Jump to content

User talk:Zsero/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Priscila Herig

user warnings

Zsero, is there a reason you aren't using the warning templates against IPs? It'd make it much easier to block IPs, such as User:201.40.136.209 on Hayden Christensen and Rachel Bilson. tedder (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

  1. She keeps changing IPs. I suspect she's on dialup, so each time she dials in she gets a different IP. So warning one IP isn't going to change anything.
  2. What she's doing isn't precisely vandalism. She's making the articles slightly worse, by cluttering them up with unused parameters, obsolete trivia, and unsourced information, but vandalism is something more than that. So I'm reverting, and I don't think I'll be called for 3RR, but the effort of warning doesn't seem warranted. Feel free to do so yourself, though. -- Zsero (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Gotcha. Well, I'll call it "disruptive" at least. No worries. tedder (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


Please stop deleting important information in these articles. I don't know why you're doing it but I would like you stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Priscila Herig (talk • contribs) 23:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Unused parameters, obsolete trivia, and unsourced information, are none of them "important". -- Zsero (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

She dated for three years an actor and this is not important? Priscila Herig

It's obsolete trivia. She never married him, and now she's engaged to someone else. -- Zsero (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You will not you stop? What you want? Destroy the articles? She almost married him, why do you not delete it on the page Adam Brody too? Priscila Herig —Preceding undated comment added 23:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC).

I took up your suggestion to review Adam Brody, but found the reference there to be entirely unobjectionable. It's the last information available about him, after all. If he has a more recent significant relationship, then it becomes less important, and if he were to become engaged or married then it would fade into insignificance. We certainly don't include forever every person a subject has ever dated! -- Zsero (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I will not stop, who's wrong here is you, who is deleting information here is you, STOP. Priscila Herig (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

  • If you truly follow through on this threat, you'll most likely be blocked for a much more significant amount of time.

Part 2

Oh cool, you deleted other part, what is next? You will delete the whole article too? Good job! Can block me again, it's just that you can do. I-D-I-O-T Priscila Herig (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that the edits from User:201.34.80.8 are indeed yours. -- Zsero (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Part 3: Rachel Bilson

Zsero, what is the problem that you have with me??? Someone edited the article "Rachel Bilson" and wrote that she and Adam Brody dated for three years and you did NOTHING. I wrote the same thing last week and you blocked me, why just when I change an article you appear? What is your problem with me? Why do you not delete the part that other people edited too? Priscila Herig (talk) 12:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not exactly relevant, but it's pretty short, so I'm waiting to see if anyone else deletes it. But you seem to be bent on a series of inappropriate edits that together add up to almost pure vandalism. It's not as if this is the only change you've been making to the article, and to Hayden Christensen. -- Zsero (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Part 4: Block and unblock

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Hayden Christensen. 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. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I have also revoked your rollback rights, since you have used it for edit warring and reverting edits that are not vandalism on the same article. You're free to re-apply for it at WP:PERM and convince another admin that you can be trusted with the tool and will not misuse it. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|WTF? I reverted a repeated vandal 3 times, then stopped, despite the fact that the vandal continued to revert seven times. I did as I was supposed to do, and let others take up the burden of reverting her. Why the block?!}}

And now I lose my rollback too? I have used it for exactly what it's for — to roll back vandalism; why'd you revoke it? -- Zsero (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Please read WP:NOTVAND on what is not regarded as vandalism. WP:ROLLBACK also mentions when and when not to use it. A change in formatting can hardly be regarded as vandalism. If there's a problem with that, you should try to discuss with that user on the article's talk page or their own talk page. I don't see much of an effort to do so. Reverting them repeatedly is not going to help at all. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Clear and obvious vandalism. Perhaps the proper thing would have been to ask another admin to protect the page again, as Tedder did. Regardless, this block is inappropriate. Rollback restored. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Very well then, I apologize for the block if you feel it is inappropriate. I have explained my reasons above, however. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 02:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Block was inappropriate; clear and obvious vandalism.

Request handled by: jpgordon::==( o ) 17:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Part 5: Priscila Herig, again

Using === this page has a better view, why do you insist on vandalizing this article? Why until now you don't answer what is the problem that you have with me? Why you asking your friends to change this page for you? Why do you not delete the information that someone wrote in the article "Rachel Bilson" too? What is your problem? Priscila Herig (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the one vandalising the article. If you really think your edits are somehow improving it, make the case for that proposition on the article's talk page. Explain how the article would be better with the changes you insist on making. Because it's far from obvious to every other editor who's looked at them, all of whom have reverted you. You've been blocked for this three times already, do you think if you just keep on making the same edit everyone will suddenly realise it was right all along? -- Zsero (talk)


