User talk:Zsero/Archive 4

In reguards to our earlier dispute, sorry:
Sorry. I'm not going to defend my actions, rather.. .. ..  Well.. I don't know the correct wording.. Either way, they were uncalled for. After thinking back on them, I realized they were based off of an assumption, not a statement by another user. There isn't much else to say here, unless you want me to try to explain how I came to assume such. I just hope that you can forgive me, and we can both peacefully continue the ongoing fight against vandalism. Daedalus (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankyou. Also, although I typically do not believe in grudges either, I find it hard to forgive Vanboto.  For only the reason of feeling not alone in my..   ..  (Can't think of word) in reguards to him, I just hope you feel the same.  Just look at his talk page, and you'll see what I was refering to. Daedalus (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to let my fingers remember that, thanks. Daedalus (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks
I just wanted to thank you for keeping a close watch on the Richard Nixon and Barbara Bush pages, among others, and help stop vandals in their tracks. With Nixon, it is a tough job; being such a controversial figure, many want to smear him and add every little meaningless detail to his article, but you have greatly helped to prevent that. And I thank you. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 03:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Categories
If what you say is true, then you might want to fix Category:Stabbing victims (it's also meant to be for survivors yet someone put Caesar there). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I plan to have them moved, yes. Just thought it'd be better if the summaries were set first. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What would you suggest? I'd say use Category:Victims for now. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not a question of persistence, as you so harshly put it. We have Category:Deaths by firearm for shooting victims which did not live. All that's left is a death category for stabbing surviors. Now will me you help or not? This is all I ask. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Can I trust that you'll give me a hand? Looks like a lot of suff to do. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The creation of categories is done manually AFAIK. Bots move the pages and correct any redirects. Let's just do it to get it over with. If you start now, leave the rest for me to do tomorrow. Ok? I'm about to finish up with a few double redirects and go to sleep. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've noticed. It would help substantially to place clear descriptions for both shooting categories and the stabbing one. Make them specific, could you? Clarify that only those who were gravely injured, or killed, etc., would be there (this obviously excludes unsourced articles and certain people, like you said at Larry Zbyszko, George Hyde Fallon, Francis Hughes, and Ben F. Jensen) I'll categorize the remaining individuals (after I wake up) if you just fill those descriptions in. Agreed? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggested them in order to evade discrepancies or concerns that will come up by other editors. You're better at it than, so, just write something like you did for Category:Shooting victims (remember to differ the instances for each of course). I won't make a big deal about the firearm deaths category because that one speaks for itself. Besides, the descriptive summaries will help me as well. Then, yes? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Sorry if I didn't explain clearer, I was really referring to the survivor ones. The former victim one was merely a precedent, that's all. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Schoolblock template
Thanks -- will try to remember that. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat block
Please look at the history for Tony Accardo Jr, and the contribution history of its creator User:Harlempanther187 to give you some background. I have no doubt that this is the same person, trying to intimidate me. I'll undo the block if you feel strongly about it (it is an IP, after all), but would appreciate it if you have any better ideas on how to handle the situation. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I assumed you were an admin. I will ask for further advice at WP:ANI.  NawlinWiki (talk) 20:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

re: numbers
I've no doubt that the MOS says numbers can be written as either numerals or as words. But I think when referring to someone's age, it makes a great deal more sense to write that he or she is "64 years old" versus "sixty-four years old". The latter just looks weird to me, and, I imagine, to most people. Cheers! Esrever (klaT) 23:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

About the Day header template...
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. Cuyler 91093  ( Contribs ) 09:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, so listen. I was saying that Days of the week could be placed at the bottom of the page, should somebody want to go to another day without having to scroll up, and Day header can stay at the top, for the same reason as the former. ALSO, should this template be removed from Wikipedia, it will create an inconsistency, because all of the months are equipped with Month header. So.... if you think you know everything, then why don't you tell me what should be done? Cuyler  91093  ( Contribs ) 09:28, 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. Cuyler  91093  ( Contribs ) 23:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Your block of 151.49.52.138
Thanks for your message on my talk page. was blocked as per an WP:AIV request, specifically regarding this edit. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * At 15:02 the IP was given a uw-vandalism4im "last warning" message. Then at 15:11 the IP replaced the warning editor's talk page with "fuck you."  For continued vandalism after their "last warning", I blocked the IP.  This is perfectly consistent with our official policy on blocking.  --Kralizec! (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I misunderstood what you were trying to say, but it seems like you are implying that it is improper to use template warnings with anonymous editors. The facts of this incident strike me as being quite simple:
 * the IP vandalizes a page and receives a uw-vandalism1 warning
 * the IP ignores the warning, vandalizes again, and is issued a second warning
 * the IP ignores your warning, vandalizes again, and gets a uw-vandalism4im warning that clearly states "If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Template:X2, you will be blocked"
 * the IP ignores this final warning and most incivility replaces an editor's entire talk page with "fuck you"
 * the IP is blocked for 31 hours
 * The warnings given by Enigmaman, you, and Wisdom89 appear to be fully in order with each telling the IP the name of the vandalized page. Everything was done by the book, with the IP ignoring three levels of warnings before eventually being blocked for continued vandalism.  --Kralizec! (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Callback
Left a response on my TP. -  Jéské  ( v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife ) 00:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Tiberius
I'm afraid I can't take credit for knowing my classics quite that well. I first went to the Oxford Classical Dictionary, and then the Cambridge Dictionary of Classical Civilization, but neither of them precisely dated Tiberius's withdrawal to Rhodes. I eventually wound up here; a Penn State historian's chronology was good enough for me (and, I think, Wikipedia). :-) Dppowell (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

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  —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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)