User talk:Zsero/Archive 8

Jonathan Taylor Thomas‎
Please read: WP:V: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." (emph added) You can consider my removal twice to be a "challenge". Please condsider reversing yourself. -- The Red Pen of Doom  23:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The key words are challenged or likely to be challenged. What are your grounds for challenging a completely uncontroversial fact?  Remember that you are not entitled to challenge facts that you don't actually doubt, just to make a POINT.  -- Zsero (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, the keyword "challenged" has been met - I challenged and removed the information. If you wish further basis, continue reading down of WP:V you reach WP:PROVEIT: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. ... Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed ... Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles." Living persons is piped to WP:BLP which contains "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to ... all of our content policies, especially: * Neutral point of view (NPOV) * Verifiability * No original research. We must get the article right Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. ... The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." --  The Red Pen of Doom  23:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Challenged" is only met if you challenged it honestly. Challenging facts that you don't really doubt, merely to make a POINT, is disruptive and doesn't constitute a real challenge.  The object is to build an encyclopaedia, not to jump through unnecessary hoops or to tick off boxes on some form, just for its own sake.
 * The key word in the long piece you quoted is contentious; if a fact about a living person is not contentious, there is no need to spend time and energy looking for a source. If everything in a BLP needed a source, every such article would be a sea of bracketed numbers, and 80% of the article would be footnotes.
 * Note also that "we must get the article right", and removing material whose truth you do not doubt is not making the article right, it's making it wrong. Only if you honestly doubt that the material is true may you remove it.  The material you challenged was not in the least contentious, and I don't believe for a second that you had any doubt about its veracity.  You challenged it merely to make a POINT, and that is not legitimate behaviour on WP.  -- Zsero (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's incorrect. All information in biographies of living persons must be properly cited or it can be removed at will. Content removal is not harmful to anything; if you see that someone removed info for lack of sourcing, all you need to do is find a reliable source to cite, put the content back in, and everything is fine. It's the BLP equivalent of using a tag, and it's just as easy to fix. What you can't do is debate about whether or not a source is needed. If someone wants a source, the burden is on you to provide one or it's out. End of story. That's not just BLP, that's WP:V. I tend to agree with you about the aesthetics of using footnotes all over the place, but form follows function. Kafziel Complaint Department 15:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That is wrong. Read it again - only contentious material must be sourced, and that means material likely to be honestly challenged.  Material that is not contentious, i.e. nobody honestly doubts it, does not need a source, and it is disruptive and damaging to dishonestly challenge it or remove it just to make a POINT.  Removal of truthful information is obviously harmful to the article; if the material's presence made the article better then obviously its absence makes it worse.  Otherwise you're just playing a petty bureaucratic game, and not interested in building an encyclopaedia.  Remember that WP is not a bureaucracy, and following rules just for the sake of following them is not the point.  -- Zsero (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not up to you to decide what is "honestly" challenged. If someone removes content, consider it challenged. You're not the arbiter of verifiability. If you want to take something like that to dispute resolution then feel free to do so, but you don't have a leg to stand on. Kafziel Complaint Department 13:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He won't have time for that. He'll be too busy trying to convince Obama and Biden that they didn't actually have to resign from the Senate. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD
Please see: Articles for deletion/Helen Jones-Kelley. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Collect RFC
Hi, there's an ongoing RFC on User:Collect. You've been an editor on Joe the Plumber so your perspective might be helpful.Mattnad (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Chotkov kloiz.jpg
Yeah, tagging as no source was a mistake. I meant to use no permission as the source doesn't show evidence of public domain status and the website itself is protected by copyright. Jay32183 (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's PD-OLD. As is obvious by looking at the source. The web site's assertion of copyright is irrelevant; the web site owners didn't take the photo.  Or even publish the Yizkor-book, for that matter, so they don't really have copyright over that either. -- Zsero (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Where does the source indicate the publication date of the image? We need proof of PD status, we can't make assumptions. The only indication of copyright I saw on the website claimed the work couldn't be reused. The image page would also need to be updated to include this information. Jay32183 (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's obvious from its very nature. It's a pre-war photo, of a building that probably didn't survive the war, published in a Yizkor-book, which by its nature contains only pre-war photos.   The web site's copyright claims are self-refuting and irrelevant, since it did not produce the Yizkor-book.
 * This is not some mechanical box-checking exercise.  The photo IS PD-old; I assert it, Chesdovi asserts it, and anybody who knows anything about the subject will assert it.  Nobody is claiming that it is not old.  If you know nothing about the subject, take the word of those who do.  Otherwise you sound like those who demand evidence that a 3000-year-old antiquity is PD.  -- Zsero (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * PD-Old would mean the author has been dead for 100 years. What's the copyright status of the Yizkor book? If that's the first publication, which isn't indicated on the image page, then that's where the relevant copyright comes from. Assertion of PD is not sufficient, we need evidence. WP:IUP "Before you upload an image, make sure that either: * You own the rights to the image (usually meaning that you created the image yourself). * You can prove that the copyright holder has licensed the image under an acceptable free license. * You can prove that the image is in the public domain.", WP:COPYRIGHT "Someone holds the copyright unless they have been explicitly placed in the public domain". You haven't shown proof of PD and an assertion is not explicitly placing it there. I do understand Wikipedia's copyright policies and they are a lot stricter than you think. Jay32183 (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The tag on it is PD-Ukraine. It's a pre-war picture, and the publisher is unknown.  Therefore it is PD.  The fact that it is pre-war is evident from the fact that it's published in a Yizkor book.  And old images don't have to be explicitly placed in the PD; they're automatically PD because of their age.  If they're old enough, they were never IN copyright in the first place.  -- Zsero (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When was the Yizkor book published? Based on a quick search, I found 1952. PD-Ukraine says that the image needs to be published before January 1, 1951. Ukraine would also have to be the country of first publication for the tag to be relavant. Having an unknown author does not in itself make an image public domain. This image doesn't appear to be old enough for copyright to have expired. Also, to be free use on Wikipedia, hosted in the United States, the image needs to be public domain in the United States as well. Jay32183 (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You still don't get it. By its very nature it's a pre-war photo.  That's why it's in the Yizkor book.  That makes it before 1951.  And since it's PD in its country of origin, it's also PD in the USA. -- Zsero (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

