User talk:Zezen

• /Archive 1 of my talk page.
• /Archive 2 of my talk page.
• /Archive 3 of my talk page.

I was thinking of directing him to my mother, instead. You know, my mother superior... --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose I could direct him to the Hill for complaint, but that wouldn't end well. Not that I knew who he was talking about in the first place...took me some digging. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Atar

added a link pointing to Aether

Rishi

added a link pointing to Rightness

Yazata

added a link pointing to Agios

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I recently saw that you made this edit to the page Talk:Pyriproxyfen. I reverted it because it was not in keeping with our policies regarding the proper use of Wikipedia. Specifically, the article talk pages are reserved for discussions about the article, and are not for general discussion of issues related to the subject of the article.

However, I see that you undid my revert with the edit summary "Self-censorship to abide by WP rules". Based on your edit summary, I assume you meant to revert your own edit, however what you did was to restore the inappropriate content to the page. I am leaving you this note to let you know that you should correct this. I will leave you time to do so. If you do not, I or another editor will be along to remove it for you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me correct this, MjolnirPants . By my revised edit I meant what it says: let us wikify it by linking this article to similar instances of water additives. Is it OK now? Zezen (talk) 05:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to apologize. I saw the notification that my undo was reverted, and I saw some of the same content from your original post, and assumed you had simply hit undo, typed an edit summary and went on. I see now that you did remove the parts that were inappropriate, and as such, my message here was unnecessary. I'll respond on the talk page to your content suggestion. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you and others were using a dab page as a talk page, but for obvious reasons I've removed your edit there. Doug Weller talk 10:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP bug. I left this on yer talk page:

Doug Weller talk

why in the world are people using this as a talk page?

10:18

-1,113

Mobile Web UI version on Android phone. I pressed user's talk page and it added my comment to article space. Pls investigate Oh Wiki Gods!

Is it there? Zezen (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it, you can ask at the Village Pump (technical). Doug Weller talk 17:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re Wikipedia's Manual of style with regards to layout (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#.22See_also.22_section) "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes."

regards--KTo288 (talk) 10:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation, KTo288. Now I understand the reasons for your removal. Zezen (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.--KTo288 (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the months long delay, but I saw your merger suggestion and wanted to get back to you. Fephisto (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The problem with the Malagasy entry is that the language code szl is not defined. I created an szl template, but I do not know Malagasy very well, and I am not sure how to say Silesian language in Malagasy. Besides the missing szl template, there are other places (templates?, categories?) in the Malagasy wiktionary where the language code szl is still not defined, but I do not know where they are. Therefore I have changed some of the language codes in wikt:mg:przać from szl to pl (Polish). In case you can find the other locations that need Silesian defined, my guess at how to write Silesian language in Malagasy, is Silesiana, or fiteny silesiana. —Stephen (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for investigating, User:Stephen G. Brown. I do not speak a word in Malgasy. I know little about the inner workings of Wiktionary. I can only alert the admins (you) about this faulty bot, which I disovered by chance. Zezen (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck? :

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Marcin Babrych". The reason given for Marcin Babrych's block is: "Edit warring: on Frédéric Chopin".

• Blocking administrator: Favonian (talk • blocks)

---

Accept reason: I have lifted the IP auto-block from the Babrych account. This should do the trick. Favonian (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This range is used by dial-up users of Aero2. Q.v. Zezen (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you are being hit by accident by an autoblock. @Favonian: given that this user has been around for about 6 years I am assuming this is collateral damage. Do you think that the block could be made anon only, or do you think this is better resolved with WP:IPBE? HighInBC 05:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Zezen it looks like you are good to go. Sorry about this, it happens sometimes by accident. Ping me if there are any problems. HighInBC 16:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reaction, HighInBC and Favonian. BTW, maybe the JavaScript toggle in my setup (a FF addon) was at play. I went to a sample WP:PNA article, to edit Economy_of_Morocco and it works fine now. Zezen (talk) 05:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your barnstar. I've been on Wikipedia for nearly a decade on various accounts and it has certainly got more hostile to content creation in that time so it is nice when someone values new content. Renamed user 329872503 (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re comment on my talk page. There is a good article on systemic bias in Wikipedia here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias)

