User talk:Zad68/Archive 2012Q2

A barnstar for you
a barnstar from 66.87.2.142 dated 15:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC) that was here has been moved to my barnstars list

Comparison of web search engines
P.S.: please, don't leave me talkback – I watch that page. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

3O
Hey, Zad, thanks for providing a third opinion! Just keep in mind that, when you do give one, please remove its entry from third opinion page. In fact, I usually remove the entry before even posting the 3O, so that I don't duplicate efforts with other people who see the posting while I compose my reply. Don't worry about it for now; I removed it for you. Just keep it in mind for the future. Thanks again! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for Redirecting the "Poitier Meets Plato" article for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AQuixoticLife (talk • contribs) 03:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
a barnstar from AQuixoticLife dated 04:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC) that was here has been moved to my barnstars list

WikiThanks
a WikiThanks from 66.87.7.204 dated 12 April 2012 that was here has been moved to my barnstars list

Isaiah 7:14
As you've recently edited, ould you like to have a look at what I've done with this article and tell me any changes you think are necessary? PiCo (talk) 05:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I finally took a look at it, and I'd say you should be very proud of the serious progress you have made with the article. I'm most impressed with the sourcing, the cited sources are first-rate.  However, I am not sure that the article accurately represents the sources.  For example, the article says "The word almah has no exact equivalent in English: it meant a young girl of child-bearing age, i.e., one who has just entered puberty." and cites Childs 2001, p. 66., but on that page Childs goes on to explain that an almah is "a female sexually ripe for marriage," and that in most cases an almah does describe a woman who is not only "sexually ripe for marriage" but also a virgin as well.  Defining almah in the lede with: "almah (young woman)" is oversimplifying to the point of misrepresentation and will probably get challenged.  Regarding the wording of the article, it could use a little fiddly copy-editing but nothing major.  Hope my feedback is helpful!  Zad68 (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's very helpful, and thanks for taking the time to comment. I'll look into the points you raise tonight. PiCo (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Zad, among other things I think it is objectionable that PiCo removed most of the material from the work, including a lot of good discussion on the exegesis of the verse. Could you take a look at the article before the edits and see if you agree?Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Quark I will look. I did notice that, but I also think I remember that the original exegesis that was removed wasn't well-supported with good sources.  Maybe I'm wrong about that.  I'll look, thanks for drawing my attention to it.  Zad68 (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Richters study
Thanks for providing a link to that study. I thought I had a copy of it, but it didn't look familiar (perhaps my memory's failing &mdash; at 34 I'm getting old!). Anyway, a mid-90s study of Australian men would see a strong correlation between age and circumcision status (since circ rates dropped over time). So my guess is that the difference was due to simple confounding: younger men tend to have slightly larger penises as they have more testosterone (and are less prone to conditions such as ED that can cause shrinkage). This is OR, of course, so I won't say anything at the article, but I thought it was interesting. Jakew (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol... if you are "getting old" at 34, what hope is there for me?? You bring up a good point as to why we have such high standards for medical claims.... and anyway now that we have the original study we can discuss that and throw out that anti-circumcision conference proceedings book. Zad68 (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
a barnstar from Jayjg dated 01:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC) that was here has been moved to my barnstars list

FYI
Since you've been involved in related discussions, I thought you might like to be aware of Dispute resolution noticeboard. Best wishes, Jakew (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jake. Zad68 (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You've yet to actually weigh-in on the evidence, merely commenting on how mediation is going. I was expecting some research out of you, as happened on the talk page. Rip-Saw (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rip-Saw, thank you for your high expectations of me, I take it as a compliment. I'll look, but as I mentioned on the DRN thread, I don't think we're going to get to consensus either there or on the article Talk page.  I'm not sure what to do next.  The DRN Clerk on the DRN thread mentioned that if consensus isn't achieved, whatever change is proposed won't stand.  I did spend some time today trying to figure out what the previous consensus was on whether the "African men" qualifier should be added to the lead sentence, and as far as I can tell, a case can be made that the previous consensus was the sentence without the qualifier, and so those who are looking to add the qualifier would not have consensus to do so.  I know, it's a cop-out, and avoids the true challenge of mounting an unassailable case, but it definitely appears there are two "camps" about this issue with no middle ground.  Based on the amount of text already typed on the subject, I'm not sure I see consensus ever happening.  I haven't been convinced that trying to achieve consensus on adding the qualifier is the best use of my Wikipedia time.  Zad68 (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