R. Belsky quote from mishpacha article
Zsero, what do you mean "it doesn't exist", it's from a Mishpacha article?

Yonoson3 (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

reply
fyi, i left you a reply on Debresser's talk page.  -shirulashem (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The discussion was first moved to the article's talkpage and now to the NOR Noticeboard. Debresser (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Zsero. I also disagree with the idea. But the fact remains that the non-messianist character of this site is evident only to those who know the signs, and no sources have been found to prove it. So I just don't see we have any choice. Sincerely, Dovid. Debresser (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * See my comments on the NOR thread. A fact doesn't have to be obvious to everyone in the world in order not to need sources; it needs only be obvious to those competent to judge it.  No source needs to be adduced in order to describe a web site as being in the English-language, even though that is not at all obvious to someone who doesn't recognise English from French or Dutch.  For exactly the same reason, no source is needed here.  -- Zsero (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Rashi.jpg
Ok, thank you for explaining it to me. Good to know it is at least an authentic portrayal: guess we just don't know when it was produced, and therefore it is hard to license properly. Cheers! &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Berger
I am sorry to have to say this to you, but we have to be clear about this. Nobody asked for you to agree with this sourced information. Nobody cares whether you consider it nonsense. It is sourced. It is relevant. And that's it. I have noticed your aggressiveness of opinion and editing before, but while having clear opinions is an asset, aggressiveness can not be tolerated on Wikipedia. I myself don't like the opinions of the guy, but that may not influence my editing. So please, be reasonable in your editing. Or don't. Edit, I mean. Please understand that I am your friend. We have a lot in common. But being on the same page with you is hard. And it shouldn't be that way. Debresser (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC
 * You can't put anything you like on WP just by sticking a ref tag on it. Nonsense remains nonsense no matter to whom it is attributed.  -- Zsero (talk) 07:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But this is not nonsense. You don't understand it, but I do. Debresser (talk) 08:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Apart from that, you are about to violate the Edit warring. Please be aware that that can get you blocked in no time. Please also notice that 2 editors disagree with you here. All of this points to you being a little rash, I would say. Debresser (talk) 08:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is absolute nonsense. If you claim to give a reason why people believe something, it must be an actual reason of some kind.  Nobody believes something merely because it can't be proven to be heretical, any more than anyone believes in unicorns for no other reason than that they can't be proven not to exist.  Berger, of course, makes no such claim; the man is obsessed and monomaniacal, but not stupid. -- Zsero (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I might not like him either, but I really do see his argument. And I can testify to it being true. I am a Lubavitcher, even a moderate meshichist, and have seen it happen myself. Debresser (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whose argument? Berger makes no such argument.  He is not stupid, and would not make such a stupid argument, and sure enough he doesn't.  Which is why I will continue to delete it whenever it is added to the article.  Are you now claiming to have seen people believe something merely because it can't be proved to be heretical?!  What else have you seen people believe merely because it can't be proven false?  -- Zsero (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I am posting on Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. This is getting out of hand. Debresser (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Rabbi categorisation
I noticed that you placed Rashi in Category:French Orthodox rabbis. Although this is the case, that Rashi was indeed Orthodox, I think the "Orthodox" label was only introduced after new movements within Judaism started forming in the 1800's. I therefore propose that all rabbis living before the 19th century remain in the general "rabbis" category, while others, from let’s say 1800 onwards, be categorised in the relevant category which labels their modern classification, i.e. Orthodox, Reform, etc. Do you agree? Chesdovi (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, he didn't call himself "Orthodox", any more than he called himself "French", since he didn't speak English, or even Modern French! He didn't even call himself a "rab-buy".  In fact, since smicha as we know it didn't exist in his day, he probably didn't call himself a "rabbi" with any pronunciation; others may have called him "rabbi" (or perhaps "ribbi"), but as a title, not as a description.  But we characterise him both as French and as a rabbi, because in modern terms he was those things.  Well, in modern terms he was Orthodox too.  That's all there was back then, at least in France, where there were no Karaites.  -- Zsero (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Result of the WP:AN3 case about Chabad Messianism
