This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Re "I fail to see... ": Sir: Thank you for judging my efforts of contributing to Wikipedia (Pride and Prejudice article, edit of 03:08, 09 April 2008); however, without a better understanding of your objection(s), I'm finding it difficult to learn what you require. Please be more clear of what exactly fails your standards here, especially when your judgement dismisses an entire section of work. Please explain, re specifically these questions:

1. Re the source material quoted (by others), are you deleting the reference and the bibliographical source I provided because: --the full text of the novel is linked online? --or/also, because the source cited is a print-only publication that is not published online? Please explain why you feel, for either case, it is a bad thing to do.

2. As corollary, is it ok with you --if the full text is linked online-- that quotations placed around source material are (per se) sufficient without further citation? (If so, doesn't this presume the typical Wikipedia reader will know that the the quote is from an online text, and that the link for same will be found below, or somewhere, in the article?; --is that your policy?).

3. Again, as corollary, is it your requirement --if the full text is linked online-- that no additional specific reference may be provided?; i.e., that it is not ok to further tell the reader where exactly --e.g., which link, page, chapter-- the cited material can be located within the online source?

4. Re 3, do you see no advantage for the reader, especially a new reader, that such information be placed readily at hand? --especially if that reader is not yet comfortable with interpreting all the information at hand on a typical Wikipedia page?)

5. Finally, in response to your "fail to see" any improvement in the edits I offered:

Obviously, you provided no explanatory remarks of your objections; but because I cannot read your mind, and because I still wish to feel I can learn and contribute here, I offer to review the article again, specifically the plot summary, to learn if I can find a better manner of wording that improves what is now installed, and resubmit same to your appraisal. I will try to limit my concerns to the problems that originally attracted me to that section --some time ago-- which is, to the promiscuous use of pronouns, even when their respective nouns serve the reader better. (I'll try!)

Thank you for your time and answers to my questions; and for your long record of service to Wikipedia. [-- Jbeans ( talk) 09:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)]

Your edit:

1. Removed wikilinks for no apparent reason.
2. Inserted a bibliography consisting of one specific edition of the book, for no apparent reason. The entire book is linked from the article. We know what book we're talking about. There's nothing special about that edition.
3. In most cases, the context is enough for any reader to realise that quoted text is from the book itself.
4. Page numbers obviously refer to specific editions, for a book with many editions. Chapter numbers would be more useful, since they're the same in every edition. Though since the entire text is online and linked directly from the article, the absence of chapter numbers is no big deal, because readers can just search the entire text for a quote.
5. Have I addressed all your questions?

