User talk:Zirkon

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Try the tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the help desk or at my talk page.
 * Read the simplified ruleset and the five pillars of Wikipedia.
 * Eventually, you might want to read the manual of style and policies and guidelines.
 * Remember to write in a neutral point of view.
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Again, welcome, and good luck! -- Elisson &bull; Talk 23:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

3RR
Hi Zirkon, this is just to let you know about Three revert rule (3RR), regarding your edits at Political views of Lyndon LaRouche. This says that we're not allowed to revert, in whole or in part, to a previous version of a page (which can mean as little as part of one sentence or even one word) more than three times in 24 hours, and if we do, we may be blocked from editing without warning for up to 24 hours. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:09, August 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the fair warning! Looking through the mediation process I just stumbled over this fact. I was actually just adding the numbers.


 * I guess this message is an invitation to talk about the article?
 * --Zirkon 20:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I've left a comment on the article talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:28, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Please discuss the article on the article talk page, not my talk page. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:56, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Disruption
Zirkon, as I assume you're a new user, I'm assuming good faith, because I don't want to bite a newbie. However, your comments to Cberlet have a distinctly sarcastic ring to them, and are beginning to look disruptive. Please make your point succinctly and we'll do our best to respond properly, but it isn't appropriate to fill up talk pages with rhetorical questions. If you continue to interact with others in this way, you may be blocked for disruption. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:14, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Fascinating. It will be very interesting to see how things progress from here. But of course I also have good faith in you SlimVirgin. And if you think that this is a sarcastic statement i would like to know because it is not.

Unfortunately Sarcasm lies in the eyes of the beholder. --Zirkon 23:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Not invariably. Your comments to Cberlet seem inappropriate and unhelpful, certainly in the sense of failing to further your position, because it's very unclear what you're trying to say. If you would just say it in a straightforward way, rather than via questions, we might be able to understand it.


 * Also, you asked me which parts of No original research apply to what you seem to be trying to do. These parts do (I have bolded the relevant bits): "Original research refers to theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any unpublished interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas ..." and "[I]t is essential that any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information ... come from a secondary source that is available to readers (e.g. in a library or non-Wikipedia web-page).


 * You're attempting to construct a synthesis of established facts: the LaRouche ruling PLUS your understanding (or a law textbook's understanding) of "fair comment". The "plus" (the synthesis) has to be made by a published source first, then you can quote them. Otherwise, you're making an argument to build a case. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:57, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I'd also add that, given that your spelling on talk pages seems generally good, your very poor spelling in the article itself seems odd. For what it's worth, people are much less likely to revert your additions to an article if they are written in something close to correct English. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:53, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Not again
Zirkon, please don't start up the strange remarks about fair comment again. If it resumes, you really are quite likely to be blocked without further warning. I hope that won't happen and that if you have useful contributions to make, you'll make them. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:46, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Please do not disqualify my remarks as strange without pointing to specific examples. --Zirkon 19:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair comment
You asked me to comment on Talk:Fair comment, but since (1) I don't know anything about the topic, (2) it is a very long talk page that I'd rather not try to read and understand in its entirety, and (3) you've asked for and received comments from others already, I'd rather not get involved. I hope others can help. - dcljr (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)