Hello Zsero. Please see this outcome, in which both parties are warned against continuing to revert. Blocks may be issued if editors continue to revert without getting a Talk page consensus first. If agreement cannot be reached, either let the issue go or follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution, such as opening an WP:RFC or asking for a third opinion. If you think that wrong claims are being made about a specific living person you can open a report at WP:BLP. EdJohnston (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Zsero. You can still avoid a block if you are willing to undo your last edit at Chabad Messianism. Your complete certainty that you are correct is not sufficient for Wikipedia purposes; you must also make a good-faith effort to persuade other people. If you can't persuade them, you have to live with the consensus. So far you've found nobody who supports your view. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus against my edit. There is one person, who openly admits that he has no basis whatsoever for opposing it.  He just does, apparently for no reason at all.   The standard on WP is that those insisting on inserting something have to make their case, not those who want it out.  This is a brand-new paragraph that makes a false and illogical claim, and attributes it to someone who never said anything of the kind.  No argument of any kind has been made for including it.   Therefore I have the right to delete it.   So what authority do you claim for blocking me?  I have not broken any rule, I'm not being disruptive, so what basis do you have?  Are you now a dictator?   -- Zsero (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have noticed your revert in defiance of the decision on WP:WQA. You do not seem to understand the difference between believing to be right, being right, and doing the right thing. First of all, you really should recognise that you just might be wrong. But most importantly, you should know have to behave on Wikipedia even if you were 100% right. This is why I said that you are a potentially disruptive editor. No offense intended. It is like the aphorism about driving: don't be right, be wise. Debresser (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There was no "decision".  There wasn't even a discussion, let alone a consensus emerging from one.  One person took it on himself to "warn" us. What gives him the authority to do that?  He's just an editor like you and me.  Meanwhile, you have admitted that you had no basis whatsoever for the edit you introduced three times, over my objections; if that isn't disruptive behaviour, what is?  Introducing information that has been objected to, for no reason at all! That is not how WP works. -- Zsero (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a clearly stated decision on WP:AN3. And the authority of the warning editor comes from Wikipedia procedure. Another minor point: I have not admitted anything of the kind. Debresser (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There was no decision. One person dictating to others what they will and won't do is not a decision.  Decisions are arrived at by consensus, and consensus can only emerge from discussion.  EdJohnston has no authority to dictate to anybody what they will do.   And you have indeed admitted that you have no basis for adding the text you did add three times; you've admitted that you haven't read Berger, so how can you possibly know whether he wrote what you claim he did?  -- Zsero (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no point in continuing to try to talk some sense into you. Debresser (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you're the one who seems incapable of understanding elementary logic, I'm not surprised. But claiming there was a decision doesn't make it so.  -- Zsero (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Eliezer Gordon image
Have you seen ? I am not as well versed in these things as I used to. Chesdovi (talk) 10:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
18:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Cluttered and Sloppy Ledes
Living persons are presented by current factors: "Subject is". I shall cool off for 24 hours or so to give you and the other user Loodog a chance to rephrase it so somehow it conforms to this. Only dead persons are presented with past tense verbs following headwords. This is one of the official standards here. I could give you a list of dozens of examples of this. Evlekis (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sez who? I don't believe you.  Point to the policy, guideline, MOS, or other source for your claim.  All you are doing is cluttering up ledes with pointless verbiage. -- Zsero (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * With infantile gestures such as "Sez who?", and insulting remarks such as "I don't believe you" which does not so much suspect incorrect judgment but merely accuses me of being a liar (a personal attack), I do not find these edits to be in good faith. Perhaps I am not certain where one user once made a similar edit to mine and produced the guideline in the summary, but I know I have seen it. This is more likely a question of style than of biography as the latter concentrates on personal issues. Be that as it may, there is certainly no policy which supports your preferred presentation for living persons whose fame lies in the past. Your reverts are not based on any official literature, only on your own personal opinion that it amounts to "pointless verbiage". I use the term "your opinion" advisedly; meaning you think this and nobody else agrees with you. How else do you