-- Zsero ( talk) 09:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and I have to admit I'm a little mystified. I looked at it and thought, "This is crazy -- it's a talk page for a page that exists, I would have no reason to delete that." Then I saw that it was somehow connected to a page that I DID remember deleting because it was tagged as an orphaned talk page of a deleted page -- something called Sral ples, although I may have the spelling wrong. I have to admit that I don't really know what happened, since my examination of the edit history tells me that another administrator did the deletion that my memory tells me I did. Anyway, I hope you will accept my apology -- I will immediately restore the page in question, and I'm still scratching my head trying to remember exactly what went on. I know I wouldn't have deleted a talk page without confirming that it was orphaned, but beyond that, wow, I'm very sorry, I just don't know what happened. Accounting4Taste: talk 18:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the talk page in question. All I can figure is that somehow when I was in the middle of checking the links to the page, it got redirected or moved by NawlinWiki and I didn't notice that I had been redirected to a different page than the one I left. If you have any idea what happened, I'd appreciate knowing -- it's a little scary. At any rate, I do apologize again for your extra trouble and inconvenience and hope you will accept that it was entirely accidental on my part. Accounting4Taste: talk 18:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and for your courtesy and understanding. I'm still scratching my head about what the !@#$@!# could have happened. If there's anything further you require with respect to this or any other topic, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste: talk 22:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't R' Henoch 24 when R' Dovid was niftar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danthecan ( talk • contribs) 11:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Your use of rollback to restore a link to an offsite copyright violation was wrong on two counts: first, it's a copyright violation and wilfully linking to offsite copyright violations places the Foundation in legal jeopardy due to a principle known as "contributory infringement"; and using rollback to do it because the site is blacklisted was particularly foolish as it renders the article un-editable by others, as well as ignoring the obvious fact that we don't blacklist without good reason. I am assuming that this was a naive error on your part, so will not remove your rollback flag for it, but please be aware that if you do this again, your rollback privilieges may be revoked. Guy ( Help!) 10:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I restored the images and moved the discussion to Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2008_April_28. I do not have a response to your comments so hopefully someone else will. I did not interpret your comments as supporting keeping the images the first time I read through them. Reading them again, I see what you are saying. -Regards Nv8200p talk 14:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am having problems with this fellow who seems to be doing disruptive edits on all Sikh articles in order to press forward a POV. Is there anything you can do?-- Sikh-history ( talk) 08:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been almost a couple of years since you weighed in on this article, but there is a content impasse at the moment on the same issue you addressed then. A couple resident editors have combined to fight off at least a couple attempts since July 2005(!) to mention Laurence Silberman's anecdote about Moyers claiming his memo, requesting FBI info on Goldwater staff, was a CIA forgery. Silberman was, they said, an unsupported liar to suggest Moyers might have been involved in such activity. (This is the point you had addressed.) I came to the page just as they were squelching an IP doing this and did something unheard of, a little research. It turns out that Moyers was not only, as Silberman said, mentioned in the papers of the time as having done this, but the Church Committee's report on misuse of the FBI prominently featured Moyers. Nothing abashed (well to be fair, Osbojos may be a bit abashed but Ratel is not at all) the resident claque insist they have "consensus" for a highly minimalist and misleading edit [1] on the basis of very thin participation (four editors, including me) in a poll. I'll try an RfC too before this is out, but haven't seen much result from that in the past. And apart from the ip (who disappeared before I engaged) and JCarriker (who's Wikiretired) you're the only one other than the four who has ever posted to the talk page at all, much less on this issue. So I hope you'll find time to make a comment. nb: The material I want to add is this (plus a cite to Amazon's excerpt of Deloach's book, which I didn't have before the page was protected). Andyvphil ( talk) 17:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not accost me for "adding nonsense to Wikipedia". It was perhaps insignificant, but definitely not "nonsense" (which is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as "words or signs having no intelligible meaning, or "subject matter, behavior, or language that is foolish or absurd", as you have stated on my talk page, to say that David Rice Atchison was de jure the President of the United States for one day. If Taylor and Fillmore refused to be sworn in on the Sunday, March 4, then Atchison would have been (de jure or to clarify: by law) the Acting President on March 4. Imhyunho ( talk) 02:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

A President must, under Article II of the Constitution, take the oath before being sworn into office. If Polk left the White House on the noon of March 4 and neither Fillmore or Taylor took the oath of office, then, by technicality, Atchison was the President for one day (read David Rice Atchison article). But again, my complaint is not that you removed the information, but that you labeled it as "nonsense". Again, consult the definition I gave you from the American Heritage Dictionary above, and tell me exactly why it would be nonsense. Imhyunho ( talk) 21:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Johnpemberton.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:John Pemberton.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:John Pemberton.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 23:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no grounds to delete it from Commons this time, as there is a source and it's PD in the US, the source country. If someone does delete it, let me know and I'll address it on Commons. Superm401 - Talk 04:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That's incorrect. It doesn't matter who the author was, since it was taken in the United States. Superm401 - Talk 05:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