Jake T. Austin

Hello, Tinton5 here speaking. Instead of having an edit war, I figured that I could explain my reasoning for changing child actor to teen actor ← (notice how teen actor has its own link?), and then changed it to simply actor, since you have no civility whatsoever. You say "teen actor" is not a term...it in fact IS a term...if you read the child actor article..it states in BOLD print, in the lead paragraph, that when they are teenagers, they are known as teenage actors (teen actor for short). Take a quick look at some of these articles, for instance: Nathan Kress, Cayden Boyd, Ryan Ochoa and for teen actress: Taylor Atelian, Emily Osment, Abigail Breslin, just to name a few. As you read the lead sentence of these articles..they specifically state they are TEEN actors, since they are 13 or older. That's my reasoning. As for Jake T. Austin, I noticed you insistantly revert my edits, so I figured we could just leave it to say ......he is an actor..etc. etc. This way we save some time and aggravation. I'm doing you a favor, by letting you know the deal around here. In addition, I'm not here to start conflicts or cause trouble to other users, rather I'm here to help out and communicate with others to come to a solution to such minor instances, like this one. Take care. Tinton5 (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you noticed, teen actor does not have its own article; it's just a redirect to child actor. That should be your first clue that it's not a real term. For one thing, "teen" isn't a word. But even "teenager actor" is not a real term. Child actors are a different category from adult actors; they are not just actors who happen to be under an arbitrary age. But child actors who happen to be over the age of 11 are not in a different category from those who are not. They do the same things, are subject to the same rules and the same economic considerations, and the same likelihood (or lack thereof) of establishing new acting careers as adults. Austin is a child, and he is a child actor, so that is how he should be described. If other articles use this term then they should be changed too; that is not an argument for changing this one. -- Zsero (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
(TPS butting in) The best way to deal with this, ultimately, is to find reliable sources that call someone a given name. If They are called a "purple-orange actor", great- that's what the reliable, verifiable sources are calling them. That way you two don't get stuck dealing with semantics, especially over something so minor. tedder (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

NORN forum definition

I have seen comments you made at WP:NORN. Off the top of your head, can you please quickly scan the page California megapolitan areas and then look at the discussion on the talk page Talk:California megapolitan areas#Megapolitan area to see if JWB's statement that NORN is not for challenging articles is correct? JWB has resurrected article copy which is unquestionably unsupported original research and/or synthesis from the page history, after I acted to define the title of the first incarnation, SanSan, through redirection. Once SanSan was redirected to BosWash, merging with it the only verifiable information from SanSan, JWB opted to wait two days and then resurrect the old article as "California as a megalopolis", which I renamed "California megapolitan areas" because the entire state is not urban by any stretch of any fertile imagination. Is his contention that NORN doesn't handle article wide challenges correct? Sswonk (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

He's right. NORN is a noticeboard; it is for soliciting opinions from editors who don't monitor the article in question. It's not a place for challenging anything. -- Zsero (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Palestine as part of "Turkey"

As regards to our recent edit to David Ben-Gurion‎ in which you commented "huh? palestine was never part of turkey". The opening sentence of the Wikipedian article on the Ottoman Empire states "The Ottoman Empire or Ottoman State, also known by its contemporaries as the Turkish Empire or Turkey...". As Palestine was, at the time in question, part of the the Ottoman Empire, it was in contempary language part of Turkey. However, I do not believe the issue is important enough to again revert your edit, which I still consider incorrect (I agree that the wording you originally corrected was incorrect, since if Ben-Gurion went to study at Instanbul University, one should not referred to him as going to "Anatolia"). Davshul (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Turkey was merely one country among many ruled by the Ottomans. Palestine at this time was part of Syria, another country ruled by the Ottomans. Turkish was never spoken in Palestine, nor was it ever inhabited by Turks. The Ottomans did not consider themselves Turks, or members of any particular nation.
What do you mean by "to again revert your edit", as if you had reverted it once already, and were not going to revert it a second time? I only made the one edit, so what are you talking about? -- Zsero (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

New York

Please note my edit to Chabad. You were right, the Rebbe did leave Crown Height on occasion. It was New York that the Rebbe didn't leave, apart from three visits to Gan Yisro'el. Debresser (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Although you are technically right, NY is ambiguous, so this is not a good solution. Also because the fact of his three visits is quite famous. Debresser (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
So specify New York, which is the state, not the city. -- Zsero (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Chinese Selichot

There are many more examples of Hebrew documents from China. In fact, the earliest known example of New Persian is a Judeo-Persian document dating from the early 8th century. It was discovered in Chinese Turkestan in the late 19th century. Beyond that, the Kaifeng Jews have several Torah scrolls, prayer booklets, and colophons written in Judeo-Persian. One of the strangest pairings I've seen is a memorial book which lists the Chinese and Hebrew names of those who died between the years 1660-1700. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If you interested, here is a link to an article about the JP colophons of the Kaifeng Jews:
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?/topic/21843-jews-in-china/page__view__findpost__p__4976309
The Jews actually used Hebrew to spell out Chinese place names in these documents. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Michael Savage

"Pointed Out"