The argument goes that as Wikipedia editors are not representative of the world’s population this is reflected in the coverage of some topics. Although I’ve branched out recently I’ve created quite a few articles relating to the UK’s social security system and Government reforms in this area. For example articles like Pay to Stay, Under-occupancy penalty, Flexible Support Fund, Help to Work and Support for Mortgage Interest. Frankly nobody else is working on articles in this area. Part of the problem with systemic bias is that articles most Wikipedia editors are unfamiliar with are - in my experience - more likely to be deleted on the basis that "If I've not heard of it. It can't be notable!". In the years I've been on Wikipedia I've found it a problem particularly with non-Western content like African politics and stuff like Australian Aboriginal mythology which most people don't have much expertise on. Renamed user 329872503 (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Renamed user 329872503 , both for your explanation and your work to mitigate these. I concur and support you here. Zezen (talk) 03:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - What I mean is that "negro" is not necessarily equivalent to "black" in societies that have such a social construct. Among the Pahari of Nepal, for instance, the Madhesi, though they are known as "Black Nepalese" in their vernacular, are not "Negro". Regards -- Soupforone (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But let us not be "Madhesi-centric" nor US-centric. See the Consitution of Liberia or even the recent US cases, where Negro overtook Black people (Google ngram). Do you agree now, Soupforone, or do you have other statistics showing that really nobody uses this term in English speaking countries? Zezen (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   I noted your discussion re Blood libel, and our colleague said nothing about what i consider obvious: there should be links to find the (separate) topic you're talking about from Blood libel, like a see also. I just split out Blood libel (novel usage) (which i think has more currency than the sense you were advocating for, for even stronger reasons than what they cited to you, but i think that, assuming available sources,

1. there should be an article, linking to b.l., noting the striking parallels you cite with b.l. in its millenium-old sense
2. there probably should be a survey article, linked from b.l. (say, a WP:See also link) to the info you're advocating for.

Worst come to worst, you can develop an article on, say, your WP personal sandbox, and avoid the doubters until you've met more of the anticipable complaints.
   But one principle you need to keep in mind is that we name articles not by what logically describes them, but by what is established usage. I insist that Bl(nu) can only be mentioned in Bl as a misuse of the expression, but bcz it is a misuse that gets mass-media attention (1) it is a legitimate (but losing) contender for being the Blood libel article, and it's entitled (since there's no other practical name for it without using the words "blood" and "libel", which is why we use suffixed titles. There may be an established term for the phenomenon that (if i follow you) you were arguing should be given to BL as its accepted (not the WP) meaning, and for instance our (Jewish) bl article should mention that that term does apply to bl. My impression is that editors concerned that a verifiable topic should be covered, succeed if they don't get sidetracked by arguing that they know the truth about what its article's title should be: getting "control" over the exact title you favor is a lost cause.
--Jerzy•t 12:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jerzy. See my answer in the deletion discussion of this new article. Zezen (talk) 07:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   I construe that as describing this edit-diff, but your terse response in this section fails to hint at what, about what i said above, you think your del-pg edit you that mention is relevant to. Perhaps in 12 or 36 hours i'll be willing to reread (for our potential mutual benefit) what i wrote (IIRC for your possible benefit and not bcz i have any personal interest in pursuing whatever you'd mentioned) above in this section, to seek hints about why you think i will care about whichever article content you said something about. But at the moment i'm uncertain that what even i've said in this edit makes sense to me, and that the syntax deserves simplification. (In any case, if you don't know how create links to specif edit diffs, IMO you should make the effort to learn.)
--Jerzy•t 09:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Oh, hell, you said

... However, I want to keep or extend the "traditional usage" in the original blood libel article: all the cases where a group accused another group of (mis)using blood for political reasons. See its page history, where my proposal was rejected.

and ..."keep[ing] or extend[ing] the 'traditional usage' in" this revision has no appeal for me. But i haven't, for now, the patience to proofread even this grudging 2nd try before saving.
--Jerzy•t 09:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jerzy - I love sentences such as "folds, thrusts and overturned beds are all common in the zones of orogeny", but your contribution hereinabove fries my brain cells, that is is beyond my ken. If you rewrote it applying less convoluted syntax, I would be wont to further contribute thereto. Best regards i pozdrowienia! Zezen (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1.    While i've made it my business to understand the orthography of Polish far better than is typical of Americans, trying to communicate with me in that language would be an extravagant waste of your effort.
2.    I erred in trying to address, head on, your message "See my answer in the deletion discussion of this new article".

Well...

a.   Possibly you were trying to solicit my assistance on something, and if so please state it as an explicit request.

b.   Possibly you believe you are in a position to assist me in some way, but you've so far failed to help me believe you can do so (at least without more preliminary investment by me than i will plausibly make). I remain open to the possibility that you will succeed by being much more direct in your next post or two, here on my talk page.

