User talk:Zsero/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Los Angeles May Day Melee

Thanks for the good word you left at Talk:Los_Angeles_May_Day_mêlée. Frotz (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain

Well, I've full-protected the article for the time being; hopefully what is and isn't consensus will emerge on the talk page during that period. And I'm glad you took no offense to my reminder; I figure better an unnecessary reminder than a block of a good faith editor. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe the Plumber

You had not summarized when you reverted my edit. Please explain. My entry is intended to avoid WP:SOAP problems. Just reverting without editing recreates the original problem. --VictorC (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You were editorialising. That's right out. Do it again and I'll revert it again. -- Zsero (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. The quote states a non-factual scenario as being factual. Wikipedia can quote someone saying "the earth is flat" but the article should reflect that this isn't a factual statement. Joe's statement isn't factual. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Let's figure out how to enter this into the article. --VictorC (talk) 08:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Not on your life. Your opinion about what he said is your opinion, and does not belong in the article. -- Zsero (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If it is my "opinion" that Joe has an elected congresswoman and two senators to represent him? Is that what you mean? --VictorC (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's your opinion that this discredits what he said. -- Zsero (talk) 08:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. I have no opinion on this topic. I'm having trouble understanding what your point is. Please clarify with some detail. He said he's not represented. That is false. How can you tell me otherwise? Please substantiate your position. --VictorC (talk) 08:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

My point is simple. You do not get to put your own opinion on whether what someone says is right or wrong. You do not get to contrast a notable person's statement with facts that you think contradict it. If a RS brings up the contradiction then it can go in; your own analysis doesn't. I'm done talking about this. -- Zsero (talk) 08:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You just repeated what you said above. I already answered. I have no opinion on this. You seem be to taking a dogmatic position, which is wp:soap. Just repeating that it is my opinion that Joe's senator is John Voinavich and his congressional representative is Marcy Kaptur, for example will not change the facts. The fact is Joe has representatives. Sorry to belabor this, but you aren't explaining anything to me. You just seem to keep repeating that this is "my" opinion. --VictorC (talk) 09:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Those are facts, but it is your opinion that they contradict what Joe said. And that has to stay out unless a RS says there's a contradiction. -- Zsero (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. The quote "taxation without representation" is false, it's not just an opinion of Joe's it's a factually false statement. There is no RS to say it. It isn't needed. It would be like saying we need an RS to say the earth isn't flat, do you see? Thanks for explicitly clarifying what you were getting at. You had me completely confused there. --VictorC (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

JtP Wikiquote

There is a valid reason for that to be there- the fact that a wikiquote page exists. Just because it is a stub doesn't warrant its removal. It will invite readers to add to it being there. Do not remove it again without bringing it to the discussion page, please. Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The game plays

"It's not nonsense, on the contrary it's pretty readable, and if the subject were at all notable it would be a decent start to an article. It would need wikifying, sources, all that good stuff, but it would not be a deletion candidate."

I stand by my tagging of this 'article' as nonsense. And it makes a nonsense out of Wikipedia NOT to delete it as such. Wikipedia is not the place for reports of new schoolyard games.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 12:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:CSD#G1. To label this page "patent nonsense", "gibberish", "incoherent" or "with no meaningful content", is, to put it bluntly, to lie. It is quite clearly none of those things. Nor does it fit any of the other CSD. -- Zsero (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you calling me a liar?? If so, then I suggest you brush up on Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It is a complete load of nonsense, as several other editors have now pointed put.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 18:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I am calling a lie a lie. There is nothing else it can be called. No matter how many editors repeat a lie it remains a lie. The article as written is very far from nonsensical or gibberish, and any English speaker with a basic knowledge of the game of American Football can derive its meaning. To deny this can only be called a lie. -- Zsero (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the only one in denial then. I don't intend wasting any more time on this completely pointless argument with you. The whole thing has turned into a nonsense now - from the article itself, to your protestations that it is 'worthy' if not notable article. Goodbye.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 19:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Dude, how did you know I was a ninth grader? Bigkid72 (talk) 23:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In the article you gave your school name, and the names of the game's inventors. The first thing I did was to google those, to see whether there was anything to this game — was it real, was it mentioned anywhere, did the inventors become famous? And the first hit I got was the "Class of 2012" list for your school, with all three inventors on it. The conclusion was obvious. -- 23:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Spam

