration updates. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good work you're doing. Thanks for letting me know. Notice how removing "currently" doesn't change the meaning of the sentence? I like the "as of" tag. I'll start using it where appropriate. Regards, Ground Zero | t 14:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Apology
I've just deleted a mis-directed rant about some page alterations. Was nothing to do with you - hard to type with a big piece of humble pie in my hand. Sorry, Dsth (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. Was there ice cream with the pie? Mmmm.... Ground Zero | t 14:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Hi
I know, I did see some mistakes in my writing, I'm just really not good in grammar or capitalization, because I'm a young wikipedia editor with kinda bad writing, but thanks for letting me know for me to spell Formely like Formerly, thanks. --Bouncy Glow (talk)

help out in Igli Tare
Hello Ground Zero. Can you help out cleaning the history of Igli Tare please? Several IPs have been vandalizing and inserting wrong information etc. Please look through if you can and check the IP edits. Thanks. --Avoided (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Our "buddy"
Since you have interacted with User:Aecharri, would you care to peruse his latest edits? They seem to be of the same type(insertion of irrelevant information, run-on sentences, illegible rants). It would appear that Aecharri has chosen not to take the multitude of advice left on his talk page. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

UK disambiguation
Hi. In this edit, you added "United Kingdom's" to disambiguate this Great Western Railway from others in the world. This phrasing feels very clunky; I've changed it to the more natural "British". Dricherby (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Ground Zero | t 13:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Canadian politics/party colours/BC Social Credit/row


A tag has been placed on Template:Canadian politics/party colours/BC Social Credit/row requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Cnmk
Hello, Ground Zero. I see that you blocked Cnmk for three hours and warned/tried to help the user on his or her talk page, and that Elockid extended the block to three months. I'm letting you know that the user is back to editing Wikipedia under his or her Cnmk username. These edits and these, but especially the first set, don't seem as though Cnmk has learned much about the issues people generally have with his or her edits. The editor does seem to be trying to help, though, and this edit, for example, is not problematic...except for when considering some grammar experts who believe that a sentence shouldn't start with the word but.

Anyway, because Cnmk can still be problematic, and in case you think it may be a good idea to keep an eye on him or her, I decided to alert you to the above. Flyer22 (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Another problematic aspect to this user's editing is changing reliably sourced material in the way that he or she just did with this edit. Flyer22 (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Article notability notification
Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote recently, Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform, has been tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources:. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 23:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

that, which; currently, now
Just a fan note from a fellow Toronto Wikipedian to thank you for your informative User page on various stylistic issues. Bellagio99 (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm glad it's useful to you. Cheers, Ground Zero | t 12:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Difficulties with an editor
I'm having extreme difficulty with a user that you had a run-in with a little while ago, User:Jurriaan. You had a discussion with him about WP:OWN, and he's now insisting that I lack the authority to edit "his" article (Law of value), and he has taken to reverting my edits, when they request citations to his admitted original research. His reasoning – besides the fact that I lack authority – is that the [citation needed] and [original research] tags clutter the article. Could you please give him another heads up on the relevant policies, before this becomes an even bigger dispute? I think his edits are in good faith, but he will not listen to me any more, and he rejects my attempts to point out policy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Who have you upset?
Seems hardly a coincidence that there is a new account,, with only 2 edits, both reverting you (I've reverted them). Dougweller (talk) 07:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing that. Indeed. the tax software reversion seems particularly tendentious. I'll keep an eye on that account. Regards, Ground Zero | t 12:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

HBC
the tendency with new additions to that article is for additions to be about the new-era company....and somewhat spam/p.r. like.....as on the talkpage, I think the historical HBC should be split off vs what happened since Zeller's took over; and a watch be kept for WP:OWN and WP:AUTO.Skookum1 (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Norton Bay
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Your edit summary on Mansour bin Abdulaziz
Please carefully look at what I did on the article, then write a long edit summary. I think wp editors are very busy with writing and saving their edits rather than reading what was done or edited. Egeymi (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry - I do not understand what you are tryin to tell me. I replaced "Franklin Roosevelt" with "Franklin D. Roosevelt" because that is the name that is most commonly used for him (see the linked article). This change also corrected the link. You reverted my edit without explanation, which is not a good way to edit in Wikipedia. Ground Zero | t 15:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not revert your edit mentioned above, just deleted a part repeated and wrote it in my edit summary. Hope it is clear now. Thanks for your advice.Egeymi (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some confustion then, because the article history shows here that you reverted my edit. I conclude from your explanation above that you were not aware that you did this. Let's not spend more time on it. Regards, Ground Zero | t 16:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right. Best, Egeymi (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indian National Army, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shah Nawaz Khan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=557450054 your edit] to Anti-Organized Crime Institutions in Russia may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

