Hashem sfarim

vox est scientia

patefacio sursum fenestra of mens

sapientia est vis

Notitia suggestus repono.

שולחן מידע ומאחסן

א A (Alef)
ב B (Bet)
ג G (Gimel)
ד D (Dalet)
ה H (He)
ו V (Vav)
ז Z (Zayen)
ח H sharp (Het) ט T (Tet)
י Y (Yod)
ך K (Final Kaf)
כ K (Kaf)
ל L (Lamed)
ם M (Final Mem)
מ M (Mem)
ן N (Final Nun)
נ N (Nun)
ס S (Samekh)
ע ‘A (Ayin)
ף P (Final Pe)
פ P (Pe)
ץ Ts (Final Tsadi)
צ Ts (Tsadi)
ק Qu (Qof)
ר R (Resh)
ש Sh (Shin)
ת T (Tav)

Twitter

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters). Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm well aware, and the policy says that proper names of things, which "Twitter" is, are always capitalized. You never really see the word "Twitter" with a lower-case "t", in news pieces, etc; it's always upper-case "T". Hashem sfarim (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Hashem sfarim. You have new messages at SudoGhost's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - SudoGhost™ 11:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

French Revolution

Regarding this edit, I just want to inform you that it is bold, revert, discuss, so it is definitely not "against WP policy to delete without talking first". In fact your response should have been to go to the talk page instead of reinserting. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Casey Anthony trial

Care to weigh in on the talk page about the non-neutral POV claims? It's making no sense to me whatsoever and is tiring me out. Flyer22 (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Weighing in at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing by User:Blackie Lstreet at Casey Anthony trial seems to be the best shot we have at get something done about Blackie Lstreet's disruptive editing. Flyer22 (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for correcting my punctuation on the CA Article. I got used to legal software that did it for me and now you see the results. Thanks again! Mugginsx (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Will you please vote or set up a vote for re-structing the Article?

I do not know how to do it but carol is bringing the subject back up and I think we should once and for all vote on it.

Thanks

Thanks for being the voice of reason. Mugginsx (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Crossing of the Red Sea

I note that you have been reverted by two editors with dramatically different viewpoints. It really is up to you to discuss your point on the article talk page. If you want to make official complaints besides making sure you've grounds for them (you don't, as you've made clear, he is at 3RR, not over it, you should have taken the time to make it properly. As it will be rejected it doesn't matter this time, but please read the page if you do it again and format your post as it asks you to do. Dougweller (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying that a violation would be going beyond 3 reverts in a 24 hour period? In other words four reverts? Ok, if that's the case, I wasn't sure. I was under the impression that the violation is at 3 reverts within a day. But edit warring, as we know, is more than just that. And I did say in my last edit to "take it to talk". But instead of doing that, Cush simply reverted me again. Hashem sfarim (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Your comment to User:Esoglou

Regarding this. Please be aware that if you make a charge of stalking you may be expected to defend it at one of the admin boards and supply complete diffs. Making bogus charges is viewed very dimly. There are many options for you to take if you are willing to follow WP:Dispute resolution to settle the content matters. If you choose not to take that route, be prepared to encounter criticism. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware, and I would not throw that term around so lightly. I said it becasue it arguably was happening, and I have discernible (and common sense) proof that said user was doing it. He never went on those articles before, and now is, after seeing my recent edit history, after a disagreement in another article (where another editor sees POV in this editor also). It's not a coincidence what happened. He purposely checked my edit history out of animosity or bias, then went into a few articles that I contributed to recently, and then reverted much of what I put, due to the same bias he displayed elsewhere. There was following around going on. Don't assume I said it lightly. I wouldn't do that. But I appreciate your concern, and I will be careful. I was merely saying that I don't want to be hounded from now on by this editor, simply because of some disagreement or problem on another article (where other editors actually agreed with me on.) Because this editor did not even bother with these other articles until he saw that I contributed to them recently, and right after a dispute on another article. Following someone around, and pushing POV, and changing or removing good-faith and accurate edits, simply because the person "Does Not Like It", and established provable POV bias in other articles, where he has been reverted many times by other editors because of it, etc, and then checking on someone's history because of hostility and bias, is against WP policy. The evidence is clearly there. It was not said lightly. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou has a history of disruption on Wikipedia and has done a great deal of disservice to opinions and stances he does not like and he has repeatedly been given a free pass. I support Hashem and state that Esoglou does exactly what Hashem is saying he does and I have the diffs to prove it. All anyone has to do is read the list of articles esoglou has distorted the Eastern Orthodox opinion on (theoria (talkpage), filioque, [[1]] and a list of contributions [2] just search esoglou for clarity)and then how he and Richard rewrote those articles to undermine the Eastern Orthodox opinion. WHILE REFUSING TO READ VALID SOURCES ON IT. That and look at the RFC that Taiwon boi created about Esoglou. [3] This is just Esoglou continuing his abuse of contributors here on Wiki. I refuse to edit here as Esoglou has broken his agreement with Ed Johnson at least twice and got NOTHING. Now I got a 24 hour ban, for me standing up to Esoglou and his buddies on the filioque article. Just letting you know Hashem. As this is typical par for the course-- Catholic clergy involvement with the Ustaše. LoveMonkey (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