explain the intros in the following articles for former statesmen around the world? Gerhard Schröder, Jerry Rawlings, Abderrahmane Youssoufi, Kinzang Dorji, Jona Senilagakali, Laisenia Qarase, Zinaida Greceanîi, Vladimir Voronin and Ingvar Carlsson. Your argument that an intro "needs to be as tight as possible" is shallow, because I am trying to improve the article (which is my goal) and you in turn can trim it without blanket reverting which is highly impolite. Furthermore, the question of "what part is cluttering and what isn't" is also a matter of opinion despite your so-called "keep intros tight policy". If you care to examine the article of Yves Leterme, you'll see that his portfolio information does not start until the second paragraph. And indeed, if your claim of "pointless verbiage" is correct, how do you explain the following contributions by me - every one of which has survived 100% unchallenged?
 * , will you revert these efforts by me too? Surely you should if your policy is correct. Are we going to discuss this like two human beings? Or are we to have an edit war which will result in the matter going into the hands of admins with further consequences for the two of us? Which shall we have. Evlekis (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact remains that you have asserted a rule that I don't believe exists, and you have edited articles to make them worse rather than better. And no, it is not uncivil to call you on your claim.  You can't go making up rules and expecting everyone to humour you on them.  Thanks for the checklist.  If you've made 100 bad edits then you've made 100 bad edits, and I can revert all or some or none of them, as I see fit. -- Zsero (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There you go again with "bad edits" and your opinion of me having made them worse. But you failed to explain how these so-called "worse edits" have survived, just as you have failed to satisfy anybody with any explanation as to how some articles come to have this particular presentation in the first place. I have asserted no rule but have made a civil suggestion as to how these articles can be made better. Your pathetic response on "tight ledes" and "pointless verbiage" makes it look as though four hundred new lines have been added based on the subject's bad dreams as children and their tantrums over rice pudding; where as in actual fact I only added a few words to make what I saw to be an improvement. It is clear to me that you have run out of arguments to support your view as your only moan on "tight ledes" is now refuted. I don't expect an editor such as you to be sympathetic on this issue and therefore I make no further efforts in persuading you otherwise. I will return to the articles and restore my original edits; I accept your threat to "revert" as you "see fit" as a declaration of war. So it is down to the admins now. Evlekis (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You have indeed repeatedly asserted that a rule exists, but have repeatedly failed to point to it. That's because it doesn't exist.  So now you claim you never asserted it in the first place.  WP:LEDE is all the authority I need to tighten ledes by cutting useless verbiage.  The existence of sloppy writing on WP proves absolutely nothing, and is certainly not an argument for more of the same!  Bad edits &mdash; and even outright vandalism! &mdash; can last for months or years, especially in articles with low traffic, but even sometimes in high-traffic articles; when they are caught they are removed or repaired, no matter how long they've stood there.  Your declared intention of restoring your edits to which I have objected, without making any argument whatsoever for them (apart from the fake rule that you seem now to have abandoned) makes you the edit warrior.  -- Zsero (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You have never put your finger to your skull and asked "why has no editor removed these things in the past?" and the answer is because only you call it "useless verbiatage". Your LEDE may encourage shortening intros, however, that is not a licence for chopping the section into small pieces when someone has tried to improve it. It certainly isn't better to start with "was". I can give you thousands of articles which you could spend hours of fun changing. But I'll let you find them yourself. If you're so sure that your preference is better, then let other users change them. Evlekis (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whilst my extra few symbols are producing something slightly better, your pathetic apology "ledes must be short" makes it sound as though the entire history/background section has been thrown into the first paragraph. Evlekis (talk) 04:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "It's been like that for a long time" is not an argument. It's not "my" WP:LEDE; it's an actual guideline, unlike your made-up rule that ledes must be cluttered with whole phrases that add absolutely nothing.  Actually tightening copy is an improvement anywhere in an article, but it's especially so in the lede.  You are not improving the articles, you're making them worse, and the fact that thousands of articles need improvement is no reason to add to that number.  -- Zsero (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Some more for you to feed your hobby: Dan Quayle, Kjell Magne Bondevik, Zeljko Sturanovic, Algirdas Brazauskas, Komlan Mally, Thabo Mbeki and Konstantinos Stephanopoulos. There's more where they came from. Any time you feel like running around like a tit, you let me know and I'll provide you with them.