ArticleSabotage
You've erased vital information about lawsuits involving the Mogen clamp from Mogen clamp. Please restore my original format. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC))
 * I addressed this with MurasakiSunshine at Talk:Mogen clamp; MurasakiSunshine apologized "for claiming [I] vandalized the Mogen clamp page". Zad68 (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

AN/I notification re: Blanket removals of refs as "Not RS per RSN"
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Blanket_removals_of_refs_as_.22Not_RS_per_RSN.22_.28Moved_from_WP:RS.2FN.29. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will look. Zad68 (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was reluctant to raise it at ANI because I really don't want to make this a personal issue against an editor, but surely we can find a better way to handle "de-RSing" a site with a large number of cites. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I replied at the AN/I. That was difficult.  This is an editor behavior issue involving disruptive editing and should be treated as such.  What he is doing isn't the issue as much as how he is going about doing it.  Zad68 (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution advice
The two other parties are yet to respond with their views, and I certainly do not wish to undermine this dispute resolution process by precipitously implementing suggested changes. At what stage may I proceed with other editors' advice and effect these changes? Best Wishes ' Ankh '. Morpork  20:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Best Wishes ' Ankh '. Morpork  21:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have too much experience with DRN, but I would definitely wait at least a day for their input. If the other parties don't respond on the thread within a day, I would put (additional) Talkback notices on their User pages reminding them about the discussion.  Someone who clerks DRN and notices that discussion has stopped will probably close it.  My little experience with DRN is that you don't really get a decision, like you might want.  You'll get input from other editors, encouragement to come to consensus, and then (maybe) an evaluation from a DRN clerk that you have or have not reached consensus.  That's it.  Zad68 (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thank you for your input and assistance.

CBraro
Vaffanculo! How can you say that what I added was a lie?

It is a small page, and I AM FROM THE VILLAGE, you do not know anything about them so why do you lie and remove it?

Idiotaaaa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.102.190 (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, the edit you added to Colobraro was: "A famous superstition within local villages is to touch the genitals if one mentions the village in any form, as if to prevent any bad luck occuring to the individuals involved," without any source.  The sentence you added seems highly unlikely to be true, but it is possible that it is true.  If it is true, then you need to add a reference to a reliable source backing up your statement, and also if it is true, please accept my apologies for tagging it as vandalism.  I try to be very careful with tagging vandalism, and I do indeed do research before tagging something questionable as vandalism.  I did searches on "Colobraro superstition" and although I found that the town does indeed have superstitions, there was nothing about "touching the genitals."  However I am only human, I am not 100% perfect, and I occasionally make mistakes.  Also, please review assume good faith--your addition looked like vandalism, and my revert of your edit was only intended to improve the encyclopedia.  And there is no reason to call me an "idiot," or say I "lie."  Thank you.  Zad68 (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry it is because this computer is shared by many individuals using an out of country networking system in kent, and our mac addresses/ips are all the same — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.102.190 (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, please consider creating your own account to use to edit Wikipedia. Zad68 (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why
Not sure why, but lately everyone seems to have a little bit of Wiki-stress. I cannot seem to say anything without someone leaving a closing comment contrary to anything that I say. I am not here to argue, but to explain what I meant by nobility and then move on and enjoy editing Wikipedia. That is why I am coming to your page as opposed to keeping this in the public realm. I completely understand the guidelines and what you are saying (which by the way are guidelines, not law and Common Sense often needs to take their place - NO, I do not want to argue this point like we are arguing nobility). By the way, I am used to being beat over the head as I am also a lawyer in real life (gaming lawyer nonetheless) so no need to apologize about that. First, the article itself is notable. There is significant coverage, but there is a lack of independent coverage that I have found when trying to search as it is clouded up with affiliate links. This is common with other topics as well which is why I am trying to improve the article (Not argue nobility). If you fell the article is not worthy, you can recommend merge or deletion. I have no issue with that. I just don't know the reason for all of the Wiki beating lately (not you personally, but you happened to be the person I vented on - So THANKS, and SORRY!). --Morning277 (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Morning277, regarding "There is significant coverage, but there is a lack of independent coverage"--isn't "independent coverage" exactly what Wikipedia requires? Is it possible you are too close to the subject to evaluate its coverage relative to Wikipedia policies objectively?  Hopefully just planting a seed for thought.  I have no plans to follow you around and argue with you or try to get the articles you are interested in deleted, I'm just concerned about the apparent disconnect with what you're describing and what Wikipedia says.  Am I missing something?  (I know I know... "common sense"!  :P )  Anyway, thanks for the beer!  Sure could use one.  Zad68 (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I like to keep an open mind when evaluating content. I am definitely not "too close" to the topic and online gaming is not legal in the United States (the states have the right to do it but no one as of yet has established any regulations to allow it). I am actually more of an expert on the topic of gaming which is why I would be more suitable to edit the article than someone who just came by and wanted to add a citation (which is what brought us here in the first place - someone placing a link where it should not have been). As far as Wiki-stress, I am far from it. I just happen to see it from a lot of people lately. Have you seen the same (obviously you see it from me)? Seems like every article that I stumble upon there are people arguing the nobility of the article, the objectivity of a citation, the formatting of headings, etc. Seems like people have gone crazy over the past week. I don't know, maybe it's just me. Have fun, see ya around. --Morning277 (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC) P.S.-You're not missing anything. You are correct with your contention. We are probably just on opposite ends of the spectrum with how we view the guidelines. This is what happens in most cases involving "disputes" such as these.