[4] LoveMonkey (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou used to be Lima. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Esogoou has again violated editing restrictions he agreed to adher to. I have posted to administrator Ed Johnston's talkpage.[User_talk:EdJohnston#Esoglou_editing_in_Eastern_Orthodoxy_section_again] LoveMonkey (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Esoglou tried to 'out' me by addressing me by my real name here and got supressed

Eschoir (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Images in Hurricane Irene article

I know that MOS:IMAGES says images should be in the section with their relevant text. But that's a should not a must, and in my opinion sticking to it as closely as you have insisted on doing produces a less readable result. Elsewhere in the article it appears to be understood that it is more conducive to overall readability for heds to justify to the right of left-aligned images, where they are closest to the text they head.

Of course, eventually this will be irrelevant as we'll spin off those sections into individual articles. Daniel Case (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Since you simply went and reverted instead of discussing this (and I think the only confusion is on your part ... as long as the images display within the section it's more readable; I realize that there are some editors who may find this confusing but I don't think I'm one of them), I have just settled the matter permanently by right-justifying all the images in that section. Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

First, I can't find any place in MOS or elsewhere where any particular pattern of image placement is recommended. And I've tried. Like the order of category listings, we have always left it up to the individual editor. If you think there is something in policy mandating this, please show me (In fact, next to bulleted lists it's preferred to right-justify since otherwise it screws up screen readers).

But if you insist on alternating image placement, and doing it your way because you confuse "should" with "must" (and take a look at that box on top of MOS:IMAGES, it specifically says that is a guideline, not policy as you continually insist), I suggest you read this diff for someone else giving my reasoning in fuller detail as to why placing the image under the section header breaks up the text flow. I am taking this to your talk page rather than the article talk page because it seems like you and me are the only ones who care about this (and it also seems like this is the only aspect of the article you care enough to edit).

I am not going to revert you again because it occurs to me that there are other ways to resolve this that I'm going to try. But I do think your edits are not as solidly informed by policy as you think. Daniel Case (talk) 03:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You made an assumption. This is NOT the "only" aspect of the article that I care about to edit, as you did not see my very first edit, which was actually adding a whole paragraph in New York...and then soon after in Pennsyelvania. ACTUAL WORDS AND REFS. The image thing was bothering me because it made no real sense, and it seemed confusing and simply "out of place". As far as not finding anything in WP policy about "left-right" variation, there's this here: "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left (for example, Timpani)." That's the WP policy RECOMMENDATION. Too much right-aligned with multiple and many images (hence the WP suggestion) simply does not look that great to the eyes. So the WP recommendation to alter-align it here and there. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's the only aspect of that article you've been editing for a while. I also find it exasperating that you only care about this issue as it applies to one section. In the preceding section, on the impact on the mid-Atlantic states, all the images are right-justified ... yet you haven't changed them. I also went higher up and alternated a couple of images that you hadn't seen fit to apply this to. Why did you only seem to care about the images that I had added when there were similar issues with image placement elsewhere in the article?

This is the inevitable result of not having a clear policy on this, unfortunately. As you noted, that's a recommendation. As Oknazevad noted in the diff I commended to your attention, having the hed as close as possible to the text it governs increases the reader's ability to connect the two. I suspect he has, as I do, some professional experience in this area (take a look at any print newspaper (what I used to do) and you'll see that heds almost never start over what we call in the field "art").

I realize it's a quibble, and to me the real solution is to have more text in those sections and allow better spacing of images. I'm also thinking of boxing up the two NY images in {{multiple image}}, something I've done in other articles when being dogmatic either way would result in terrible misuse of space.