--Jerzy•t 00:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jerzy: Loath I would be and abhorrent to redole us parlaying in this mongrel of Old Slavonic that Polish transmogrified into over its post-Popielic aeons. Banish this rhabdosic or shall I venture it: rhabsodomatic conception forthwith! Let us parlay at the pansophy eclaircising eisegesis in post-Goidelic Chaucerian loghorrea that we have been wont to employ so far.

Now that is what I mean hereby: do clarify what the heck you meant by e.g. this bit you penned above: "your terse response in this section fails to hint at what, about what i said above, you think your del-pg edit you that mention is relevant to. Perhaps in 12 or 36 hours i'll be willing to reread (for our potential mutual benefit) what i wrote ... "

Have you thus so far "reread in 12 or 36 hours what you wrote", for our mutual benefit, bien sûr :)? Zezen (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Not really, and unlikely, esp as i dunno what game you're in.
--Jerzy•t 23:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A request for comment is available on protecting user pages by default from edits by anonymous and new users. I am notifying you because you commented on this proposal when it was either in idea or draft form. Funcrunch (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zezen. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Zezen. I'm contacting you to follow-up on the RfC on userspace protection that you participated in. After a discussion at T149445, it looks like a filter is a better approach to implementing these changes. We're developing some language for a message that editors will see when the filter is triggered. Comments and suggestions on this message are welcome at the talk page. Take care, I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 16:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I think we can totally re-use any other map from Commons. Copyright paranoia. Anyway I started a discussion at commons:Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Inglehart_Values_Map2.svg about why that map was deleted. 2 - haha :) 3 - raczej nie, bo nie wiem co to M ani GR :) Grupa robocza czegos? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drogi Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus:

Re 1. I supported you therein.

Re 3: Hm. Grupa Regionalna organizacji na M oczywiście, pacem yer profile. Patrz prywatna wiadomość. (Nomina sunt odiosa tu, bo nie lubię, gdy mnie w WP doksują.) Zezen (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was check and little correct your editions :) Pozdrawiam z Krakowa! --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Pozdro z Lublina noychoH (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC) I have added the language tags to prevent this in the future, with some comments and links to translations. Thanx. noychoH (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you! I do like "studying" dragons in that I enjoy comparing and contrasting how they are depicted in various works of fiction as well as legends. It's a bit of a hobby of mine.

Also, #ShortiesUnite TheDracologist (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, TheDracologist! Apart from being a WikiDrac, there is also a silver Chinese dragon pendant on my neck, too. Have a good day. Zezen (talk) 06:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re this, as a trans person I'm not even going to click on the link to a known TERF blog. You're an experienced editor so I'm leaving a personal message rather than templating you with a warning: Do not misgender trans people (whether article subjects or editors) or link to TERF blogs, even on talk pages. Funcrunch (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Funcrunch As a human being, and a WP editor - do click it (and everything else) by all means. And do not warn me ;). So, read that article, find the RS, update the bio, and enjoy your day! Zezen (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TERFs dox and cause great harm to trans people; I am absolutely not clicking on a link to a source that encourages violence against people like me. Do not insert this again. Funcrunch (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Funcrunch: So: 1. Do no click. (A scary Need_for_cognition monster may jump out at you otherwise!). 2. Stay also away from this and similar WP articles, if you are impacted (aka "triggered") by their content. 3. Switch off access to the Net and take a walk.

I will edit it on my own then, when I find some time, after entertaining Point 3 myself. Zezen (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zezen: If you want to be needlessly provocative by misgendering BLPs and insulting other editors, you can expect to be blocked. Knock it off. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Morning smile to you, I JethroBT . Take a coffee while closely reading the above plus the diffs of my recent edit history. As an admin you know that WP:HOUND -> WP:ANI. You are writing things than are not, so "knock off" this behaviour. Now, apart from such misguided admining, be a fellow good editor, and take care of the WP content pages themselves. That is what we are here for. Zezen (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at your recent contributions. Your content contributions do not excuse or justify your behavior. It's time to take to Funcrunch seriously and treat them with respect instead of mocking them. We are indeed here to build and improve content, but it is entirely possible and frankly easy to do this without treating each other like crap. If you decide that policy does not apply to you, you do so at your own risk. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now you sound more civil, I JethroBT and you steered away from falling into PC hooey.

As per the recent University of Arizona microagression booklet, high time you said "ouch" and I said "oops". Or maybe the other way round ;).