Regarding your comments at User talk:Barriodude, you might want to read Barriodude's user page, WP:EL, WP:Spam and WP:COI. To sum it all up, you don't add links to your own website, and you don't add links for the purpose of promoting a website, and you don't add links to pages that merely contain material that belongs in the article itself. And when you see a user's contribution history showing links being added one per minute, you can be sure that the user is not reading the articles he's adding the links to in order to determine whether the link will actually be useful-- he's just pumping them out. Please don't encourage spamming behavior-- we see way to much spamming as it is. Thanks! -- Mwanner | Talk 12:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit. The content at Shmoop doesn't belong in the WP articles themselves. And one doesn't have to read a whole article to know that a link belongs on it. At most all one has to do is check that none of the existing ELs provide something so similar as to make the new link redundant. The reason for adding a link doesn't invalidate the link itself. Which means the only issue left is COI; well, I have no COI, and I concur that the Shmoop links belong. -- Zsero (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

So let's see: Shmoop is a commercial enterprise (CEO Ellen Siminoff) that according to their site pretty clearly plans to cover all of Literature and History. Just how many links to it do you plan to add? Further, I'd be interested in your views on what content Shmoop provides to Mending Wall, for example, that constitutes "a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article" (WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, #1). That's why I mentioned taking the time to read both our article and their material before one can possibly know whether an external link of this type should be added. There's more to our external links policy than whether the linked site is generally a good one or not. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That it's a commercial enterprise makes absolutely no difference, and that you think it does speaks volumes about your motives. Are you hostile to enterprise? Do you think WP should be hostile to people making money? I'll add as many links as I feel like. How many links exist from articles on movies and actors to IMDB?

It's quite obvious that the content of Shmoop doesn't belong in the article itself: it's a resource for learning about the subject of the article, not new information. Its main advantage over similar resources is in its fresh presentation, rather than in any deep insights it may offer. What could possibly exist in our article that would make a Shmoop link less useful, other than an EL that already links to something so similar as to make it redundant? -- Zsero (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not hostile to people making money, but I am hostile to people using Wikipedia to make money. As to the value of Shmoop to Wikipedia, see Talk:Mending Wall. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What policy or guideline justifies hostility to people using WP to make money? Capitalism is a great and wonderful thing; if someone can make money by being useful to others, more power to them. Most if not all of the works Shmoop discusses were themselves written to make money. As for your criticism of Shmoop's actual content, that's a different matter entirely. Erroneous content doesn't make something spam, though it does make it less useful. The only Shmoop link I've looked at in any detail at all was Pride and Prejudice, and I didn't notice anything terribly wrong there. Nothing earthshattering either, but the presentation seemed fresh. -- Zsero (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL and WP:Spam, in my mind justify hostility to people using WP to make money. And if you've followed the Village pump discussion on advertising in wikipedia, you'd see there are a lot of people who see things that way. Jimmy Wales notably said that "Wikipedia makes the web not suck", and for me, and a lot of people, what makes wikipedia not suck, first and foremost, is that it's not constantly trying to sell you something. You seem to disagree. OK. I can live with that. Let's agree, though, that the contents of the external links that we add need to be looked at pretty closely. And (I would argue) especially when they have been added by someone who stands to make money on the issue. That's where conflict of interest enters in, and raises Good Faith issues.

Anyway, peace. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 18:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that WP shouldn't be trying to sell you something, at least not obtrusively. (A discreet ad here or there to make money for the Foundation wouldn't hurt.) But that standard doesn't apply to ELs. We link to newspapers all the time, for instance, even though they all exist for the explicit purpose of making money. The point is that we link to them for their content, not for their advertising. If this helps them make money, more luck to them. Shmoop should be regarded the same way; it should be evaluated for its content, and if that's valuable, as from a brief look I think it is, then its links should be allowed. In the case of "Mended Wall" I agree with you that the Shmoop article itself is sub-standard; but the P&P article seems to be OK and one bad article hardly invalidates an entire project, or WP would be in terrible straits! As for COI, the problem is not that the links themselves are bad - in principle there's nothing wrong with someone adding a good link despite a COI. The problem with COI is simply that it impairs someone's judgment on what is a good link. But I'm afraid a militant "anti-spam" attitude, such as that seen on "Project Spam" creates a very similar impairment, and a tendency to view all such links as bad regardless of their content. See the top of this page, and the case of the Indiana archives. -- Zsero (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR

You're close to violating 3RR on the Sarah Palin article. Some might say you already have. 3RR prohibits more than three reverts (or changes that amount to a revert) in 24 hours, even if they're not related, and content disputes are not exempt from that limit no matter what happens on the talk page. These topics are going to be edited intensely over the next few days, so remember: There are no emergencies on Wikipedia. Let someone else take over for a little while. It will all be worked out eventually. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 04:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on John McCain

Thank goodness someone put semi up again. That was a real mess. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 07:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Edits of Judah Loew ben Bezalel's Death Date

You recently edited the Judah Loew ben Bezalel page to remove the Julian/Gregorian dates. You will notice that the talk page as a discussion regarding the actual death date since there seems to be a discrepancy regarding this. It is likely that the Julian/Gregorian dates would be of value given that there is confusing data as to the actual dates. Most early sources would likely show the Julian date even though Bohemia and Moravia switched to the Gregorian calendar prior to the Maharal's death, while contemporary sources and current computations would use the Gregorian dates. The day of teh week is also important in ensuring that the date computation is correct. This information might belong in a footnote. KosherJava (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. It was very confusing, though. I'll revisit it, maybe move the details down into the body of the article, where they can be expanded into something comprehensible.