I'm sorry for getting on your nerves ... this is the first time I've really found myself physically in the middle of one of our "current events" articles, so I guess maybe I'm taking it a little too personally. Daniel Case (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

POV pushing

I wasn't POV pushing. I was attempting to resolve the disputed tag. Nor do I recall accusing anyone else of POV pushing. Location (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Adel al-Jubeir assassination plot

Hi, It might be a good idea to find a source before you put a potentially controversial statement on a current events page. I don't know if you're right or wrong, but it certainly was hard for me to verify, and Wikipedia guidelines point to removal when such material is unverifiable. I won't remove it again when you put it together with a source. JimSukwutput 00:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to do that, and I was about to put in a source, so if people could stop hastily deleting whole sections and words they don't like, they should let me do what I'm trying to do, or at least themselves follow WP recommendation and policy to NOT delete, but to MODIFY AND IMPROVE. There are too many POV-pushers and fact-deniers on this article already. It's getting incredibly irritating. I almost regret creating the article now. Hashem sfarim (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You could put on the source while restoring the section, rather than just restoring the uncited content first. What I saw in the edit history was that some user removed it on the grounds that it is not cited and you put it back on without indication that you have a source. Apologies for the misunderstanding. JimSukwutput 00:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You might also want to read about WP:3RR, if you haven't. You've already broken the limit. I have no intentions of reporting you, but I can't speak for other users. JimSukwutput 00:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

No sir, the WP policy is NOT to remove willy nilly, so hastily, but to rather IMPROVE it by finding a source yourself. Because then it becomes obvious that the only REAL reason you're removing is not because uh "it's not sourced", but rather because you JUST DON'T LIKE the section, and you're a POV pusher. Because not only did you remove the "Fallout" section, which had a "citation needed" tag that I put in, but you also removed the "Implications" section which WAS SOURCED !!!! What was the real excuse for that? I smell POV and fact-denying like crazy from you people on this article. And if you know anything about me, I WOULD NEVER PUT UP WITH THAT. It aint happening on my watch, sir. And don't lecture me on 3RR. You broke WP policy first with your willy nilly removals and vandalism with front excuses, and your POV-pushing. Maybe you should be "reported". Don't play that game with me, son. I won't stand for it. You broke WP policy first (even if you don't think you did, you uh did...removing the "Implications" section which WAS sourced, has no real WP basis for it, only your own personal issues.) I'll say it again: WP policy is to NOT remove but modify if need be, which of course you did not follow. You're only removing things you personally have issues with, not because they're "original research" (because they're NOT), nor because they're "not sourced", because they actually ARE. But because you personally have problems with the content and info, and would seem to rather suppress them. Instead of letting hard facts to be known.... I'm not stupid. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not interested in wikilawyering with you. What you wrote was contrary to Wikipedia policy in every sense, as half a dozen users have pointed out. Revert my edits again if you wish; just don't say I haven't warned you. JimSukwutput 00:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Implications

Some editors, who seem to POV-pushers or at least fact-deniers, seem to think that this section is purely speculative.

Saudi Arabia and Iran have long competed for power and dominance in the Middle East.[18] The alleged assassination plot would represent an escalation in the confrontation between the two.[18]

But it actually is NOT "speculation"...that "Iran and Saudi Arabia have competed for power and dominance in the Middle East". That's simply a documented fact. And is sourced. And if a person has a problem with the words "represent escalation', then maybe they can change that around. But that's factually sourced too, in a way. But the section is "implications". Removing whole sections willy nilly simply because YOU DON'T LIKE THEM...is not sound WP policy, especially if there's an editor who doesn't agree. It should be discussed on Talk, before removing like that again. Hashem sfarim (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Disagreeing with your opinion is NOT the same as not liking something! HiLo48 (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Overlink in lede

Regarding your recent wikilink changes in the lede of Italy, please see WP:OVERLINK, which advises to "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, religions, and common professions." Thank you, —MistyMorn (talk) 07:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

I misread your first edits yesterday as reverts. I'd still advise settling this on the talk page as you are trying to do. Dougweller (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6

Hi. When you recently edited Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Arian Catholicism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Divinely inspired (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Arian Catholicism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Arian Catholicism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Arian Catholicism until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 20:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Hashem sfarim. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Have you read WP:RS and WP:SPS? [5] is a personal website and is not a reliable source. The information in the section you replaced contradicts that in our article on Hinduism. You also replace the sentence that hasn't had a source since 2010. We can remove contentious unsourced information at any time and it shouldn't be replaced without a reliable source. Will you please self-revert? I can take it to WP:RSN (or you can) but I've got no doubt that other editors will back me. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox

You were actually correct on that, so I just modified the lede to mention that. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Oneness