Please read WP:NPOVGideonF (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  • The 212.20... edit was me. My browser logged me out. I've moved your comment to my talk page. You have condemned yourself out of your own mouth with the unapologetically POV reasons you gave for this edit, citing the existence of some right or other that exists independently of its protection in law. "Pointed out" was the original wording, and in the context - that of someone making frivolous legal threats on the basis of a law that doesn't exist in the country in question - it is neutral.GideonF (talk) 15:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Listen to the radio excerpt. Mr Weiner specifically cited the First Amendment to the US Constitution, a law that does not exist in the country he was talking about. Wikipedia has no opinion on whether a right to free speech exists independently of its protection in law, because it is a political point of view: I am not asserting that it does not, just *pointing out* that Wikipedia does not assert that it does, if you get my meaning. If you want to have us both up on 3RR (you're as much in breach of it as I am) I can't stop you, but I don't see how that will help you promote your POV, or help improve Wikipedia. GideonF (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry, my mistake. You are not in breach of the 3RR. GideonF (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Now that I have temporarily self-reverted, allow me to point out that what Wikipedia is about is creating a free online encyclopaedia. Again, Wikipedia has no opinion on whether a right to free speech exists independently of its protection in law. I'm sorry if that offends your political or religious beliefs, but, like the people who think Wikipedia should not feature pictures of the prophet Mohamed, you're going to have to get used to being offended.

If Mr Weiner had cited an abstract right to free speech, and not specifically the American law that protects it on American soil, you might have a point in saying that American law's non-existence outside US borders was irrelevant to his argument; but he did not.GideonF (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

He cited the right which is protected by the 1st amendment. That is how Americans refer to this right. I'm sorry if you don't like it, or if Conan was too thick to understand it. But the fact that the UK has no equivalent law was precisely Savage's point, which is why he responded as he did. -- Zsero (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
No, he cited the Amendment. His word are available for all to hear. The original, NPOV text will be resotred when 24 hours are up. GideonF (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
What original text? WTF are you talking about? It was "commented"; all I have done is revert attempts to change it. And I warn you, if you keep making this change I will cite your comment above as evidence of intent to edit-war. -- Zsero (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The text has stood as "pointed out" for almost all of the article's history since the events it describes took place. It is the original phrasing, and you are changing it for POV reasons; something you openly admit in your edit description. The idea of being "warned" by a POV pusher is quite laughable.GideonF (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
WTF are you talking about. This is the exact opposite of the truth. What a chutzpah; you do the "crime" and then accuse me of your actions. -- Zsero (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The truth is there for everyone to see in the article's history. You are only making yourself look foolish.GideonF (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Stop lying. Anyone can indeed see the history. It said "commented" until this week, when you and your friends decided to change it, and to keep edit-warring until your change would prevail. -- Zsero (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Me and "my friends"? Now everyone who disagrees with you is in cahoots? I think that speaks for itself. Now, go look a little further back in the history and you will observe that "commented" is a recent change.GideonF (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think you are in cahoots. You've already admitted making a 4th revert anonymously, and you've openly declared your intention of edit-warring. When exactly is this "recent" change supposed to have happened? -- Zsero (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
On the point of the recency of the "pointed out" wording, upon checking I concede you are correct. I mis-remembered, and I apologise. I do not apologise, however, for preferring that wording; for restoring it; for stating the fact that your reasons for changing it are POV; for taking exception to your continual personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith; or for finding your delusional belief that there is some kind of conspiracy at work against you risible in the extreme. GideonF (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Michael Savage (commentator)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Michael Savage (commentator). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