IRS profiling controversies
My thought on referring only to the Democratic Party as opposed to the United States Democratic Party on List of Internal Revenue Service political profiling controversies is that, since it's a page about political profiling by the US IRS, it would be clear to a reader what Democratic Party is at issue. I absolutely agree that the lead should indicate that it's the United States Internal Revenue Service. Thoughts? Dyrnych (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that it would be clear which Democratic Party is at issue, so there is no need to write "U.S. Democratic Party repsentative", my point is that "Democratic representative" may not be clear to non-American readers because "democratic" has meanings outside of U.S. partisan politics, and that "Democratic Party representative" would be clearer. Ground Zero | t 21:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no power to revert this speedy, seeing if you're maybe inclined
This by way of the conversation re the Evolution of Canada map, about which I have more to say elsewhere....could you please have a look at my comments at Talk:List_of_boundary_peaks_of_the_Alaska–British_Columbia/Yukon_border? And note this redlink, which came up on a search I typed in while looking for a link for you - "List of peaks on the Alaska-British Columbia/Yukon border" - and the associated List_of_peaks_on_the_British_Columbia-Alberta_border where the term "border peaks" is not used....because that's not what they are named or styled, though they do define the boundary in the same way (though took less of a fearsome survey than the AK-BC/YT boundary required).Skookum1 (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I usually bug Bearcat with such reversion issues, I don't want to bug him overly much.Skookum1 (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that some earnest editor will - may - come along and trim "border" and/or one of the "pea" usages in the title in question now that it's lower-cased, thinking that the title is redundant.......Skookum1 (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm confused why you think only another editor can revert my change. If you don't want to, you could even ask me to do it. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I came here because of another discussion re name-changes vs boundary changes on the Evolution of Canadian provinces and territories (can't remember the link) where Ground Zero's comments resonated with me. And I have asked you, and you proposed/queried "boundary peaks", a clear indication that you do not understand the background nor did you read the citations.  Sorry Ground Zero, don't mean to have this discussion here, I started one on the talkpage, and there's one on Marcus Qwertyus' page that, to me, is invoking equivocations (e.g. re "fire departments").  This is not a general usage, it is a collection of specifically-named summits; because of the page's inclusion of USGS/CGNDB/BC Names citations, and being in table format, it can't be a disambiguation page for e.g. Boundary Peak 1, Boundary Peak 53 and so on....Skookum1 (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Matthew Landy Steen article edits

 * Thanks GroundZero. Not sure what I'm doing that causes your reverts but they obviously have to be made and I'm glad you are there.  Re the section header, I removed the dates so to make it shorter.  Again, thanks! Hope this is the right place to leave my comments.Weathervane13 01:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weathervane13 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi Weathervane. I'm not sure which reverts you are referring to. I have been explaining my changes in the edit summaries (click on the "View history" tab to review the history of changes). I have continued to fix acronyms in the Wikipedia style (WP:ACRONYM) and remove repeated links (WP:REPEATLINK) and remove from the "See also" list liks that have already been made in the article (WP:SEEALSO). I hope that helps. Regards, Ground Zero | t 21:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Think I see what I'm doing incorrectly. Linking in See Also when topic is well-linked in Article seems tantamount to overkill.  I think I got it now.  Thanks again!!Weathervane13 00:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weathervane13 (talk • contribs)

G. K. Vasan (again)
FYI, your friend is back and he still doesn't get the message.  Yinta n  23:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Henry Lawson revert
Hi, I'm DadaNeem. While editing Henry Lawson I came across an anomaly which was introduced by your edit of 29 December 2012. I trust you agree with the change I made.--DadaNeem (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, I didn't use the Party's website to promote it, but to identify it's beliefs and ideology, straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. That was not only already the case on that article, but is used throughout Wikipedia to identify positions of political parties and candidates, and is perfectly in compliance with Wikipedia policies. Again, objectivity doesn't come into play when you're simply identifying a candidate or party's position on something.

Re 3RR: I could say the same to you. Even if you believed my edits violated wiki policy on reliability, you issued a blanket revert, even though my edits contained multiple 3rd party sources. Seems obvious that you didn't read the edits but just the summary. Please refrain from reverting without reading the edits and verifying the sources. The HITMANACTUAL (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Matthew Landy Steen article -- cannons and newspapers

 * Thank you. This was an underground newspaper in Seattle.  Sabot was a shortening of sabotage.  Also, a sabot was a wooden clog worn by religious protestors in the Netherlands and used as weapons against government repression, another symbolic link.  The link is to the newspaper article in Wiki.  You are correct, this was sloppy.  Sorry.Weathervane13 18:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weathervane13 (talk • contribs)

Chocolate Soldier (Parliament)
Dear Ground Zero, you have been one of the last Wikipedians to take an active interest on the article Chocolate Soldier (Parliament). To me (a reader without U.K. background) the heading of this article is a bit misleading because it refers to "Parliament" which is a general term without special reference to the U.K. Quite obviously the article itself offers some sort of "History" for the Short Money which is another separate article. I was considering that a fusion of both articles might make sense. How do you feel about this? Khnassmacher (talk) 06:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Sorry for the need to transfer this! Khnassmacher (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

LOVE- Matthew Steen article
Right, my mistake. Didn't even stop to think about the problem with link. Thanks99.127.230.217 (talk) 02:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)