No big deal on Oneness Pent. But the section is just too long. So please just trim it to be the size of JW and Mormon sections so we can move on. It cannot be longer those others. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, to keep it in one place, if you respond here, is easier. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 11:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I think another issue may be that Oneness Pentecostalism is not a homogeneous movement, as today there are several varieties and hundreds of denominations, and I am not sure if they all teach the same things. That point may need to be made somewhere with a ref. In any case, and long as the section is well referenced I do not care, as long as it gets trimmed to be the same size as the JW and Mormons. That section reads more like a discussion of Jesus rather than the father anyway, so should be rimmed to be mostly about the Father. And given that there is a Main I see no reason not to trim it to be the same size as the others. History2007 (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Improper revert

You are correct, my revert on God the Father ‎ was an error. My apologies. However, see below. Toddst1 (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, not sure why you saw it that way. My guess is some pre-bias against me from months ago. I'm a sincere editor, not perfect, but I do try hard. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi folks; I've been asked to comment as an uninvolved admin. Please give me a little while to read myself into the situation. I'll comment at User talk:Toddst1. TerriersFan (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Now commented on User talk:Toddst1. TerriersFan (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

one ref or two

In this diff when you reformatted what on the left appears to be a single reference, on the right it became two references. I'm guessing your 1989 reference was a separate reprint from the 1984 issue, and the present "1984" reference is not needed. Google search failed to turn up anything on the 1984 issue. Thanks in advance for looking into this matter.
—Telpardec  TALK  01:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Caps

Regarding your claim that "caps depend on context of who uses them", please note that this is not correct per Wikipedia's manual of style. WP:MOSCAP#Religions,_deities,_philosophies,_doctrines_and_their_adherents states, "Pronouns for deities and figures of veneration are not capitalized, even if capitalized in a religion's scriptures: Jesus addressed his followers, not Jesus addressed His followers (except in a direct quotation)." Further, the phrase "one who stands up" does not appear at all in JW literature. In a couple of instances, their publications say of Michael, "he stands up", and in those instances, 'he' is not capitalised.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Jeffro. I appreciate you taking the time to write on my page the other day, to convey your points and thoughts. I'm sorry I didn't respond before, days ago, to your comments and points on my page. Regarding the capitalization of words issue. I meant to respond sooner, but I was very busy the last few days. Anyway, you are very right in what you said, basically, and I was already aware that WP Policy is generally not to capitalize pronouns and such, for more neutral and encyclopedic presentations, even if the religion or group generally capitalizes them. But my point though, to make it more clear now, was when giving quotations from said religion or church or group, from their own literature.

Meaning, I wasn't saying that since a religion's literature capitalizes things then it's ok for us Wikipedians to do so. No. I already knew that that was not the case. So I didn't want you thinking that I thought that. I meant if WP sections or articles are giving direct quotes (or paraphrased quotes even) from the given literature or religion. That's really where I was coming from. What is your take on that specific point? About quotes or even semi-quotes or paraphrased quotes from their literature, giving the point that that's what they are saying and how they are wording it, not necessarily WP, when WP is giving its own summation. It can be tricky I guess sometimes, but what do you think? How would that generally work, so as to be faithful to the quotes etc, while still remaining neutral and objective regarding persons and pronouns? Because, again, my issue is with quotations, not really summations. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 05:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

When giving an actual quote from a source, capitalisation should be applied per the source. When paraphrasing a source rather than providing an actual quote, Wikipedia's rules for capitalisation apply.

However, as I stated above, the original source did not actually contain the statement as quoted at all, with or without capitalisation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I thought, I guess. That semi-quotes or paraphrased quotes basically have to remain neutral, with the caps matter. As far as the point that those were not actual quotes in that paragraph, from those refs, yes, I believe it wasn't from those specific cited refs, but more so from their overall literature. That (for example) they say "One" usually when referring to either Christ or God. But I see your point that if it's not a direct quote, we should generally go by WP manual of style, regardless. To keep it more objective overall. Hashem sfarim (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. It's also worth mentioning that honorific capitalisation of personal pronouns is not typical of JW literature overall. Note what The Watchtower has previously said on the matter. There has been no change in their editorial practice since this was written.

The Watchtower, 15 November, 1957, page 703 - Questions From Readers:

● Sometimes in your publications you capitalize personal pronouns referring to Jehovah God and Christ Jesus, but generally you do not. Why not?—W. S., United States.