By the way, if you are the person behind kosherjava.com, thank you for the "bearing to J'm" map. I use it all the time. (I had previously used this site, but yours is so much more useful for this purpose.) -- Zsero (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Capezebra.jpg

Thank you for locating the source. The image has been deleted. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sex/gender

You reverted Deed of change of name while I was writing a rationale for doing the same on the discussion page. Well done; I get really sick of people using these two words incorrectly. Emeraude (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Let's take this too the talk page. The Kerry campaign that you cited didn't have an infobox while it was going on, while the Obama and McCain campaigns have and they've maintained past statuses. Perhaps an initiative should be undertaken to include past statuses for Kerry, Bush, etc. campaigns. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

John McCain presidential campaign, 2008

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 06:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Campaign status

Hello Zsero,

With all the attention given to the McCain and Obama campaign pages, I decided to check out the campaign pages for the other candidates such as Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Guiliani, etc. and noticed that there doesn't seem to be a clear convention for campaign status in the infobox. I intend on discussing the matter with the U.S. Elections WikiProject, even though they're probably entering hibernation, to see if there is a convention for the field. And if there is - what is the convention, and if there isn't - what should the convention be. I was wondering if you'd like to contribute your 2 cents on the matter. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

YHWH in archaeology

Under the pages with the name Yahweh, Jehovah, YHWH or whatever that is based upon the same ancient Hebrew symbols is all well and good to talk about pronouncing, writing sytles and etc., but there should also be the archaeological findings that have those symbols on them. To be honest I could intergret a section on the subject into each article but it is easier to link them to one page that will discuss the subject. Stop needlessly editing out this link, because there are a number of real problems on each one of those pages that need more attention than you are giving what I'm doing. I'm still working on the pages so give me some room to work. If you have a problem put it on my talk page or the discussion page of the articles. You should know better than to get into an edit war with me. Saverx (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC) ~

---

The information on the House of J articles are not original research, theories or etc. Everything that was stated I gave the reference to scriptural sources from text citing them. As for the link to the Pharisees page it will take me adding in the addition sources that state those ideas, but they shouldn't be assumed to be MY THOUGHTS.Saverx (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry,Zsero!

I'm so sorry! Yesterday I was revising my geography homework and patrolling Wikipedia. As I was very tired, I went to have a cup of coffee. Unknowingly, my cousin, who was a vandal, - User:Kelsi Wales (I think her account has been deleted) did something in my account and I luckily managed to catch him red-handed. She was using my Twinkle stuff and unfortunately I didn't cancel it soon enough. I really did scolded her for this, but her overprotective mother scolded me back (unfortunately):"Is your willy Wikipedia more important than your little cousin? Must you shout at her?" I said:"But she shouldn't use my account to vandalize Wikipedia or else I'll get banned!" but she won't listen! Anyway, I'm terribly sorry for any troubles caused.

Will I get banned for this?

--Mark Chung (talk) 05:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama note

FYI... Obama is constitutionally required to resign any other governmental office by the time he assumes the Presidency. Or perhaps more to the point, he is not allowed to be compensated by either the federal or any state government while he's President, aside from the salary granted to him for the Presidency. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That isn't as clear as you might think. It's not clear that the presidency is an "office under the United States". No president has yet tried to be a member of Congress at the same time, and no president is ever likely to try it, but a good case can be made that it is constitutionally possible. In any case, Obama certainly didn't have to resign before noon on 20-Jan. He could have attended not just this year's lame duck session, but even the first two weeks of next year's session, and vote on bills that would then be sent to him to sign. Of course he has much more important things to do with his time. -- Zsero (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to Article 2, which says this: "The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them. " Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

And in addition to having other things to do, I would assume he would want to avoid any appearance of impropriety. In theory, he might have voted for a bill in late January, and also end up signing it as President, if Bush didn't taken action on it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing improper in that, any more than there is in a Supreme Court justice ruling on the constitutionality of an appointment he made as Secretary of State. As for the compensation clause, he could give back his Senate pay. -- Zsero (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

They always resign their Senate or House seats, so it may be that there are federal laws prohibiting the holding of multiple offices. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