Now, let us all contribute to Content. Life is too short. Zezen (talk) 05:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good thing that an important part of contributing to this project is being able to communicate constructively with others, even when the editing gets hot. Because I looked at your past history, you clearly know how to do this with other people and other topics, so I believe you can continue to do so in this topic area as well. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Funcrunch (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Funcrunch. Yawn. WP:NOT,, especially WP:BATTLEGROUND. Do log off, chill out, go for this walk or cook something nice for your friends.

I will edit it later on, after enjoying the same activities that I am advising you herein. Zezen (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a more easily overviewed list here with lots of important information links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_A/Important_Fact_Links

Given your earlier expressed interest, I would appreciate your assistance with inserting the references into appropriate Wikipedia pages.

Thanks in advance for any help. David A (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zezen. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zezen/Draftbox, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zezen/Draftbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Zezen/Draftbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, User:Zezen/Draftbox6, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Legacypac (talk) 06:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will be thankful if you will avoid of putting links to New Age organisations like Native Polish Church in article which is not related with them. Pozdrawiam. --Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 09:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoj, Wojsław Brożyna I checked and indeed I mis-linked the general movement to the specific organisation in the diff. I will fix some small mistakes in the related articles now that I clicked through. Pozdravy, Zezen (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.

1. While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "cite" click on it
2. Then click on "templates",
3. Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details beside a magnifying glass followed by clicking said button,

We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zezen. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 15:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I saw the edit at Sextortion re: the special agent audio. I went and shifted it down as per the edit summary.

To be honest I think it would have been preferable to shift it down instead of removing it and suggesting it be shifted down; not everyone has the time or effort to monitor all pages he/she is interested in (my watchlist would be too full) and the special agent audio clip is clearly relevant to the topic. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WhisperToMe : any of these is fine, as long as it is not the very first thing in the lead. Ta!

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yandex, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FSB (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 December 2015 you started the Solidarity (Polish trade union)#CIA covert support section. I've asked a question about it at Talk:Solidarity (Polish trade union)#Carter Administration. -- Pemilligan (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"congrats on your morals"

Thank you for images such as Saint Philoumenos of Jacob's Well Church in Palestine, for Simon Mol (2013), for trimming PR such as in International Association of Genocide Scholars, with exquisite edit summaries such as for global warming, for "congrats on your morals", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2238 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blush Gerda Arendt! Sometimes I do not deserve it: see my 3RR block log, exempli gratia :).

Never ever have I looked at any block log ;) - I have a corner for blushing on my talk, DYK? QAI translates to the cabal of the outcast ;) - You have an impressive collection of DS info, I must say, - nothing compared to my just one. These days, I look for the morals. I am no friend of Fram but of fairness. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 2238 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zezen, I replaced the citation of businesstelegraph.co.uk that you added to Concerns over Chinese involvement in 5G wireless networks (in Special:Diff/898542856) with a citation to the original Financial Times article. The businesstelegraph.co.uk domain appears to be a collection of scraped articles from other publications, and we should avoid linking to that domain per WP:ELNEVER. Please see WP:RSN § businesstelegraph.co.uk for details. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 01:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for doing this Zezen (talk) 03:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

404 is not a reason to remove a source. Policy is clear, you simply have to be able to verify it, perhaps through a library. Also you didn't check to see if it's available on the Wayback machine. You're wrong about blogs. WP:BLP says "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." But looking at again, it's trivial and I'm not restoring it, although I might add an edit summary why. Doug Weller talk 08:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed discussion, Doug Weller, and the objectivity. Bow and kudos, as usual. Zezen (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC), on mobile.[reply]

I hope I deserve them. I also hope you didn't take my edit summary personally, it was meant for other editors who might see it. Doug Weller talk 18:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, you are my guru here. You do deserve: I have been lurking your contributions to AfDs, ArbComs, and all other Wiki TLAs, pardon my lame MOS:ABBRs here. Will lurk some moar.

Bow to all ego-less Wikipedians, especially admins, toi y compris.

Going offline: hopping on my roller skates right now. Till then. Zezen (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced and biased. You don't know the subject.Xx236 (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean Xx236? I checked this article - I have not touched it or its talk page for more than a year, the last one is here:

19 February 2018 Zezen Not notable FB - Undid revision 825872134 by KatieElizabeth (talk)  

You may mean a different user.

Zezen (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Sovereign democracy are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Either start an actual discussion based on reliably sourced content, or desist from using an article talk page as a personal forum for your own entertainment. Do you understand the purpose of talk pages, and what WP:SOAP means? Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Iryna Harpy.

Yes l, I do. I even wrote there that I am risking such misunderstanfing, quoting WP:OR myself. My contribution was pertinent, seeking to wikify this article, via quick liniking it to similar political developments worldwide.

