User talk:Zilch-nada

Social Credit System

Hi Zilch-nada, I saw you disagreed with my removal of the paragraph you added on said article. Could you please go to the talk page of the article to explain why you think the paragraph belongs? Thanks! Félix An (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect blanking

Hi Zilch-nada, I've noticed you blanked a redirect, that isn't really the way delete it if you disagree with it. Instead, nominate it for deletion at WP:RfD. Justi yaya 00:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Thanks! Zilch-nada (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about your IP address

But I accept your statement about not making the edit. It wasn't a baseless suggestion though as the intent of the IP's edit and yours was similar, removing sourced material about left-wing terrorism being a relatively minor issue with a bad edit summary - yours saying "changed dismissive, irrelevant wording" when you actually changed nothing but deleted a key statement. Doug Weller talk 07:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A quick note on talk page language

Hi @Zilch-nada:, you seem to be quite liberal in your use of language which belittles your fellow editors. Use of such language is hovering on the edges of what constitutes acceptable talk page behavior, and is generally viewed as unhelpful / non-constructive, especially when expressing differences in opinion. Please reconsider whether this is really necessary to get your point across. TucanHolmes (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit of The Dispossessed

I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind your removal of "anarchist" in the description in the first sentence. You said "unnecessary labelizing," but I'm not sure what you meant. Do you mean "labelizing" to be derogatory? I think the anarchist ideas are crucial to the novel. Just saying "utopian" admits of capitalist utopias (Star Trek, pretty much), Leninist utopias, mystical or religious utopias (Orson Scott Card), etc. I'd be happy to be convinced, but so far I think what you changed disimproves the article. Briankharvey (talk) 05:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Jeong

You violated an edit restriction when you added material on Sarah Jeong's tweets. Accusing others of WP:OWNERSHIP behavior when they oppose your unilateral changes is extremely WP:UNCIVIL. Please retract your accusations. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I didn't see the edit warning. But accusations are endless, so let's end this here. Zilch-nada (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gender

Hi Zilch-nada, I'm writing to follow up on the discussion at Talk:Gender#Opening sentence - are "man" and "woman" genders? I have tried to respond to your comments and some of your questions, but the sheer volume of your comments seems to be approaching bludgeoning. And I wanted to mention I have made my responses about the article, but I do not plan to answer your repeated question because I do not think it is relevant to the article discussion. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered incivil, and should be avoided." What absolute nonsense; a mere excuse not to engage. Zilch-nada (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think especially in contentious topic areas, it is not constructive to repeatedly ask a participant for their opinion on other articles [1], [2], [3] during an article discussion. One of the reasons I left you a note on your user talk page is because you continued to ask the same question about other articles after I attempted to briefly return to the discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 04:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I was illustrating that the wikilink issue which was brought up was similar, in that concerns over the incoherence of wikilinks is also problems for other articles. My logic was that we should consider the reliablity and necessity of the sources, regardless of wikilinks, which is an external issue. Thanks, Zilch-nada (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I.e. why keep bringing up the wikilink issue, as that's a problem for other articles? Zilch-nada (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Zilch-nada. Thank you. JBL (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ZN. Just FYI, at AE you're supposed to keep all your comments, including replies to other editors, within your own section. You're also over the 500 word limit, so you may need to either trim or request an extension. You'll probably want to save some words for future replies. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Save some words for future replies"; what do you mean? Zilch-nada (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine uninvolved admins will eventually weigh in, and you may want to anticipate needing some words available to respond to them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a formal, logged warning to assume good faith and maintain civility in discussions. Additionally, if you find a discussion going in circles, and there is not a clear consensus for your position either seek dispute resolution or let the matter drop. Engaging in prolonged back and forths with multiple editors can easily slip from constructive discussion to unconstructive discussion, and then to disruption. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tarkovsky Quote in your user page

A book read by a thousand different people is a thousand different books. - Andrei Tarkovsky

I don't know how Tarkovsky came to this quote from his 1989 book, but Stanislaw Lem elaborated on this idea quite profusely in his 600-page-thick 1968 The Philosophy of Chance, not just occasional witticism. I will try to find something similarly catchy form Lem, though. - Altenmann >talk 03:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Not that this idea is something completely new. For example, the very philosophy of haiku is to make 17 syllables generate a highly individual image withing the reader's brain (Unfortunately many people generate something kinda "Huh? WTH?" :-). - Altenmann >talk 03:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]