While not citing the specific law, this article [1] explicitly states that Biden (who has not yet resigned) must resign by noon on January 20. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No federal law could override the constitution. If the constitution doesn't prevent a president from being in Congress, no law can do so. That no president has ever tried to do so doesn't prove anything, because it would be silly; a president hardly has enough time for his own job, let alone that of a congressman. It's natural that a congressman who is elected president will resign his previous job, even if he doesn't have to. As for Reuters, it is not an expert on the constitution, and its legal opinions are worthless. -- Zsero (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If the constitution is silent on this matter, I would think that would open the door to the Congress passing such a law. But before jumping to that conclusion, we would have to find which specific law or rule compels a Senator or Congressman to resign. It seems to be a "given", so it's got to be out there somewhere. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Presumably "no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office" means that the President can't also be a Congressman or Senator - which makes sense, given the painstaking care the founding fathers took to keep the three branches separate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I already addressed this in my first response. It is not at all clear that the presidency is an "office under the United States". -- Zsero (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Not clear to you, perhaps. If the Presidency is not an office under the United States, I don't know what would be. But there must be some information somewhere that addresses this question. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Offices under the United States are people who are responsible to the president. The president himself is not. For instance, George Washington did not consider himself subject to the foreign emoluments clause. Oh, and the founders did not take "painstaking care...to keep the three branches separate". The separation of the branches was mostly invented during the Era of Good Feelings. At the time of the founding it was possible for the Chief Justice to also serve as Secretary of State -- Zsero (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, in any case, it seems certain that a Senator has to resign by noon on January 20th, so there must be a law covering it, we just haven't turned it up yet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anything in the constitution requiring it, and no law can override the constitution, so I don't believe they do have to resign; they do it because it makes sense, not because they have to. -- Zsero (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That article I showed you states unequivocally that they have to resign, so there must be a law or ruling somewhere that covers it. Either that, or it's simply an established precedent. Obviously, it would be a conflict of interest, and certainly no one would have time for both jobs (maybe they would have in 1800, but not now). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The Reuters article is simply wrong. And I agree that nobody has time for both jobs - that was my argument just above! But there's no law stopping someone from being stupid enough to try. -- Zsero (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

One thing I hadn't thought of is that it might simply be a rule within each of the two Houses. The Constitution provides that the House and Senate can make their own procedural rules, and one of them might be that a sitting Senator or Congressman cannot hold any other office. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Neither house has the power to add to the qualifications laid down by the constitution for membership in that house. If someone is qualified and has been elected, the house must seat him. Powell v. McCormack. -- Zsero (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that it's merely precedent and custom that lead to Senators resigning. And the houses do have the power to expel members, right? I don't recall if that's in the constitution or not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Senate could expel Obama, by a 2/3 vote. What's that got to do with anything? -- Zsero (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The Washington Times also states that Biden "must" resign by Jan 20 [2] and I doubt they're getting this from thin air. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly where they're getting it. Do they cite a source? No. So where could they be getting it? You've seen the relevant parts of the constitution. No later law can override that. So what basis is there for this claim in the newspaper? None at all. -- Zsero (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The Senate website has a copy of the constitution along with interpretations: [3] This interpretation says, "To preserve the separation of powers, no member may be appointed to an executive of judicial office that was created or accept a salary that was increased during the term to which that senator or representative was elected, nor may anyone serving in Congress simultaneously hold office in any other branch of government." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've already shown you (and you've already quoted) the relevant constitutional clause, which refers to "office under the United States". If you want to assert that Obama could not serve as president and a senator at the same time, it's up to you to prove that the presidency is an "office under the United States". The plain language of the constitution is pretty clear that it is not. A Senate web site does not override the constitution. -- Zsero (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, my logic tells me that the Presidency is an "office under the United States", and it certainly seems like the government site agrees with me. Perhaps you could write them a note and ask what law or court ruling or other rule compels Obama and Biden to resign by Jan 20, or whether it's just tradition? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The plain language of the constitution is against you. Search for every occurrence of these words in the constitution, and see whether it makes sense, if the presidency is included. You will find that it doesn't. An office under the United States is a position to which the president appoints someone, and from which the president can dismiss him. As for some web site, since when is whoever updates that site an authority? You think just because it ends in .gov makes everything posted authoritative? Why should I write anybody a note? What do I care if some idiot gets it wrong on his web site? Is it my job to correct that person, or teach him law? -- Zsero (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's see... we have your interpretation of the constitution... and we have a number of published sources all stating opinions contrary to your interpretation, including the Senate website. And it appears that Obama and Biden are pretty well convinced that they need to resign before Jan 20. So apparently you've got it right and the entire U.S. government has it wrong? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, neither Reuters nor the Washington Times are part of the US government. Whoever maintains the Senate web site is, but is hardly a recognised expert on constitutional law. A source is not more reliable just because it's published. Newspapers get things wrong all the time, and I guarantee you nobody fact-checked this, they just assumed it was correct and let it go. So my reading is as good as theirs. Better, because I can point to every other use of that phrase in the constitution, all of which make more sense if it doesn't include the presidency. And there's the fact that George Washington accepted foreign gifts and didn't even think to ask Congress for permission, which he'd need if the foreign emoluments clause applied to him. -- Zsero (talk) 04:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet Biden seems to think he has to resign by Jan 20. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Every news source I've seen talk about this subject, from liberal to conservative to neutral, all say they have to resign by noon on Jan 20. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Then they're all wrong. Do any of them cite a source? No. They're all just making the same assumption, which they're pulling out of thin air. Or they're relying on each other, which lets one error reverberate all over the press. -- Zsero (talk) 05:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to assume that the Senators themselves know the rules. All I'm getting from you is your personal interpretation of the Constitution - no independent source verifying what you're saying, and in fact all of the sources refuting it. So unless you can find an independent source in support of your interpretation, I have to conclude that you've got it wrong. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