-> Restore it. Zezen (talk) 06:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely the point, Zezen. There are no sources linking these 'philosophically related concepts' (for want of a better description). I'm going to restore your discussion as WP:AGF, even though I'm not convinced that you're good editor material. Bullish reverts and demands for me to "Restore it." speak to an editor who's WP:NOTHERE rather than a good faith editor. Keep up the bullish behaviour, and you'll soon find yourself on the wrong side of someone who's harder headed than are you, and who has far more experience than do you. Needless to say, the outcome will not sway in your favour. Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ Iryna Harpy 1. Thanks for AGF.

2. You deleted my contribution, not the other way round.

3. There are. See e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_democracy for starters.

4. I work full time nowadays so I cannot fully research and update the mainspace alas: I thus leave mostly such wikifying notes in Talks.

5. I am thus forced to write such notes in text mode on a mobile: sorry for brevity, TLAs and self corrections.

6. Ta for the ta!

Bows again

Zezen (talk) 07:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Zezen. It's worth looking into, and I might just do so... but that would be umpteen-thousandth item on my wish list, and I probably don't actually have enough strength to put in the research at this moment in time. I guess that's the way of things: if you have some time and inclination, the timing is wrong. Conversely, one can have the inclination but simply not enough time (or the ideal equipment). When we both have all the elements converge, let's collaborate on a few articles. I'll try not to be so short tempered, I promise. If I am, you have every right to WP:TROUT me. Apologies for the bad faith attitude I started with.

Incidentally, I hope at least one other editor takes an interest as it will help to keep it fresh in my mind, and could be the push I need to research and develop it further. If nothing happens for a while - and you happen to check on the article - feel free to ping me from the talk page as a reminder that it is waiting for a little attention. Cheers! Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,
I have written a response to Noah-x3's addition to the talk page for Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, letting you know precisely how you can improve the article's accuracy, POV and nuance as you suggest should be done.—AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read wp:CIR, this may not be a policy but is still useful to understand. Your posting style is (and perhaps English not being your native language) is making it unduly hard to follow your argument.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Slatersteven - you are right on both counts. Before reading your message here, I had publicly concurred in the article's Talk page. Good news: I plan to take care of other articles, see my disparate edit history, if you are curious what tickles my WP fancy.

Asking for your forgiveness, I implore yous hereby yet again to address the the Talk page proposals to the mainspace content itself, as per my humble suggestion therein.

Zezen (talk) 10:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Zezen,

As a very new Wikipedia editor I'm hoping you can advise me concerning a dispute that you noticed on this talk page for List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic.

I think I've done my level best with further discussion to try to build consensus with the user Donkey Hot - Talk but can't see it going much further due to stonewalling and quibbling over words and sources.

So, I created a dispute resolution request here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#List_of_incidents_of_xenophobia_and_racism_related_to_the_2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic

but not sure if I should have asked for a 3rd opinion first or village pump or another more arcane WP mechanism which I am not aware of.

Any advice appreciated

Billybostickson (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up the request (not the discussion or edits history as such) and what you did is right. No need for village pump here.

My quick advice is "learning by doing". And taking Wikipedia's (and not your) interest to heart. Think about your motives, especially if you wish to fix things here because of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Righting_great_wrongs.

The worst that may happen at this stage is that you are blocked for 24 hours for edit warring or such. Just go on and see what happens with this first dispute. Wishing both of yous well. Update: pinging you Billybostickson here, just in case.

Zezen (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request here: Meta:Talk:How to deal with Poles#Useless, I bring your attention to: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Poles are evil.

2601:194:300:130:E05E:2D8B:7DFF:4D87 (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Open main menu Wikipedia Search You have no notifications. User menu Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine About this page Article Talk Language Watch History Edit More Add discussion Active discussions Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2019 TCM kills: animals, nature and people. Let us add such section. Delete intro to gender in Chinese medicine? Introduction readability Sciencelogic40 edits continually reverted Re: Critique Critiques Updated Page please. Categories Read as wiki page Last edited just now by Shenqijing Wikipedia Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted. Privacy policyTerms of UseDesktop Close Updated Page please. . The real Science behind this modality and not it's form but it's mindset, it is now being presented as a new modern mindset in science. The mindset is a inductive Geocentric science like Geology so is about Human beings and the relationship with Nature, ecology phisical emotional and spiritual health perfect for a Enviroment reboot. This is why it is now being taught as new integrative ecology in higher education institutions. Here in Melbourne Confucian classes and TCM are being taught at the University of Melbourne. This is why the WHO introduced this modality. Prevention ( Chinese Medicine) is better than the Cure (Occidental Medicine) as we have seen with the recent events. Even this is not explicit enough. Inductive= Chinese Medicine. Deductive = Occidental. We need to work on this page. As Chinese medicine is very broad and has influenced many cultures India, Greece and Rome for pulse blood pressure technology. Japanese medicine is based on Chinese Medicine as their information comes from Chinese text, as does their formative written language Kanji. This is just another example of another very refined cultural use of this model. The mindset is in Confucian, Taoist and Buddhism, Shinto and and and. Shenqijing (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The cited publication is seen to be a less than critical source to date by many non basis Scientific community members. The article is about donkey health more than TCM. There are many unethical practices that we could discuss from both TCM and Occidental Medicine. Shenqijing (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What?