Look kid. Let's talk like humans whilst we continue to battle elsewhere. What do you mean "see fit"? What is special about the ones you changed whilst you haven't touched others? Or will you seriously embark on a marathon to amend thousands of articles? Plain old "seeing fit" isn't an argument either. I wasn't claiming that having stood for a long time is an argument, but why has nobody out of hundreds of thousands of English speaking editors so much as touched them? Why is it only you? Evlekis (talk) 04:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, you don't say "look kid" and then complain about incivility. Next, I mean exactly what I said: no editor is under an obligation to make an improvement to the entire encyclopaedia just because he's made it in one or several places.  If there are thousands of articles with sloppy ledes that need tightening, then there's lots of work for those inclined to do it.  I have no such inclination; I'll fix it in those articles I happen to see it in, but I'm not about to start a whole project.  When you gave me a list you piqued my curiosity, so I fixed those articles, but I haven't gone hunting for more with the same problem.  But I will not accept any limitation on my right as a WP editor in good standing to make improvements to articles when and as I see fit.  -- Zsero (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Compromise
I've had an idea which may create peace. As an act of good will, I have reverted my own edit on George W Bush to put it back to yours. If we return the US leaders and Mrs.Thatcher to how they were before I changed them last week, then allow the other world leaders to keep their presentations as they had been before you began to reduce them. I won't touch the US presidents for this issue again, that's a promise. The other world leaders also sat harmlessly with their presentations before these past few hours. If we halt all further battling at this stage, all can continue as it did before we entered this personal conflict. Are you all right with that? Evlekis (talk) 05:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No deal. You do not own any articles, any more than I do.  The bottom line is not how things were or who did what, but whether our respective changes are improving articles or making them worse.  I am eliminating words that add nothing at all to the paragraphs in which they appear.  The paragraphs mean exactly the same thing without this verbiage as they do with it; by definition that means the verbiage is excess and useless, and needs trimming, especially in a WP:LEDE, which must be kept tight.  And that is "one of the official standards here", unlike the so-called "standard" you pulled out of your fundament.  Let this be a lesson to you: when you start making bulk changes to articles based on a policy or guideline, make sure it exists before you start, and be ready to cite it the moment anyone challenges you.  -- Zsero (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Very well. Let this be a lesson to you: I will not amend the articles which I reverted however I will stand firm on the articles you started to edit after I pointed them out. I'd like to see you obtain a concensus to explain how what you are doing is better; I can clearly see that your deliberate switch from "is" to the dead person "was" is deliberate provocation. You could have tightened those articles a million different ways. If a few words is a "bulk", how does your tiny excuse for a brain manage with whole paragraphs. One day when you start school, you'll cope better with bigger words. Evlekis (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And you prate about civility??!! The size of your bulk changes is irrelevant; even if you were only adding one superfluous word, it would still be inappropriate.  The only justification you have offered for these changes is your now-apparently-discarded claim that there was some sort of policy or guideline that required them.  Since you seem to have abandoned that claim, and yet insist on reinstating these changes, you must come up with some argument for them.  My point is simple: your changes add absolutely nothing to the meaning of the text, and yet they make it longer; by definition that is sloppy writing and needs tightening.  Unlike you, I won't descend into speculation about your age or your experience in copyediting.  -- Zsero (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