And have you heard a senator say that Obama and Biden would have to resign? In any case, you keep arguing from authority. You have the same access to the constitution and the English language that I do, and that all senators do. There are no court decisions that could affect interpretation, because the case has never come to court and never will, and even if it did it would be dismissed as a political question. So we are left with only the words of the constitution, and our only guide to what is an "office under the US" is how the phrase is used elsewhere; can you point to a single instance of that phrase being used anywhere, where it includes the presidency? If not then you must concede the point. -- Zsero (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that Obama and Biden resigning is strictly due to tradition? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Not even tradition - simple practicality. Obama's resignation is certainly a practical matter, since even you admit that he could have stayed until 20-Jan. He resigned because he has no time to devote to the Senate, and/or no interest in remaining there. Biden will ultimately resign either for the same reason, or because on Planet Biden the constitution reads differently (remember, on his planet Article 1 of the constitution gives the Vice President a role in the Executive Branch, and the VP can only preside over the senate if there's a tied vote). Plus in Biden's case, not resigning would mean that the Democrats would be deprived of his tie-breaking vote; he surely couldn't cast two votes! But nothing in the constitution as it actually exists on this planet requires them to resign. It would be perfectly lawful, if silly, for them to attempt to do both jobs at once, just as John Marshall spent a month as both Chief Justice and Secretary of State. (In his day the CJ didn't have a lot of work, and he did it as a favour to President Adams. He surely wouldn't have done it for a longer period. But the fact that he did it at all proves that it is constitutional.) -- Zsero (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Basically, I'm seeing every source that has anything to say about it, saying they can't be both Senator and President; and I'm seeing only you contradicting it. I have never seen anyone besides you saying this. And it's very unlikely that you've uncovered something that slipped past everyone for over 200 years. So the only logical conclusion I can reach is that you've got it wrong. You're either misinterpreting the Constitution, or there's another law or court ruling somewhere that you've overlooked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

All I see from you is argument from authority, which is itself a logical fallacy, but in this case it's not even that. None of your sources have any authority whatsoever. You cite newspapers and anonymous web site writers. I cite the constitution itself. As for later laws or court rulings, neither one can possibly exist. No law could override the constitution, and no court could rule on the matter because 1) it's never come up, and courts can't rule on hypotheticals, and 2) it's a political question, so courts can't rule on it at all. So what are you left with? Give me an example — any example — where the term "office under the US" is used in a way that includes the presidency. Or concede that I am right. -- Zsero (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Pardon my intrusion-- I happened to see this discussion. This site bases the required resignation in the Separation of Powers clause of the constitution:

1. "One person cannot hold two full-time elective positions.
2. The separation of powers prevents a person from holding a position in two different branches of government (executive, legislative & judicial) at the same time. (A few exceptions may exist when the officers are at two different levels, such as state and municipal.)"

-- Mwanner | Talk 15:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That site contains general advice for people interested in all manner of elective office. Various state and local constitutions and laws may have such provisions, but the US constitution does not. Senators may not simultaneously be Representatives, and they may not hold "offices under the US", but there is nothing preventing them from being president or vice president. Nothing except common sense, that is. As for the separation of powers, that is a doctrine undreamt of in the constitution, as evidenced by John Marshall being both Chief Justice and Secretary of State. The doctrine of the separation of powers was not invented until about the 1820s. -- Zsero (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I find it really hard to believe that all of these different sources are making it up. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution for a living, and I suspect the matter has been decided there, though I can't handily prove it. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

