User talk:Zezen/Archive 2

Metatron's_Cube

Hi there. Thanks for participating on Flower of Life (geometry). I'll just let you know that the deletionist brigade is also out at Metatron's Cube. That's one that I'm still learning about, but which is encyclopedically not unlike Flower of Life. If you have any input, please leave it there asap. I don't know what other articles this is happening with, or will happen with next. Thank you. — Smuckola (talk) 08:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smuckola IMHO, the article need reediting with RS. See my answer on the proposed deletion page. In short, use this asap. Zezen (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zezen: Yeah that's cool. I haven't used Google Scholar, so thanks for pointing that out. I'm not an academic researcher so I'm not 100% sure that I'm adept at identifying and qualifying all the RSes. Anyway, it's just that none of this is a reason to delete, and you actually made the case for *not* deleting, period. There's no condition like "get some RS soon". WP:NORUSH. Thanks! — Smuckola (talk) 10:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Provide academic RS, mention it on the deletion page, and you'll be good there. Zezen (talk) 10:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zezen: One should hope so. That'd assume rationality and civility (lack of agenda), which we have definitely not seen with Flower of Life. — Smuckola (talk) 10:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Renee Richards You made a confusing post

You wrote at Talk:Renee Richards that she should be referred to as he/him in her earlier days, as well as including the MOS-TW template that says that a trans woman should be referred to as she/her throughout. Georgia guy (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for confusing you then. See the explanation at the talk page and let's keep discussing it there. Zezen (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed text in No-go area

Hi! This edit is probably a mistake where you removed text, e.g. the intro, See also and categories. It will take some work to restore it, since due to later edits it can't be reversed. Please take the time to restore the content. Sjö (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it was a mistake. When shifting, I inadvertently removed the intro. I am fixing it now. Zezen (talk) 09:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially catastrophic

FYI, the book is online. Pg 141 direct quote

"with potentially 'catastrophic' consequences"

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so please use the exact quote, without weasel words. Ta. Zezen (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

have at it, I was just FYIing NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited British Israelism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestine. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source quality

Hi, Please try to restrict sourcing to serious history books. Books like "The Complete Idiot's Guide" don't really make the grade. If you have trouble obtaining particular sources, I may be able to help. I'll take a look at Liutostanskii probably tomorrow. It seems very little is known about him with certainty. Zero^talk 12:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I got frustrated at the previous editor's nitpicking for page numbers only to put the ^{[citation needed]} there. C U tomorrow. Zezen (talk) 12:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda of the deed

Please read the article before making more changes.

Tragic Week (Argentina) did not take place during January 1019
Tragic Week (Argentina) was propaganda of the deed
The modern "terrorist" actions start with "artistic propaganda of the deed"—quite terroristic!

Please stop POV-pushing. Thank you. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trout test

Whacking myself here:

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

.

Zezen (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sock IP comments: Your contributions

I've seen your contributions, and they're rife with original research. Take, for example, your recent attempts to change the meaning of blood libel because you think the widely accepted definition -- based on multiple reliable sources -- is POV. WTF? Or your complete misunderstanding of what Jewish Bolshevism is. Or your OR at Propaganda of the deed. Need I go on?

And your reading comprehension problems continue at WP:ANI. You wrote about WP:PRECOCIOUS -- but you seem to have missed the sentence where I wrote that I've been editing longer than you have. Since at least 2006, in fact. So it's no wonder I'm familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 66.87.81.47 (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not talk to numbers, as there's no audit trail for their contributions. Find another target, IP. Zezen (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm through trying to reason with an imbecile. 66.87.80.102 (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bye, bye, sock IPs, and good riddance. You can comment here only after logging in by now. Zezen (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation at Racial segregation

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the Racial segregation article, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text—which means allowing other people to modify it—then you must include on the external site the statement: "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, and under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribute Share-Alike".

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question at the Help Desk. You can also leave a message on my talk page.

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Racial segregation, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you.

I strongly recommend that you read WP:COPYVIO as well as WP:Vandalism. You are not allowed to add text copied verbatim from a source, as you did, without proper attribution. Try it again and I will report you, and you may be blocked from editing. Removing copyright violations is not vandalism. 66.87.114.104 (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Racial segregation

You have violated 3RR with your last revert to Racial segregation. Please self-revert (undo your last edit) or I will report you and you may be blocked from editing. 66.87.114.184 (talk) 14:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not talk to numbers, IP, especially the ones reverting without cooperating on the Talk Page, for the reasons stated above. Good luck with blocking. Zezen (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. See WP:AN3#User:Zezen reported by User:66.87.114.184 (Result: ). 66.87.114.184 (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

		A beer on me!
		I hope your recent problems get solved soon and that you can continue editing on Wikipedia without further intrusion by those who may discourage improvement. Cheers! Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 16:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caution

Stop playing the word game of saying that you are not engaged in a dispute because your dispute is with an unregistered editor. You don't have to like unregistered editors, but you have to behave in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines even with them. You may not be able to engage in dialogue with them at their talk pages, but you can engage with them in dialogue at article talk pages, and refusing to engage in dialogue with them here is vexatious. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5b. Dear Robert McClenon: Please see above what IPs (or socks) are capable of.

FYI, User:66.87.115.251 - has NOT commented anything on the article's Talk Page. Anybody can check this with Ctrl+F of 66.87.115.251 there or its history, despite claiming so there. Zezen (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Just claiming that a particular IP hasn't discussed Racial segregation doesn't mean that a human using that IP address and other IP addresses hasn't discussed it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Robert McClenon, Sigh. The human (?) behind the 66.87.115.251 address said:

I have commented on both the article's talk page and his talk page ... [Zezen then] complain[s] that I don't discuss with you. 66.87.115.251 (talk)

Now try for yourself to find the IP hopper Wikipedian using 66.87.115.251's comments on the article's page (use the URLs above), as advised by 66.87.115.251 itself. That is why I do not talk to IPs, as I am not a masochist, see above. How can I assume good faith to a self-hiding human that lies or, at best, misdirects, constantly reverts despite my attempts at consensus, thus working against the five pillars? Zezen (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issue (and more)

Hello Zezen, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to Racial segregation has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The message above message from me is a template – a canned response – which I've used because it contains some standard information on the issues involved, but I've also noted some specifics in two edit summaries I left upon reverting your additions. Please see my two edit summaries shown in this diff.

Another issue is that you are currently in violation of the three-revert rule, which could subject you to a block already. Copyright violations (the edits also separately constitute plagiarism) are taken very seriously and also are blockable. I have not attempted to gauge the discussion on the talk page as to whether (if this material could be used) it would belong, but you must not edit war, or copy and paste other people's writing as you have. Thanks for understanding--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fuhghettaboutit Thank you for providing 'details about the alleged copyright violation.

1. Please quote alleged source vs my edit so that I can seek others opinion and act. (There are 6 sources and fewer sentences, so copyviol is unlikely.) The fuller answer is on article's talk page for everybody edification - please reply there.

2. For the RRRs, see [the appropriate forum] and comment there. Thank you. Zezen (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Racial segregation

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at this AN3 complaint (permalink). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]