In readable English (or Chinese: I can read it) please?

Zezen (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] 

The article Four Dead in Ohio has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Nothing substantial found during search to support notability for this documentary.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anti-gender movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian Voice.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using the content you added here, perhaps create a new higher-level article such as Laws about profaning a monument by country? It could summarize a Polish law in the Polish section, and the Polish law than can be discussed in depth in its stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the idea, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. Makes sense, after renaming this article to Profaning X in Poland.

Alas, I have no time for either.

Bows Zezen (talk) 06:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Zezen, looks like Buidhe is numb to any reasoning I explained.[1] I'm not impressed with that attitude, but now, I think, I'll let you two work it out. I might pop in there later if something fresh emerges worth discussing. Good luck. - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ta for alerting me, GizzyCatBella. Alas, as per above, count me out. I plan to only perform small fixes on mobile. An WP:WRFC or more may be due. Se also my claim of HOAX and RGW on the DYK admin page.

bows

Zezen (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you should be aware, Talk:List of monument and memorial controversies in the United States is for discussing improvements to the associated article, not for general discussion of the article's topic or what people in other countries do for monuments unrelated to the ones discussed in this article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware, SummerPhD^v2.0.

There is much more out of scope or controversial stuff left on other Talk pages, as you know, so I chipped in.

FYI, I was looking for a global article about the same in the See Also section and failed to find it. Does it exist?

See the Talk or History (a mini edit war) of the related Profaning a monument, or the entry above in my Talk to see why I am interested in these. You are also invited to weigh in there, too! Zezen (talk)

Thanks for identifying the source of the material in your edit.

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.

I've noticed that this guideline is not very well known, even among editors with tens of thousands of edits, so it isn't surprising that I point this out to some veteran editors, but there are some t's that you need to be crossed.S Philbrick(Talk) 19:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I did this:

When copying content from one article to another, at a minimum provide a link back to the source page in the edit summary at the destination page and state that content was copied from that source. If substantial, consider posting a note on both talk pages. 

It was not substantial so only at the target. What else to do exactly and why so, copyright wise?

Zezen (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ping S Philbrick just in case. Zezen (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zezen, If it isn't substantial, and I agree in this case it isn't, then there is no need to follow the suggestion to include a specific note on each talk page.

However, as noted at the linked guideline, you should have included an edit summary with suggested wording:

Copied content from [[<page name>]]; see that page's history for attribution

I realize it's too late to add the edit summary in connection with the edit as edit summaries are not editable, but the guideline discusses how to do a dummy edit to add the attribution after the fact. I hope you will do so. (Thanks for the ping.) S Philbrick(Talk) 00:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zezen, After posting I realized I didn't really respond to your question "why so, copyright wise".

Everyone who contributes to Wikipedia releases the contribution with a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. that means if someone else chooses to use the content of any Wikipedia article, they are free to do so for personal use or even for commercial use, but they are required to provide some attribution. When you make an edit, the presumption is you are adding your own words except in those cases where you are adding material explicitly set off in quotes and properly referenced, or you are using public domain material generally should be identified, or as in this case, you may be copying somebody else's text from another Wikipedia article, but that requires attribution. It's technically a copyright violation if you simply add it and don't add the proper attribution. It's my understanding that the wording at the guideline was crafted by a legal team to ensure that we comply with the law. Plus, it simply polite to make sure someone looking at the text and interested in where it came from can do so. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ta, S Philbrick. I will not do more than here tho. The source should have Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, hence my copy has the same by inheritance. Logics and law. No need to repeat the obvious. Also: too much hassle, as we often edit on mobile.