What different sources? All we have are some newspapers, and some Senate employee who wrote a piece for the web site. None of them are better authorities than you or me. As for the Supreme Court, how could it have decided this? Has any congressman elected to the presidency ever attempted to keep his seat? If not, then how can the Court have decided it? And even if there were such an attempt, how could the Court rule on a political question? In any case, it's up to you to show such a ruling; all you're doing is accepting on faith that it must exist, as if it were some sort of religious doctrine, which you received from — where? Reuters? -- Zsero (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's an academic source (see "Separation of Personnel") Still doesn't mention a Supreme Court Decision, though. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The author of this piece is very clearly wrong, as proven by the fact that John Marshall served for a month as Chief Justice and Secretary of State. If this author were right, how could he possibly have done that? The separation of the three branches is not found anywhere in the constitution, and wasn't invented until the 1820s.

In any case, your source is hardly academic. What the hell is "Cyberland University of North America"? It doesn't even have a WP article! Doesn't sound like a real university to me. So who is Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., and why are his opinions more authoritative than mine or yours? -- Zsero (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The Marshall example proves nothing-- first, that was a long time ago, leaving plenty of time for the Supreme Court to promulgate case law interpreting the Separation of Powers provision. And secondly, unconstitutional stuff happens. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

And I'll grant you that Almon Leroy Way seems an uncertain source, but you know, Reuters, et al., aren't real famous for making stuff up. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, how could the Court have decided a case that has never come up? And how could it decide a political question? And no, "unconstitutional stuff happens" won't cut it. This was the Chief Justice! What greater precedent can there be that this? And nobody at the time seems to have breathed a word of protest at this arrangement; this was a time of bitter political rivalries, and if there was something even slightly improper about this someone would have complained, and yet there seems to have been none. The only explanation is that there was no separation doctrine. As for Reuters, et al, yeah, they are well known for making stuff up. They employ fact checkers, but do you really think one would have called anyone on this? -- Zsero (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Add the New York Times, November 13, 2008, "Like Mr. Obama, Mr. Biden must resign his Senate seat before noon on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20." [4]. And the court decides political questions all the time. You think there's no case law based on the Separation of Powers clause? -- Mwanner | Talk 16:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

And what's their source? You keep arguing from authority, which is a fallacy at the best of times, but you're not even even arguing from real authorities! If you have no real arguments then concede and drop out. The next unsupported newspaper citation you throw at me, I will treat with the contempt it deserves. -- Zsero (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Then let me quote you "The separation of the branches was mostly invented during the Era of Good Feelings. At the time of the founding it was possible for the Chief Justice to also serve as Secretary of State" (above) And James Madison wrote in The Federalist No. 47: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of the one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." That's directly about the separation of powers, and it addresses the point under discussion directly. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Zsero should write a note to Biden and tell him he doesn't have to resign after all. That should be interesting. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Biden makes stuff up all the time — he thinks Article 1 gives the VP a role in the executive branch, and that the VP can only preside over the Senate if there's a tie. So who knows what's in his constitution? And why would I want to correct his mistakes anyway? He's an idiot, and he will remain an idiot. Beside which, even if he knows he doesn't have to resign he will do so anyway, if only so as not to deprive the Democrats of an extra vote. So what good would a note do him? -- Zsero (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I was seeing it strictly for the entertainment value. Everyone else is saying he has to resign, and you're saying he doesn't. So it's your credibility that's in question, not everyone else's. It reminds me of someone I knew that had the wrong date for a well-known historical event. I showed them the newspaper that proved when it occurred. Their answer was, "I can't help it if that publication is wrong." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Did the newspaper prove the date, or did it just cite a date that it found in some book? In any case, argument from authority is a fallacy, and newspapers aren't even authorities on matters of law. Read the f---ing constitution for yourself. Look for every instance of "office under the US", and try reading each of those instances with the term including the presidency and excluding it, and see which one reads better in every case. -- Zsero (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking specifically about the JFK assassination and the date on the extra-edition newspaper reporting it - Nov 22, 1963. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No, they're all just making it up. And what you're doing is classic WP:OR. That's not how it works here. -- Mwanner | Talk 17:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? That makes no sense at all. What's OR got to do with it? In which article am I inserting this? You, OTOH, are engaged in OR, since none of the "sources" you cite are in any way authoritative; if there's any article that positively states that Biden must resign, I would certainly be within my rights to remove it. -- Zsero (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No, you wouldn't, because you're applying your own interpretation of a primary source, and that's not how wikipedia works. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Bulldust. No source is required to remove incorrect claims from WP. RS are only required to insert stuff. Since the claim that he must resign has no reliable source, I can remove it wherever I find it. So far I haven't found it anywhere, but then I haven't looked. -- Zsero (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The Times qualifies as a reliable source under wikipedia rules. Your alleged personal expertise does not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, this brew-ha-ha is all just over a curiosity question about a Zsero edit summary that stated Obama didn't have to resign by noon on Jan 20. So far, we have just that one editor making this unheard-of claim, and every other source saying he does, in fact, have to resign by noon on Jan 20. Logic and AGF say Zsero is well-meaning but wrong. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Changing other peoples' comments, even to correct what you wrongly assume are spelling errors, is against the rules. There's a joke in that spelling, i.e. I know how to spell and I spelled it that way on purpose. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Not on my talk page it isn't. -- Zsero (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You do not own your talk page. The same rules apply to your talk page as they do to any other talk page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course I don't own it, but the rules are not the same. On my talk page I can edit other people's comments, so long as I don't change the meaning. I can also remove them altogether. -- Zsero (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Which I'm sure you'll do soon, as this is a fruitless discussion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think if you start removing stuff that is sourced to Reuters, the New York Times and the BBC on the grounds that it is not reliably sourced, you will find that you are very much in the minority. But it is clear that nothing I or anyone else can say will ever persuade you otherwise, so do have a nice day! -- Mwanner | Talk 17:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