I will add that the article was stable so I would help us all if you can explain your concerns on the talk page. I personally don't see the POV that Conan made a point rather than a comment, but when you listen to the interview, it was not a passive activity. Savage was directly debating points with the host. Thanks. Mattnad (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"The article was stable" is precisely my point. It was stable with the word "commented" until a few days ago when suddenly someone decided to change it to "pointed out", which is POV and contrary to WP:AVOID. All I am doing is reverting it to the stable NPOV language, which accurately reports what happened. The onus is on those pushing this change to justify themselves. Note that I have not violated 3RR, while GideonF did violate it, did not revert himself until I demanded it twice, and has explicitly declared his intention to go on pushing his change.
As to the substance: Savage said that the UK action violated his right to free speech, Conan commented that in the UK the law doesn't protect this right, and Savage replied, essentially, "exactly". Using the term "pointed out" implies that Savage was somehow unaware that the right was unprotected in the UK, which makes no sense since the whole story was about the UK violating it, which couldn't happen if it were protected. -- Zsero (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not Savage was aware of the actual status of the 1st Amendment in the UK doesn't mean that the Host understood that. Leading up to the "comment" or "point", Savage repeatedly invokes the US First Amendment in his disagreement with the UK ban. This repeated rhetoric is what the host was responding to, hence making his "point" (which I think we all agree is true whether or not it's a "comment").
Michael Savage, host of "The Savage Nation," joins us now by phone from his office in San Francisco. And nice to have you today on TALK OF THE NATION.
Mr. MICHAEL SAVAGE (Host, "The Savage Nation"): Well, thanks, Neal. So, what should we talk about? How about the First Amendment?
followed by....
Mr. SAVAGE: I don't know, but I know that we have a First Amendment in America, and as you well know, you're protected by it.
CONAN: Indeed.
Mr. SAVAGE: And the whole point of the First Amendment was to protect offensive speech, not polite speech.
and then...
CONAN: And as you considered this list, are you taking any actions about it?
Mr. SAVAGE: Well, I've consulted with some very liberal First Amendment attorneys who are friends of mine. They don't agree with my politics, but they understand what happens to a nation that starts banning speech. And I am considering a direct lawsuit against this Jacqui Smith, who was laughed at in her own country, by the way.
And a few other indirect mentions.Mattnad (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, what is your point here? He is talking about the first amendment which in the USA protects the freedom of speech that is one of the inalienable rights of man. He talks about how important it is, how bad it is that in the UK this right is unprotected, and points out that even liberals in the USA understand what happens to a nation that starts banning speech, as (he says) the UK has done here. And he says that he intends to fight this by suing Ms Smith (which as I understand it he has since done). Conan's comment that freedom of speech is indeed unprotected in the UK doesn't "point out" anything; rather it makes Savage's point for him, as Savage immediately replied. If Conan thought he was somehow rebutting Savage he's stupid.
In any event, this is about the edit to the article. The article was stable with "commented". I want to know why you insist on joining GideonF's edit war to change this language to something that is both POV and against WP:AVOID, and which is vigorously objected to by at least one editor (me). If "commented" was good enough until now, why the great need to change it now? By joining forces with an admitted 3RR violator and edit-warrior, you don't put yourself in a good light. -- Zsero (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I think you're reading into how Conan should have interpreted Savage's comments based on your own perspective. Conan was making a point (in my view)/ WP:AVOID is based upon giving credibility where it may not be fair - Conan's comment is correct (right?) based on his understanding (stupid or not) of what Savage was getting at. And it's not a stretch to see why Conan would make that "point" given Savage's repeated invocation of the First Amendment.Mattnad (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Maybe Conan was thick enough to think he was refuting Savage's argument instead of bolstering it, but "pointed out" repeats that mistake in WP's editorial voice. We've done fine AVOIDing the phrase until now; why introduce it now? "Commented" is perfectly neutral; the reader can understand it any way she likes; why not leave it like that? -- Zsero (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Tefillin

Could you please give me an explanation about this? You reverted me unconstructively without providing a proper rationale. --Omnipaedista (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. You were collateral damage when I was making a change in the lede. I've reinstated your change. -- Zsero (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
No harm done, then! --Omnipaedista (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The EL on selichot to the chabad article violates WP:ELNO numbers 1, 8, and possibly 4. It would also appear to violate WP:Weight as chabad is a minority of Jews, and I don't see comparable links for Ashkenzai, sephardi, orthodoc, conservative, reform, reconstructionist, etc. (nor of course should they be included, as wikipedia is not a collection of links. --Bachrach44 (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I think you must have misread #1; there is no way that the complete text of the slichot would be appropriate to include in Featured article! #8 does not include PDFs. It is absolutely standard to link to PDF documents in references, let alone in ELs. #4 doesn't apply either; chabad.org doesn't make money from hits, so nobody is trying to boost its hits by spamming. And it's irrelevant how many or few people use this particular nusach. This is a typical nusach of selichot, that happens to be online, in an easily accessed format. It is no better or worse for this purpose than any other nusach. And it's not as if it were some obscure minhag of a tiny community; this nusach, which is basically Nusach Reissin, is probably no less common than any other nusach of selichot in the world today, unless all of the Sefaradim and Edot Hamizrach have a single nusach. -- Zsero (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Georgia (country) international footballers

Hi, you commented on the speedy rename nomination of the above category. I have now started a CfR to get proper consensus; the discussion can be found here. Regards, GiantSnowman 01:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Changes without discussion to Pashkvil

Greetings, I see you changed the spelling of Pashkavil to Pashkvil without any discussion, and with only the claim "there's no vowel between the k and v." Setting aside issues of transliterating Semitic languages, the spelling "pashkevil" gets around 14,000 Google hits, while "pashkvil" gets 1,200, so if anything the "kev" spelling appears most common on Google. What's the reasoning behind the spelling you chose?

Further, you maDe the whole article a redirect to Street literature with no discussion. No "Hey, I think it'd work better if we move it to...", no posting a proposed merger tag, etc. Since there was no discussion, I've reverted it to an earlier edit. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no vowel there. Listen to anyone pronounce it. Or look it up in any Yiddish dictionary. Google hits prove nothing in general; they especially don't prove anything about the pronunciation of Yiddish words.
I turned it into a redirect because there is no reason in the world to have a separate article for this instance of street literature. WP is not a dictionary. "Pashkvil" is not an English word; it is simply Hebrew and Yiddish for a street broadside, or Yiddish for a pasquil. WP already has an article on street literature, so that's where this word for it should point. -- Zsero (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
PS: Do you speak either Hebrew or Yiddish yourself? Do you use this word in ordinary conversation? Have you ever used it outside Wikipedia? I do all of the above. I have never heard anyone pronounce it with a vowel in that spot. I think that experience is worth more than a Google search. (BTW, when doing Google searches of this kind, do you remember to exclude any page with the word "wikipedia" on it?) -- Zsero (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ivanka Trump + Hershel Schachter