But was it first published in the USA? Anyway, the fact is that's what happened, and I was not able to fight it. -- Zsero ( talk) 05:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be more of an independent blog. The writer states no credentials nor does the site appear to be more than an inexact aggregate/overview of news stories. Therefore I do not think calling Todd Palin's maternal grandmother an "elder" is correct until otherwise proven via a more authentic news source. Kitchawan ( talk) 13:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The cited source is an opinion piece written by a stated friend of the Palin family. Let's wait until we can find a better source than that. Kitchawan ( talk) 13:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Also "highly respected" is POV, again not acceptable re Wiki rules of neutrality. I am searching for a better source re use of the word "elder" to describe Palin's grandmother. Kitchawan ( talk) 13:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That is not an acceptable source--please don't like to copyright violations like that. rootology ( C)( T) 19:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Those are the voter registration records - how can they be copyright? -- Zsero ( talk) 19:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a random image hosting page/site/URL. We don't know if that one that you linked is real, or legit. It could be a Federal record, or a party one, or something I made in photoshop and uploaded there while you weren't looking. There's any number of better sources than that one. :) rootology ( C)( T) 19:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That still doesn't make it a copyvio. As far as reliability, this is the PDF distributed by the campaign, linked to from here. -- Zsero ( talk) 19:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not just use the CNN story on it as a source instead? CNN > Hotair.com. rootology ( C)( T) 19:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Because CNN doesn't link to the actual documents. -- Zsero ( talk) 19:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The McCain campaign has posted Palin's voter registration documents here, if that matters for copyvio purposes. Coemgenus 19:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It doesn't matter for copyvio, since public documents are by definition not copyright, but it does matter for provenance. -- Zsero ( talk) 19:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You, sir, are very serious about your Catsup, but I think it's laudable. I'm thinking Ketchup needs an overhaul to get it back to grade-a. Primarily, I'm wondering why they got rid of those great historical recipes. That's good stuff, right there. ∴Walkeraj 01:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What recipes? The 1801 recipe is still there. I don't recall any others. I still want to restore the ketchup/catsup section. I put a bit of work a long time ago into distilling it down from a long and random list to a short collection of iconic instances, each presenting the confusion in a slightly different way. But so far it's 2-1 against me on the talk page. -- Zsero ( talk) 03:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I've had some work reverted in the past, and it makes you feel like all the work you did was for naught, but I think that in this case it's really best to just leave the section out entirely. Think of it this way: there are two different spellings. That's worth knowing, but there is no further information on the why of those different spellings. In other words, it's notable that it's extant, but it's not notable that someone made note of it (which is all that list was). Perhaps if there had been a political reason or some historical event responsible for the variation in spelling it should be included, but here it definitely seems like a case of good old American phoneticization.

Notablilty is a tricky beast because of how subjective it is. I've argued in the past that information like this might be better in its own tab, but this policy seems to contradict that.

We can all do our part to make this thing better, and you seem to be just as dedicated to that as I am. Perhaps it would be better to coordinate some work on bringing the article back to a-level status, rather than worrying about the list. I think a good start would be a sort of picking-up and dusting off. As to the recipe, I think it should be included in its entirety (maybe in a {{hidden}}), because it is an insight into the history of the condiment and how it used to be made (i.e. very very salty)
∴ Walkeraj 14:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand about the recipe; it's right there, in a footnote. Is part of it missing? Is there some other recipe you'd like to include?

As far as the ketchup/catsup section, it's not just that people have noted the difference, but the fact that it has led many people to imagine that these are two slightly different condiments, and the different ways in which that confusion has been reflected in pop culture. Each of the examples in the list was chosen not only for the significance of the source (i.e. no fringe sources that nobody's ever heard of) but for the different way in which the confusion presents itself. There are surely only so many ways it can be represented, and these are examples of each of those ways. I would only add an item to the list if it did not duplicate one of the existing items. -- Zsero ( talk) 15:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that the text of the recipe itself could be included again. Lots of articles that mention the first occurrence of something in the historical record will quote all or part of that, rather than forcing the user to follow a footnote. As to people considering them to be different condiments, I'd say that's a bit too much assumption in regards to notability. Given that all of those examples are humerous/tongue-in-cheek (indeed, they are all fictional), it is more likely to assume that they are using the different spellings (and the character's subsequent confusion) as a humorous device rather than as an illustration of a genuine cultural phenomenon of confusion. I'd say actual confusion regarding this is extremely rare. If anything, people would be curious as to why there are two different spellings. In any case, all of the references are either humorous or fictional (mostly both), so it's more of a gag or a pun than a reflection on our culture. I guess that's what I've been getting at. I wasn't trying to belittle your dedication to noting cultural phenomena.
∴ Walkeraj 20:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. My mistake, I should have paid more attention to what was written. Jorge P ( talk) 17:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