They may be considered RS for news (and they've been caught many times making stuff up there too), but not for legal opinion. -- Zsero (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If you could cite a legal opinion on this issue (by which I mean an actual legal opinion, not your personal interpretation), that would be enlightening. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Since you have not cited an actual legal opinion for your claim, I see no need to do so for mine. The plain meaning of the constitution is enough for me. If you have an actual legal opinion that treats the question and concludes that the presidency is an "office under the US", I'd love to see it. -- Zsero (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The separation of powers doctrine is probably the overriding principle. But it's clear that you are an army of 1 on this issue. And if it actually did get posted in an article and you tried to delete it, you would be shot down, because there are endless reliable sources saying he has to resign, and none saying that he doesn't. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources saying this. The list of RS is not some sort of Bible from Sinai; like everything else it needs to be treated with common sense, and common sense says that no newspaper or agency is a reliable source for legal opinions. -- Zsero (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"Common sense", a.k.a. "truth", has no bearing on the matter. The Times would be considered a reliable source in wikipedia, and you would lose the argument if it were to come to that. "Common sense" would also advise you not to get into an edit war over ketchup. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ketchup. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ninety:one 21:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware of the three revert rule, and am in no danger of violating it. I have repeatedly attempted to use the talk page, but carl.bunderson refuses to make an argument, keeps deliberately misrepresenting the truth (referring to guidelines as "policy" even after he admitted that he did know the difference), and keeps reverting. So what am I to do? He's the one edit-warring. If he wants to have an honest discussion I'm more than willing, but in the meantime the status quo ante should be restored. Are you willing to do that, as a gesture of good faith? -- Zsero (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop fooling yourself, both of us were edit-warring. And please, do not act as though I have failed to engage you on the talk page. We have both made use of it extensively. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

See article talk. ninety:one 21:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Beware of edit wars involving ketchup. Tomato stains are hard to wash out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

John McCain presidential campaign, 2008

You're re-introducing material that irrefutably violates policy, and then advocate the removal of material that you don't like based on policy. Your motives are clear. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for violating 3RR on John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 (Reverts: 1, 2, 3, 4). Because you have been repeatedly warned about edit warring, and because this is not your first time being blocked for it, the block is now 48 hours. You may resume editing when the block expires, but continued edit warring may result in longer blocks without further warning. Making convincing arguments does not mean you are exempt from the policy against edit warring. Discuss instead of reverting, rather than in addition to it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:25, 17 November 2008 (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:

The first edit listed was not a revert. (There is no previous version that it matches.) On the contrary, it was a further attempt at compromise. I adopted some of the language AzureFury had just introduced, in the hope that the compromise might be reciprocated. The edit comment reflected this: "I'll take some of that". Instead AF just reverted and reverted and reverted. Right now AF and I each stand at 3 reverts, not 4. I ought therefore to be unblocked. In the alternative, if I am to be blocked for my three reverts, then AF ought to get the same block for the same violation.

As for my previous block, that is a badge of honour I wear with pride, since it was earned in defending an inexperienced editor against false and malicious warnings being posted to her talk page. That was akin to reverting vandalism, and my only mistake was in shouldering the burden on my own instead of recruiting help. It should not be taken into account now.

Decline reason:

You were clearly edit warring here, and you did violate the three-revert rule. The first edit which you claim isn't a revert, is. As you can see, the information was added by AzureFury here and you then made an action which reversed (in part) the actions of another editor. While you're blocked, please read WP:3RR (again if you already have). — Rjd0060 (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2008 (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.