All of the articles have been restored to the revisions you prefer. I hope this will bring an immediate end to the last days of warring. I won't write in this space on matters of this nature again, and shall return to editing in all other fields of interest. Good luck. Evlekis (talk) 09:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
ww2censor (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

George H. W. Bush
You may be interested: Talk:George H. W. Bush. Your input is valuable. Happyme22 (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Judah he-Hasid
Thanks for the transliterations! Jheald (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

SEMICHA OR SEMIKHAH
Are you aware that the title of the Semicha article has been changed from "Semicha" to "Semikhah" ?

This article has been around for a long time under the old spelling. The editor who changed it seems to be new to Wikipedia. I know the question of spelling has been addressed in the past but nothing had ever been altered. I request your feedback on this. Is "Semikhah" indeed the proper spelling?

Thank you very much. CWatchman (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Transliteration is always a matter of opinion. So long as there's a redirect, I'm not about to argue over it. -- Zsero (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

So it is politically correct then ?

I am still interested in knowing more about the transliteration from Semicha to Semikhah. Could you perhaps elaborate more on this or direct me to a source that does?

Thank you. CWatchman (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Transliteration is by definition a matter of taste and preference.  Neither version is more "correct" than the other.  How could it be?  It seems to me that "semicha" or "smicha" is more common, especially among those English-speakers who actually have one, but I haven't done any statistical survey to determine this.  Maybe whoever did the move determined otherwise.  And there is a redirect.  So what's the big deal?  And what has political correctness got to do with it? -- Zsero (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am just interested in the details of the change. I am not opposing it, I just want to understand it better. What is the basis behind the change? Why does the editor think it is more appropriate? CWatchman (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you ask him why he prefers one spelling to the other? Why ask me?  Maybe he decided that his spelling is the more common one.  Or maybe he just woke up one morning and decided to do it, and had no good reason.  I'm not interested enough to investigate.  It's no big deal, since there is no right or wrong spelling.  It's like asking whether "Shabbat" should have one B or two.  I usually spell it with two, because it just somehow looks better to me, but I can't claim that this is somehow more "correct" than one B.  -- Zsero (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have inquired of him. I am awaiting his reply. However, since you have a more established presence on Wikipedia I came also to you. Thank you. CWatchman (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)