How could I have "introduced a misspelling" when all I did was revert, not edit? LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 20:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverting is editing. The edit I reverted, among its other faults, includes an obvious misspelling. By reinstating that edit, you also reintroduced the misspelling. Which means your reversion was at the very least not well thought out. -- Zsero ( talk) 20:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"This two user are too ignorant." Ferrylodge ( talk) 03:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Re. control of the zone, I don't usually feed the trolls. But in this instance I thought it might help to get him trolling somewhere else. We'll see if he comes back to this article, and if so then no more feeding. Ferrylodge ( talk) 20:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm shortly going offline until after Rosh Hashana. See you next year. -- Zsero ( talk) 20:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Happy Rosh Hashana.  :-) Hopefully, there will still be an economy when you get back. Ferrylodge ( talk) 20:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I am quite aware that maror is really a lettuce, but mentioned horseradish so as not to enter into yet another debate with an editor who would contest that as well. DRosenbach ^{( Talk | Contribs)} 21:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

With respect, the world is bigger than Alaska and people around the world would like to get it w/o clicking and searching. WP is NOT Google. Kindest regards, -- Floridianed ( talk) 23:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove reports from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. If a report is indeed a "bullshit accusation" [2], then the investigating administrator will determine that conclusion. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 18:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, someone brought up on my talk page that you and another editor are edit warring over Andrew P. Harris; from a look at the page history I'd say they're right. I see very little activity on the talk page, so I urge you to try to discuss matters with them there rather than just reverting. Please also understand that edit warring is blockable whether or not you're technically making more than 3 reverts in a 24-hour period. I (hope I'm not displaying myself to be totally ignorant here but) have never heard of the guy and have no interest in the content aside from adhering to the highest standard of accuracy and referencing because it's a BLP. If the other party's breaking rules, you can report that, you shouldn't do something that's going to wind up getting you in trouble too. You're better off being a model wikipedian and using the talk page, and letting them dig themselves into a hole! Don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions or need anything, I'm always glad to help. Peace, delldot ∇. 21:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for getting back to me. I replied on my talk page. delldot ∇. 22:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This goes back to archive 19...about mid-Sept...a result of a looooong discussion. Its not really redundant, altho they convey two expressions of the same thing...a personal committment. Briefly stated, eloped to marry was an accurate description of what happened. But, you can leave it. Just thought I'd let you know.-- Buster7 ( talk) 01:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What she said is a reference to what he said (or, actually, didn't say). Without the context of what he said, (or, actually, didn't say) what she said makes no sense. Not that that's unusual, of course. — Writegeist ( talk) 18:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What he said is the subject of a whole article, to which you linked. It is not at all clear, as you claim, that he didn't say it, and it's certainly not clear, as you wish to insinuate, that he and his superiors don't mean it, whether or not he said it. It's certainly more than reasonable for Palin to say and believe that Iran intends to wipe Israel out — the Israelis certainly believe it — and there's no need to discuss it in her article. All that matters in this article is what she said. -- Zsero ( talk) 18:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

With respect, you appear to have missed my point: Ahmadinejad's statement is the progenitor of Palin's. Without knowledge of his, hers is without reason. Contrary to your uncalled-for accusation, the purpose of including the reference is not to "insinuate" anything. It is to clarify the origin of and reason for her statement, and to clarify that the statement, which appears as a statement of fact, is (in fact) contested. (Balance.) What I, and the Israelis for that matter, may or may not believe about it is irrelevant to Palin's use of the statement. Please note that in my edits to this part of the article I did not include any POV "claim" that Armydinnerjacket "didn't say it." However I have no compunction about making the "claim" here, not least because a Persian (not, she insists, Iranian) friend is adamant that, according to the Farsi original, Armydinnerjacket did not say it. (Never mind the corroborations on record from numerous Farsi scholars.) It is correct, however, to link to evidence that the statement's meaning, as expressed by la Palin, is contested. (Balance.) Thank you. — Writegeist ( talk) 21:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Where's your evidence that his statement is the "progenitor" of hers? All she said was that Iran would like to wipe Israel out. Did anyone doubt that before A-jad opened up his mouth? The furor over his speech wasn't over some new revelation, but over the fact that he dared to actually say what he was thinking. In any case, whether he actually said it in that speech or not, the fact that his office claims he said it (which you surely don't dispute) is enough to validate his intent and that of his superiors. The only time it matters whether he actually said it on that particular occasion is if someone directly claims that he said it on that particular occasion; but Palin didn't claim that, so the whole debate doesn't matter. -- Zsero ( talk) 21:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)