Three things:

• That first edit was a revert, to this version: [5]. It may not have been a total revert to your version, but it undid someone else's edit. But if you want to wikilawyer, there was also a fifth, unrelated revert here. It wasn't vandalism, just a difference of opinion about the way data was being displayed. A different content dispute, but a content dispute nonetheless.
• As you should be abundantly aware, you are not entitled to three reverts. The persistent edit warring over several articles needs to stop. AF's edits don't show the same pattern.
• Edit warring is edit warring, whether it's with a new user or not. Previous edit warring will be taken into account - especially if you're proud of the block. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 03:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• No, check again, it was not a revert to that version or any other. It was a brand new version that had never been in the article before, and it represented an attempt at further compromise with AF, by adopting some of AF's language. I don't understand why you would call it a revert.
• The "fifth revert" you refer to was not about "a difference of opinion about the way data was being displayed", it was about the IP having changed a past-tense discussion of an event that was already over, into a present-tense discussion as if of a current event. I didn't check, but I assumed that it was a revert to some version from during the campaign, presumably just for the hell of it; otherwise I'd have given an explanation for the revert. At any rate, it was at least minor vandalism, or at least so I regarded it.
• I was not edit warring with a new user, I was editing to protect a new user from an attack on her talk page. When I finally managed to contact her she was very grateful for what I had done, and for my explanation of what had been going on, and confirmed that if she'd logged in while those false warnings were on her talk page she'd have been distressed enough to never touch WP again. The block was unjust, and I am proud to have "earned" it while doing the right thing.
• That I happen to have run today into two completely unrelated blockheads is not my fault. I have not reverted too much in any single dispute, but I can't help it if there are people who refuse to discuss things, or insist on reverting. In all cases it takes two to tango, and just because I'm involved in one dispute doesn't mean I have to give everyone else their way and just allow myself to be reverted without protest on every other article. -- Zsero (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you feel the right to "regard" something as vandalism just confirms that I was right in issuing this block. Vandalism isn't a matter of opinion; it's a very specific thing. That edit was in not vandalism in any way, shape or form.

Nobody is "refusing" to discuss things with you. One anonymous user made a change (which he did not need your permission for) and you reverted him out of hand. The other user was actively discussing the situation with you. You were both edit warring, but your aggressive edit summaries and persistent edit wars elsewhere made yours worse. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 04:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"Aggressive edit summaries"? "(Undid revision 252121325 by Zsero (talk) Unexplained deletion)" is aggressive. In fact it's deliberately designed to offend. My edit summaries were not aggressive, they explained what I was doing, and why. -- Zsero (talk) 04:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I found "WTF?" particularly enlightening.[6] Edit summaries are for summarizing edits. Talk pages are for explanations. Either way, using masked profanity and caps to shout at other users is aggressive. Don't get me wrong - it's just a symptom of the problem, it's not why I blocked you. You were blocked because you violated 3RR, pure and simple. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 04:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"wtf?" was puzzlement, not aggression. Having reached out to AF, I had expected some kind of acknowledgment if not a reciprocal gesture, and was puzzled at the revert, especially with the only "explanation" being a BS claim of RS (for an article cited for its author's opinion). I use caps in edit summaries, not to shout, but in place of italics, because the whole thing is in italics.

In any case, I didn't violate 3RR, at least not on purpose. On reviewing the IP's edit I find that I was mistaken; by "current projections" the IP seems to have meant not poll numbers (which are no longer current), but post-election projections of what the final count will be, after all the postal votes are in and all the recounts are done. I do apologise for that, and would do so on the IP's talk page if I could. It looked like the sort of random vandalism I've seen a lot of, though; it looked like it was talking about "current projections" of the vote, which is how it would have read before the election. -- Zsero (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I only mentioned the IP's edit as an afterthought. You violated 3RR by edit warring with AF, based on the diffs I provided in the original block message. Here's a comparison of the version before your first revert, and after your first revert: [7] Your edit removed almost everything AF added here. That's a revert. And the three that followed it were to the same version. Looking at your talk page, I see not less than five 3RR warnings over a wide range of articles. Enough is enough. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

can't believe I'm stepping back in for this, but my recollection of Zsero's actions, for which he has a block on his record, is that he was trying to protect a new user (who added good external links) from being templated as a spammer. I was not an admin at the time but I advocated for an undo of the ridiculous block and a removal of the equally ridiculous template. No comment on the current edit-warring, but the Zsero's block record in this case has extenuating circumstances. R. Baley (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly not enough to mitigate the original block. The blocking admin was ambivalent about the unblock, but he didn't do it himself or make a statement to that effect. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 04:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

your version is best

on the John McCain presidential campaign page. It shouldnt be there at all but if it is it should be kept short like you said. AlioTheFool (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC).