User talk:Zenswashbuckler/Archive 1

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

RE: Dustin Pedroia
Good luck getting a bot to revert intelligently.  Enigma msg  16:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If it were only bots reverting unintelligently, that would be one thing. Alas, it's something else entirely.   ☯   Z.S.   ☠   ......(talk) 21:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Responding to your advice
Thanx for the advice on the Page. Please see the changes I made (my talkpage) ([]) Fuzi12 (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out earlier discussions
Thanks for pointing out the earlier discussion in Talk:Ina_Garten. I wish people read posts before responding. As a test, a blogger had an article with a balanced discussion of a controversy and towards the end of the article he asked comments to include "banana" to show that they had read the whole thing before responding. Go here to see the dismal results.
 * Well of course you know talking is always more important than listening. "The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt." ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  01:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...
Hi Zen, thanks... working on it. Well, more accurately, passed it on to an admin who I believe has the revdel tools. Best, Rob R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 18:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's all gone now. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 19:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Mail
UOJComm (talk) 05:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Flatterworld
I know you only had good intentions, but you might want to read WP:DIVA.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  02:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Just for your info
Hi, Zenswashbuckler. Just for your info, you can revert multiple changes as follows:


 * 1) Go to the article's history list (e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tommyjb/Sandbox&action=history).
 * 2) Click one of the date stamps (e.g., "08:37, 16 June 2011").
 * 3) Click 'Edit' at the top of the page.
 * 4) Click 'Save page'.

This reverts the page to the revision you clicked. Of course, rollback would make this easier — as long as the edits have been made by a single user — but even rollbackers sometimes use this function, so I thought I'd mention it.

Regards, — Tommyjb ( talk )  17:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, there's something I'd never tried before. Thanks for the info!  ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  17:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

THANKS
I do not think I want to continue commenting on that article although I thought that if people like you and I can treat each other with respect, why can't everyone else? This may sound poloyanaish but I will tell you my unWiki opinion is that if one wants to defeat Rich Santorum they will do better by going to the Rick Santorum article and mention this incident and his words which are anti-gay along with all of the other reasons why they do not think he would be a good president. That might seem trivial to some but I think it would have more power. The exasperating thing is I really do not like the man yet I am seeming to be defending him or at least some see it that way. As far as Wiki reasons go, I really do believe that it could be libelous, a definite BLP violation. I also believe that if he was nominated which is next to impossible, only a tiny amount of people would vote for him because he is representative of a very small group of potential voters. I would love to see a good strong article showing all of his statements, anti-gay and others. It is my opinion that this would be less inflammatory and ultimately more powerful because it will be read by a greater number of people. It is not so much that I am bailing on the article discussion as that I am tired of being archived, insulted or hatted every time I bring my point of view forward. Hope to see you on another article discussion page. Good Luck! Mugginsx (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record...
I don't think your suggested edit was "nitpicking" at all, but rather a standard, good faith attempt to improve the article language. In fact, I think your edit is probably better worded. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for saying so. That was in fact my intent, but in retrospect I thought it one of those "good intentions" with which the road to Heck is paved (that is, not substantial enough to support either the tractor trailers and sports cars that travel the better-known road, or the bare feet on the equivalent stairway). I'll go ahead and put it in, then. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler .☠ 18:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

ina garten
changes made were not UNSOURCED but from reliable source as referenced by abcgo.com. removal = editorializing/vandalism. i am currently in contact with wikipedia (not user/editors/etc) to ensure that garten page reflects accurate information. in order to maintain neutrality, not including make a wish also would necessitate removal of entire political activism portion of article as it violates neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.119.116 (talk) 05:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to make an argument in favor of keeping this content, please use the article talk page to address the point that many, many editors have made: this is gossip, not news. If anyone besides the principals had said anything about this, there might be a point. As is, even though ABC is a better source than TMZ, the story is at bottom the same thing. And there's absolutely no excuse whatsoever to put in an example image that breaks up the page and contributes nothing to it, in the middle of a sentence. Did you even look at the page after you edited it, ever? Cut this out. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler .☠ 06:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC
Hello, you recently participated in a straw poll concerning a link at the Campaign for "santorum" neologism article. I am giving all the poll participants a heads-up that a RfC on the same issue is being conducted here. Be— —Critical 19:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Santorum vs santorum
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Santorum vs santorum". Thank you. --The Gnome (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename at Campaign for "santorum" neologism
Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, Be— —Critical  22:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You're invited! New England Wikimedia General Meeting
Message delivered by Dominic at 09:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.

New essay/rant
Hey, ZSB. My new essay/rant User:Chaos5023/Why your entire way of thinking about the Abortion Article Titles RFC is wrong expands on and clarifies the issues that I was bringing up in our discussion in the RFC. Check it out. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase
Hello. As a participant in Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)