Rabbi Elie Weinstock. Not only that, but it is widely known in YU that R' Schachter was involved in the conversion. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 18:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to remove it, but you should know that personal communication counts as original research, and is not accepted as a source for information on WP, so if someone ever challenges it it will have to go. Of course until someone challenges it, let it stay, it's not doing any harm, though I'd like to have some way of indicating that the source isn't The View. Maybe I'll reword the sentence to make that clear. -- Zsero (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
That I know. What you should know is that there is no reason why this point should be any more controversial than any other assertion made on any other page, and perhaps a simple {{fact}} would be appropriate. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 19:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Nah, that's just an invitation for someone to come along and delete it. -- Zsero (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
OK -- that's good info to know. And no -- it's the R' Schachter who's the rosh yeshiva. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 01:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

BLP

After multiple warnings I've blocked you for violations of the BLP policy. I am willing to unblock you if you pledge not to violate it any further and take your dispute to the appropriate forum instead of disputing it through purposeful violations. Gamaliel (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Zsero (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I absolutely deny having violated BLP, and have repeatedly challenged Gamaliel to cite evidence for his interpretation of the policy. Without doing so, he cannot expect editors to bow to his interpretation; being an admin does not privilege his opinions or exempt him from having to justify them before expecting people to obey. Threatening to block me was an abuse of his admin powers — he was essentially saying "accept my opinion or else" — and actually blocking me was certainly an abuse. The onus is always on someone making an accusation to substantiate it; it is never incumbent on the target of an accusation to disprove it. Thus, it was up to Gamaliel to take our dispute to the appropriate forum and seek support for his interpretation, before blocking me; not to expect me to take it there, and in the meantime to obey him.

Decline reason:

BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia - including insulting people on talk pages. This is not subject to interpretation. Toddst1 (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm very puzzled about this. While Gamaliel did warn you, you weren't violating BLP; the policy is intended to apply, for the most part, to article pages. While it does talk about talk pages, the only prohibition is on blatant, out-of-context slander. I'd argue that what Zsero was doing doesn't qualify as this; while you should have respected Gamaliel's wishes, Zsero, and avoided using statements like that, I don't think that you should be blocked. That being said, I'm not willing to overturn a block, but I'll make sure to notify Gamaliel. m.o.p 22:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Why should I have respected his wishes? What gives his wishes more weight than mine? Just because he has admin powers? Making such a claim is by definition an abuse of those powers. I invited him to point me at the policy, guideline, or anything that said what I was doing was wrong. Instead he blocked me. That is unjust. WP is not a dictatorship; one can never say "accept my opinion or else". As you say, I was not violating BLP; Gamaliel has a very peculiar understanding of BLP that as far as I can tell is not reflected anywhere in the policies or guidelines. -- Zsero (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Since Gamaliel seems unwilling to unblock unless I preemptively accept his interpretation of BLP, an interpretation that so far nobody seems to agree with, I'm renewing my unblock request. To reviewing admin: if you agree that the block was unjustified, then as a matter of simple justice you ought to unblock, with or without Gamaliel's permission. -- Zsero (talk) 01:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that you're looking at admins as a different caste of user; they're not. If any user had asked you to stop being like that, you'd be obliged to do so under common-sense civility rules. For example, edit summaries like this, while not a blockable offence, are discouraged. Again, I don't think you should have been blocked, but it would have been wise to watch what you said after Gamaliel's request. And no, his wishes don't have more weight than yours (within reason), but again, civility. If someone asks you to stop doing something, stop and discuss it if you really must. Do you get what I'm saying? m.o.p 07:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Where are edit summaries like that discouraged? Under what policy, guideline, or even mere suggestion? I did try to discuss his demand; I asked him to back it up with sources, and he blocked me for daring to use examples for the purpose of that discussion! That is pure dictatorship and censorship, and an abuse of his admin powers, and I want to pursue it, but feel daunted by the huge emotional fight that is sure to be, and also chilled by the prospect that abusive admins like him will block me again for daring to question them. I don't have the emotional resources for an extended battle which I would be fighting from a disadvantaged position. There's an important principle involved here, in fact several important principles, but I feel alone and afraid of the fight. I am also angry at how I have been treated, and want justice, but don't expect it. I'd like to take a wikibreak, doing only minor editing (fixing typos and reverting vandals), but then I feel that that will be taken as validating Gamaliel's intolerable position. -- Zsero (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Again, I agree that you shouldn't be blocked. However, he asked you to stop and kept removing your examples; one would hope you would catch on that he wasn't taking to the comments well. As I've said before, basic civility applies here; we don't need a policy for everything. You're free to take this up with other administrators, and I can assure you they won't block for questioning. Regardless of how you'll act, I need to know that you'll agree to respect the wishes of others. Remember, even if you don't see harm in your actions, other people are looking at it from a different angle; never forgot to account for them. m.o.p 17:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Are other people supposed to respect my wishes? I certainly haven't seen that happen anywhere! -- Zsero (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
In terms of civility, they should. If they don't, you're entitled to enquire. Wikipedia's not perfect, so of course we'll have a few incidents here and there; you can still ask for help, though. m.o.p 17:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Harassment accounts

I went to WP:AIV with those two harassment accounts from a few minutes ago. Typically an admin will block harassment accounts straightaway. Warning them once is fair, of course. And if they don't stop, take them to AIV for disposal. The Miley Cyrus impersonator was indef'd. The IP was only blocked for 24, because they can't indef IP's; but if it resumes, you can ask for a longer block. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

gaffa tape

Excuse me, but you are edit warring over stupid shit.

This is a perfectly acceptable and widely used term. I've bought cases of the stuff. The lede does not need a cite for this. I'll watch for you to remove that ludicrous fact tag. Regards. Jack Merridew 02:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That is hardly a reliable source. And it doesn't even say that "gaffa" is the correct spelling. Note that it's called "the Gaffer Tape Archive", and the URL is "gaffer". The fact tag is hardly ludicrous; I am absolutely serious about it. I do not believe that "gaffa" is an alternative name for this, there is nothing in the article to substantiate it, so I am asking you to supply a reference. If a reliable source is not supplied within a reasonable time, it should be deleted. That's how Wikipedia works; contentious information needs to be verified. And "contentious" means anything that another editor honestly doubts. Sticking "fact" tags on things that you believe to be true, just to make a WP:POINT, is not allowed; but in this case my doubts are 100% genuine. I have never before today seen it spelt that way, and if I had I'd have assumed it was a misspelling by someone who'd never seen it in writing, or by one of those half-illiterates who misspell every other word. -- Zsero (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I've seen it used this way. *Many* times. I've heard it coming out of my own mouth in a professional context. The above link is perfectly acceptable to show that this is a legitimate spelling and I showed you that there are lots more sources out there. The article quite likely does need work; many do. You may not realize it, but I'm not some new account with a redink user page. I'm a suckpuppet; really, and this is well known. I see you've been here a while, but not as long as I have. I know an awful lot about how this site works. The is nothing contentious here beyond you kicking up a silly bit of noise over a spelling you happen to not be familiar with. I've not even looked at the article since I posted above; this is small-beer and is not something I'm going to fuss with further today. But, I assure you, that spelling will be remaining in the article. I've edited this article before, stuck gaffa tap over the nipples of actresses about to go on stage in sheer costumes, and used it as an improvised bandage. Gaffa tape is holds everything in the theatre and film worlds together. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
How could you have heard "gaffa" instead of "gaffer" coming out of your mouth? Do you pronounce them differently? In any case, find a reliable source. The site you cited is not one, and in any case doesn't say what you claim it does. -- Zsero (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: Jack Merridew added these links to his first comment in this thread; I'm moving them down here, so it's clear that they're a new addition:

The edit summary for Jack's edit is "I think you're trolling your own talk page" I have no idea what that means. But the addition of these links doesn't change my position. All they show me is that a fair number of people in the UK misspell the world; and/or that someone is using a deliberate misspelling as a trademark, and it caught on. I note that all his examples are from the UK, where such a mistake would be easy to make, because the two spellings are pronounced exactly the same. I'd be more impressed if he were to show me that this spelling is common in places where it is pronounced differently from "gaffer" (e.g. "duck"/"duct" sound similar but not identical, and both are common enough to count as legitimate variants). -- Zsero (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Now that we've established that gaffa tape is an entirely legitimate term, it would seem you have some remedial work to attend to on some of your other edits. Please take care of it so I don't have to worry about it. Thanks a bunch. Jack Merridew 07:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

We have established nothing of the kind. See my comment just above. And I stand by that edit (you messed up the URL) 100%; no matter how you spell gaffer tape, it is not the same thing as duct/duck tape. -- Zsero (talk) 07:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I most certainly have established this; you're just being strident. I really don't get where you're coming from re pronunciation; the terms are spelt differently and are pronounced differently, but they *are* the same tape. In different regions and from manufacturers the sizes will vary a bit. Oh, the url I gave was a span of your edits, not a singe edit. My edit summary you quote was in reference to a perception that you're more focused on the edit waring and bickering than with actually talking to me about what's appropriate for the articles. Regards, Jack Merridew 08:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Not a single one of the "sources" you have provided here is a reliable source, nor do any of them prove what you claim. What did you do? Just google for instances of this spelling? How can they prove that it is not a misspelling? And you may pronounce "gaffa" differently from "gaffer", but you have produced no sources whatsoever from a place where such a difference in pronunciation exists. I am dead serious in requiring a reliable source, because I do honestly doubt its truth, and until you can provide one the fact tag must remain. Remember, all contentious information, i.e. information that an editor is likely to challenge in good faith, must be referenced to a reliable source. This is such information, as proved by the fact that I have challenged it in good faith. -- Zsero (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Dude, you're way off base. I've dropped a heap of reliable sources here and you've gone and reverted the fact tag back in?

This is going to get interesting and I'll watch for now. Oh, I never said duct tape and gaffa tape were the same thing; I said quite the opposite.

—Sincerely, Sockpuppet First Class, Jack Merridewthis user is a sock puppet 07:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You do not remove a fact tag without providing a reliable source. So far you have not done so. -- Zsero (talk) 07:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Gaffa tape is a common term used in theater work. I'm wondering what you consider a reliable source - as I saw nothing in the current article that impressed me. Gaffa tape is referred to several times in the book Stage management:The Essential Handbook http://www.amazon.com/Stage-Management-Essential-Handbook-New/dp/1854597345 and Feminist Theatre Practice:A Handbook http://www.amazon.com/Feminist-Theatre-Practice-Elaine-Aston/dp/0415139244/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_3. Are those good enough for you? I can get the page numbers. How about Oxford? - http://www.tabsareforflying.co.uk/venues/oreilly-theatre-keble/. Or a website of theater terms - http://www.stagespecs.com/pub_process/glossary_search.cfm?letter=G. I doubt all these places just spell the word wrong. - Josette (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

Jack Merridew posted a link to this discussion here:

Three-revert warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gaffer tape. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --McGeddon (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely reject this warning. I am not edit-warring, and have certainly not broken 3RR. I put a fact tag on an assertion that I doubt; that tag must remain there until it is replaced by a reliable source. If someone removes the tag without supplying a reliable source, it is my right to put it back no matter how many times he does so, and I cannot be accused of edit-warring for it. Certainly putting it back twice is not even close to a 3RR violation (which would require doing so four times). -- Zsero (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
With this reasoning, you need to quit reverting my fact tag on Michael Savage's religion. The "tag must remain there until it is replaced by a reliable source". --Mister Magotchi (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Only if it was put there in good faith. You don't doubt that his mother was Jewish; you're fighting a campaign to challenge the Jewish definition of who is a Jew, and impose Christianity's definition where it doesn't belong. You can't do that, any more than you can impose a USAn definition of citizenship on the UK. Judaism is the original, Xianity is the spin-off that developed its own rules and conventions. The child class inherits attributes from the parent, and can then change them as it likes, but the parent doesn't inherit anything from the child. -- Zsero (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to Ketchup

Hello, I have reverted your edits to Ketchup. I have done this because you changed the link to French Fries to say chips (french fries), which is correct, but the article being linked to is french fries and should be that way in the article.--NavyBlue84 14:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That argument doesn't make sense. What difference does it make what the article title is? This article has had this language for a long time, and I see no reason to change it just to accommodate your aesthetic preference. My preference is just as good as yours. -- Zsero (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Well to me your argument doesn't make sense either. If you don't like the way it is now then post at the article talk page and get consensus. I am not going to revert myself, since I am not in the wrong.--NavyBlue84 15:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Seems to me like "french fries (chips)" is clearer, as British readers might not know that chips are called french fries. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
"chips (french fries)", which is what it said for ages, is just as clear, and covers what most of the English-speaking world (especially if you count India) calls them. -- Zsero (talk) 06:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I see. Well, either way works. "French fries" by itself, though, is insufficient. There are countless places in wikipedia where the words in the right half of the link (i.e. the label) are different from the left half of it (i.e. the actual link)... because, as with this, you could have multiple terms linking to the same article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. That's exactly what I've been saying, but after all the aggro I've had lately I didn't want yet another fight so I've been letting Navy blue84 have his way. -- Zsero (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Basically he's saying that by the article being "French fries", that defines it as the more common name, hence it should come first in the list. Too much time is spent on wikipedia debating things like this. I have a hunch the french fries article would have had some long debate about this also. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The french fries article is actually the result of a merger from chips (in the potato sense), but apparently in the UK now "french fries" has come to mean the thin kind of chips made by McDonalds and other American fast food chains, i.e. it's a subset of chips rather than a synonym. Or something like that; I couldn't really follow the discussion. At any rate, that's why that article is in the state it's in. But here there's no question that the things that are often eaten with ketchup are all kinds of chips, not just the McD kind. Which is why I think the old language, "chips (french fries)" should be reinstated, but I'm not feeling up to another war, especially over something so trivial. -- Zsero (talk) 06:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources on Hanukkah

Hi Zsero. Other Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources in an article. --NeilN talk to me 05:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Good grief. These are not WP articles, they are the sources! -- Zsero (talk) 06:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not getting you. How is The name "Hanukkah" derives from the Hebrew verb "חנך", meaning "to dedicate". On Hanukkah, the Jews regained control of Jerusalem and rededicated the Temple sourced? --NeilN talk to me 06:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
It isn't sourced at all; the etymology and history are not at all contentious, so they don't need sourcing. But the footnote advises the reader to "See also Maharsha on Talmud Shabbat 21b" for more information about this. I haven't actually looked it up myself, since I haven't got a copy and I couldn't be bothered searching for one online, but I imagine he gives more details than belong in a general encyclopaedia article. That is the sort of thing footnotes are for, you know.
The other footnote you deleted is a source. The fanciful etymology that breaks up "chanukah" into "they camped on the 25th" is sourced to the Ran on the Rif, page 9b. That is the source. That's where it comes from. -- Zsero (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, do you mind if I separate them out into a Notes group as explained in WP:REFGROUP? --NeilN talk to me 06:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
First of all, sources and other footnotes belong together; that's how they are in every publication.
Second, you motivated me to look up the Maharsha and it seems that it is being used as a source, and the "see also" language isn't quite right. The Maharsha gives his opinion on the etymology and goes somewhat into detail about why he doesn't like the Ran's theory, which I think he takes a bit more seriously than the Ran intended it. In any case, the Maharsha is here and the Ran is here; if you can read Hebrew knock yourself out. Though the scan of the Maharsha is rather blurry and hard to read. -- Zsero (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, not on Wikipedia. See Jane_Austen for example. Some distinction is desirable probably because articles can't be used as sources. Anyways, I won't push it. --NeilN talk to me 06:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Those aren't WP articles, they are the sources. And separating sources from other footnotes is not some sort of WP standard, it's just a feature that can sometimes be desirable. As WP:REFGROUP says, a reason to do it would be so that the sources can be alphabetised, and so that the notes can themselves have sources. -- Zsero (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

<unindent> Hello Zsero, I've been asked for my opinion on this issue. Looking at these inline citations, the statements are very cryptic and unclear to anyone not already well versed in the subject. Thus, "Maharsha on Talmud Shabbat 21b; see there for a detailed discussion." is unclear about what "there" means – is it one of the linked articles, or what? A clearer statement would be "The 17th century rabbi Samuel Eidels discussed this in his commentary on the Talmud, section 21b dealing with the Shabbat." Assuming that's what you meant. It would also be good to have a cited reliable source for verification of the statement, and given the age of the source WP:PSTS comes into question: WP:NONENG sets requirements for translations, and surely there must be a modern secondary source in English which comments on this issue. There's nothing wrong with linking to articles about the cited sources, for example authors' names or names of books, and that's essentially what you've done, but in a very unclear way. Hope you can find a useful source to explain the subject to non-experts. Thanks, dave souza, talk 10:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's "his commentary on the Talmud, tractate Shabbat page 21b". Nobody who regularly refers to the Maharsha ever does so as "Samuel Eidels". The WP article should be titled "Maharsha", except that whoever created it copied it from the 1905 Jewish Encyclopaedia, whose editors had their own agenda. On a Jewish subject, the truly reliable sources are not going to be in English. Almost nothing was published in English before the mid-to-late 20th century, and the publishers of English books on these subjects do no fact-checking whatsoever, let alone citation-checking to Hebrew sources. The wikilink to Maharsha tells the reader who this author is, who is being cited. "Shabbat" probably shouldn't be wikilinked, it's just a volume name; but that's how whoever inserted it did it, and I didn't feel like delinking it. I think I'll do so now. -- Zsero (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

How can you get a free picture of a band that no longer exists?

You can ask someone who owns a non-free one to release it under a free license and publicists, management agencies and members of the band might be good contacts here. You can ask on fan mailing lists, web sites, myspace groups and so on if there's someone who has a picture they'll release under a free license. And probably there are more ways, but those are just the ones that I can come up with off the top of my head. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You could say the same of a person who's dead, but we don't. Instead, the presumption is that if it's no longer possible to go out and take a free photo then fair-use photos may be used. If you actually find a free photo, then you can replace the copyright one, but simply to assume that one can be found, and on that basis to challenge a fair use claim, does not seem to be consistent with the way things are done here. And that makes sense, because you can always claim that with a bit more effort the owner of an image could have been persuaded to free it, and the same is true of every image allowed under fair use. With your principle you would destroy the entire category of fair use on WP. -- Zsero (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
If I were asking for "more effort" you might have a point, but actually what I'm asking for is "non-zero effort", pardon the pun. The band isn't disolved, its members aren't dead, and they are from Cincinatti not Ulaanbataar. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Is it standard to ask that about a picture of a recently dead person? If not, how is this different? The policies and guidelines seem to indicate that "subject can no longer be photographed" is sufficient to justify fair use, and the onus of proof shifts to the challenger. -- Zsero (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
It is not quite correct to say that a defunct band "can no longer be photographed". More precisely, or pedantically if you like, a band which no longer exists "can no longer be photographed as a group". All or some of the individuals who made up the group could be photographed separately. This same point applies to bands which have changed their line up and for which only a current photograph exists. Even without arguing over whether it is necessary to depict every incarnation of a group, it is clearly the case that the missing members could be shown in the article using free content so long as they aren't dead yet. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
If the band no longer exists, it can't be photographed as a band; a photo of the individual members would be fine for their WP bios, but it would be a poor substitute as an illustration of the band per se, just as a photo of an actor does not substitute for one of the character he portrays. -- Zsero (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I've nominated the image for discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 13. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zsero/Archive_9&oldid=1190134082"