Now, do you want to learn about a real copyright problem I saw on wikicommons? I contacted the author, but despite his promise, he has not fixed it yet.

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Praha,_Na_P%C5%99%C3%ADkop%C4%9B,_Pride_2017,_Homo_Lobby.jpg Zezen (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a good point that everything on a mobile is more challenging. I know that more than half of our readers are reading on mobiles. I don't know the breakdown of editing. I can imagine fixing a typo on a mobile but I have trouble imagining doing any serious editing on a mobile. Good for you if you can manage it but that doesn't change our legal requirements. You claim your copy has the same license by inheritance. you did identify the source article in your edit summary, and I presume you are arguing that's enough. Perhaps it is. I hope you will open up a discussion at the page and argue for a change in the guideline to eliminate the requirement to include the text that readers should see the original article for attribution. Until that happens, you violated our guideline. I hope you will remedy it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, for what it's worth, I would support you. I think a good argument can be made that identifying the source article with a link in the edit summary is sufficient. If you propose that the guideline be changed to reflect that, you can count on me for support (subject to the possibility that our legal department provides a cogent argument for the additional text). I hope you will do so, because frankly, kind of tiresome to drop these notices on good faith contributors.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again @

1. I often edit in the mobile UI, including rearranging (thus cutting) or typing up to 5 sentences. E.g. right now I am replying in the source code mode, as I needed to fix the tag hereinabove. FYI, just @ S Philbrick(Talk) pinging you there is a pain, too.

2. Let us agree to disagree. I concentrate on the mainspace, thus avoiding the templates, policies, and e.g. the ANI drama. (OTOH, granted, once in a while I do chip in the highest level FRAM affairs or coordinated ideological mass meatpuppet campaigns.)

You can revert me if you seem fit.

3. Now, what about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Praha,_Na_P%C5%99%C3%ADkop%C4%9B,_Pride_2017,_Homo_Lobby.jpg

It seems much more obvious: the Commons serving as a commercial portfolio with the discrepancy in the rights granted.

Do comment re 3, please.

Zezen (talk) 05:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, let me try pinging u again, with more wiki tags pasted:

@ --S Philbrick(Talk) ...

Will it work? Zezen (talk) 05:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you recently became interested in some aspects of Polish topics on English Wikipedia that have proven controversial, you may be interesting in reading the essays here: User:Poeticbent. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ta for the direct notice, @Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus.

1. I became Wiki interested in CEE articles years ago, in fact, thus I interacted with Icewhiz (i.e. was reverted or so by him) maybe 3 years ago already, if my memory serves me right. I looked into the pattern of his edits already back then. Then I had a partial wikibreak.

2. When I returned and "met" him (already "them") again, I was puzzled even more so I read Wikipediocracy re this, including snippets of the related ANI discussions.

3. As I had also virtually crossed paths with Poeticbent, I also thus knew of his important essay as well. Ta for alerting me to it, of course.

4. I do not want to instigate or engage with formal ANIs and other admin TLAs but yes, I gently advise interested parties of Water/Fire/Skywhizzy RGW patterns of behaviour, especially of such sleeper SPAs when I spot these.

Bows Zezen (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Affirmative_action&diff=978876235&oldid=978507318 is a disgrace! Comparing anti-racist corrections to Nazi policy? Disgraceful!

[Anon]

Why? Read Aryanization in Slovakia, the figures.

Zezen (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh: an IP / SPA. See notice re these on top.

Bows Zezen (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at your other editing today. In [2] you suggest adding some random person in order to embellish the deplorable anti-gay Nazi policy. Do you think you can get away with this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_Nazis exists.

[Anon]

See above for my policy re socks. Apage. Zezen (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here you have said the issue is a non rs issue what should I do next? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_lostarmour.info 176.88.136.86 (talk) 06:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote there: it is not a WP:RS, so simply do not use it, as it is against the policy. Zezen (talk) 06:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nsk92 (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nsk92,

Thank you for your efforts and alerting our wiki colleagues: I love being analyzed, criticized and thus helped!

Because we will thus likely interact more on this other forum, for the sake of clarity and precision, please be cogently solicitous in your contributions and citations, if any, including the grammar: "I am is interested in world history", and spelling: "refertences", "cooment", especially when quoting my contributions in future.

Bows

Zezen (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | tålk 13:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• See this WP:AN thread and WP:NONAZIS. Bishonen | tålk 13:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I have not touched EN Wiki since the ban, @User:Nsk92, @Bishonen and to whom it may concern. In fact, I looked in here and saw the alerts after logging back only after many days' break. The checkuser tool may help: after COVID-19 I have been logging in from geographically limited locations, mostly on my mobile. The sock image on my Talk page above is what I have always thought of such IPs' and SPAs' or meatpuppets' attacks, and I have acted accordingly.

I also do not hold accounts or comment on other non-Wiki* sites (e.g. "cracies") commenting the ins and out of this one, so if somebody creates an account with this handle: it ain't me there either.

See Joe job, Agent provocateur, and my prediction here, the FUD section that it would happen. User:Drmies may elucidate the historical context, should he be so inclined.

In fact, I do not plan to edit EN Wiki for some years to come, apart from adding the Retired notice and posting a high-level essay here, on my Talk, explaining the reasons for this decision spliced with my amateur analysis of the evolution of Wiki itself, when I find some time.

-> Please remove me from the sockpuppets list, if only for the record.

Back to Real life and bows to all,

Zezen (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC) logging off as per above[reply]

Just FYI, I believe that Zezen is socking using the account User:FranciszekNowak. There are significant overlaps in interests and style. (t · c) buidhe 13:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was not me either. See my "For the record" above for some context or the results of 2020 checkuser investigations of my account. Or else read the essay below (when it is ready). Zezen (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per above, I planned to abstain from contributing to this project.

And I have and shall do so, apart from penning this (also promised) unsophisticated WP:ESSAY, further revealing my neither-here-nor-there callow nature of the self-avowed LOLCAT, programmatically transmogrifying into LOLDOG persona on key essay pages, hopefully for the long-term benefit of the project itself.

(A note to admins, if any: please bear with me, as I operate under WP:USERPAGE, not engaging in WP:UP#POLEMIC or like: I cannot create a namespace now, even for housekeeping or archiving, so I am limited to this very Talk page for my WP:USERESSAY.)

Panta rhei and so does Wikipedia itself. Many years ago, as evidenced in Wikipedia:Historical archive ...

[TBC]

Zezen (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Zezen's unblock attempt #1 in Questions and Answers: You: Why? Me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_48#Eostrix_Blocked You: TL,DR. Be clear, using easily readable English. Administrators are volunteers, and may have limited time or patience for trying to find out what you mean to say. Me: Yes, of that I am aware. AGF or pass it on to an old-timer or three who have seen things here and there, including on WO and its predecessors. OK, let me elaborate: because I ("we" actually, do check) had told yous it would happen, then I told yous it was happening (in the few hours I was given back then, at night) and then I told yous it had happened. Then I told (some of) yous it would stop happening (see my quick note mid-2021 on Mr El C's meta) sooner or later, so one just waits; wikikarma at work, a slow snail up the Fuji mountain and such. Then even more has been happening now and then, also with my enwiki account itself, over the last year or so; see my Talk and its admin log for details, so I finally decided to put an end to it, see also PS2. Thus I hereby (and some gentle and ever patient folks thereby) are (re)telling you it had unhappened, after some leaps of astrality, at least for a while. You: So what would you do? You will destroy our precious Wiki! We love this. You go away! Shoo! Me: An inveterate WikiDragonish lolcat (autodeclared since at least 2015) writing this here, indeed. But as declared before, I plan to use it only redeclare that I am not here, see Talk's log: a Schrödinger's cat status quo post in wikimechanics, of sorts. Or, I may say hello again when I reach this letter E(nwiki), going down alphabetically as per my Global, removing some TRUTHers interwiki, also q.v. You: Uhm. Mhm. Namaste to you too. PS1. These heavenly leaps aside, let me use this opportunity to extend the WikiDragon's triply meta protective wings also to the Latinatizing Owls and Rcats_by this freshly minted Strategic Bionic WAA Officer ... all be it remote, for a while. If fear thou hast in thy heart, O fellow Protostridigitator, pray banish it forthwith! PS2. And the usual and eternal gentle bows to the Lady of the Desk, also for her fresh new feminilitizing host that inspired me to do this. Still do solve the Pentagon puzzle so that you may receive the Gold Bar one... Zezen (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nonsensical. Almost certainly a provocation. Talk page access revoked. El_C 20:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 not impressed. Your unblock rationale is barely intelligible and vaguely condescending. I can’t unblock you, nor would I, but I’d advise not wasting your chance on rubbish like this. Dronebogus (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote, the Strigiformes apart, e.g. Mr @El C may be. Or the ones with small bones. Zezen (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not any less cryptic. I’d recommend explaining in achingly clear and straightforward language what you plan to do on WP that isn’t adding antisemitic or anti-LGBT WP:POV material. Dronebogus (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]