Disruptive IP
Hi, you may have realised that an IP address was vandalising your talk page. I have been rollbacking their edits and they persisted. I thought I'd inform you that they have been blocked from editing for 31 hours after I reported them at WP:AIV. If you have any more problems or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thanks - --Chip123456 (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the alcoholic beverage :) --Chip123456 (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Stalker?
Someone stalking you? :)  --Morning277 (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL! Maybe I'll leave that one!  Zad68 (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Using Huggle
You may want to be more careful, you just reverted an IP who removed some vandalism and then told them their edit wasn't beneficial. Nev1 (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Darn it!! And I do try to be so careful!  I will investigate and fix, including apologizing.  Thanks for catching.  Zad68 (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * These things happen, I hadn't even noticed when the vandalism was first included over a month ago. Nev1 (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

User subpages and MfD
Please don't use MfD to delete your unwanted subpages - just tag them with db-userreq instead, then it's less work for everyone (particularly the admin deleting your subpages who then has to close the deletion discussion as well). Regards, BencherliteTalk 17:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Same applies for RfD, incidentally. BencherliteTalk 17:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sorry about the wrong template, this was the first time requesting this and I'll get it right in the future.  Appreciate your help!  Zad68 (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Polygnostic Morphism
... just for you ;P Pesky  (talk ) 06:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Made me laugh
I happened to see this edit on my watchlist. I'm not certain if it was your intent, but I found it very funny. Jakew (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * First thing I saw when I clicked on you! Yes, had me in stitches, too!  Pesky  (talk ) 02:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 22:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Talk:Circumcision
Hello Zad68, You reverted an entire section with many different editors post. If you do not believe a particular post should go on a talk page ask that editor to revert it and explain why or go to their talk and discuss. Its considered extremely bad form to revert other users talk page post unless they are serious BLP or legal violations. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Gary, first I did not 'revert' or remove anything. All the text everybody contributed was still on the page, and was easily made visible by clicking on the [show] link.  What I did was attempt to stop the growth of the several threads within the section that are clearly off-topic per Wikipedia's talk page guidelines.  Those threads are non-constructive regarding improvements to article, and are clearly heading into dangerous WP:NPA territory.  You reverted my closure of the section, so you now bear some responsibility for the continued existence of those threads on the talk page.  Do you think those threads were constructive, related to improvements of the article, and within Wikipedia's talk page guidelines?  I will await your answer here.  Thanks.    15:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the nomenclature, please substitute hide for revert. It doesn't matter what I think, or anyone else for that matter.  These are established editors not drive by IP's.  Next time just post please stay on topic and/or talk to the editor on their user talk page, ask them to revert or strike out a comment if you feel it is inappropriate. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:TALK indicates that it's appropriate to remove off-topic comments ("Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal."). Hiding them in a collapsible box seems entirely appropriate. Jakew (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)