It is our policy to lower-case pronouns referring to Jehovah God and Jesus Christ in all our publications, with the exception that capitals are used when other pronouns in the sentence might make the meaning doubtful. If, for instance, both Jehovah and Jeremiah are mentioned in a sentence and then in that sentence the pronoun “he” occurs, the “h” would be capitalized if the pronoun were referring to Jehovah and it would be lower-cased if it referred to Jeremiah.

In short, their policy is to capitalise only if there would otherwise be some ambiguity. (This should not be confused with their tendency to capitalise words used as titles, e.g. Redeemer.) For our purposes, statements should be re-worded if such ambiguity exists in text that is not directly quoting a source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

Hi. When you recently edited Etymological fallacy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Apologize (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Etymological fallacy

Hello, Hashem sfarim. You have new messages at Anypodetos's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

God the Father

I am sorry that you seemingly cannot be bothered to read the comments of others before engaging in your continuing off-topic comments and personal insults. Please note by the way that this is at least your second warning regarding your conduct on that page. If you could be bothered to read the comments of others, you would have noticed that I did specifically acknowledge that the Father God of the New Testament, rather than just the specifically Athanasian view, was reasonable and should be included. You claim not to trust others. In all honesty, given your own inabaility to keep comments on topic as per WP:TPG and other failures to abide by basic rules of conduct, allow me to say that there is so far as I can see little if any reason for anyone else to trust you at all. If it isn't too much of a burden on you, could you please make at least an attempt to look over the comments of others before continuing in misrepresentations of them? Thank you for no longer continuing in such unacceptable behavior in advance. John Carter (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Aggressive

Pretty aggressive post on the Mozart talk page, don't you think? Are you looking for a fight? Answer me, I'm genuinely curious to know why you expressed yourself that way. Antandrus (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No, not looking, just expecting. Case in point, look at what you just did now. To confirm my point. (Sighs...) Hashem sfarim (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I want to know. You are aware that it is basic human behavior to respond to calm and reason with calm and reason, right? And to pre-emptive accusation with -- something else? I notice you've been blocked twice for edit-warring -- you're not planning on going that route here, are you, by accusing someone of being about to start it first? Why did you express yourself so rudely? Antandrus (talk) 04:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Logical fallacy to bring up past (I mean really somewhat PAST) situations, where the other editors in those cases were ALSO "blocked" too, as if it really means much of anything, or as if it has something to do with this particular case. I was not really "rude" in my article discussion comment, but BLUNT...and honest. Other editors would not necessarily react the way you have. (Some do, some don't...depends.) Not sure why you didn't see fit to address me on the article talk, rather than here on my talk, by the way. Anyway, I was making the point that there is hyper-nit-pickiness and political-correctness that go on in Wikipedia "sometimes", and it IS insufferable after a while. And you dodge how my overall thrust was simply stating historical facts. Yet you seem to want to harp on a few blunt remarks (maybe overly-blunt in your opinion) instead of the overall substance of my comment. No need for that. Try to focus more on the sum and substance and specifics of my case, in this matter. Not an occasional blunt remark, that you could easily just take with a grain of salt. Thanks. My point is that Salzburg was NOT part of Austria at the time, but part of the overall "Germany" situation. Why is that (fact) so omitted and left out of this article? And also the fact that Mozart called himself German, and had German "blood"? His nationality is not really even mentioned at all in the article. That leaves an article like this very incomplete. Don't you agree? Hashem sfarim (talk) 04:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Mozart

I have no time to read all talks and reverts I saw happening around Mozart. I am not interested in his "blood", nor his nationality, but his music. He mostly used a French name, when he signed, a Latin one when he got official or funny. There was no "Germany" at his time. People around the globe read the English WP, not all of them know that Salzburg is in today's Austria. What's your point? (By the way, I am German.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Your personal attacks on other editors

Your personal attacks on other editors are completely unacceptable. You've had some good advice from User:Antandrus, I strongly suggest you reflect on it. If you keep this up, your current 48 hour block may well end up as a permanent one. Voceditenore (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Request

hello. Since you seem interested in the Weiner scandal article, I thought you should know that editor "Kenatipo" made a couple of edits, that seem a bit POV, and he seems to be acting as an apologist for Breitbart. Saying that it was unbeknownst to him, and that it was NOT "leaked" to the media. Yes, we know that Breitbart CLAIMS it was without his permission, but do we know that for sure? Also, even so, it definitely was leaked to Opie and Anthony by Breitbart, in that specific sense. I see a lot of blatant POV with Ketipo's latest edits. I was tempted to simply revert them, on that basis, but I wasn't sure if I should. I'd like your take on it. Please check out his edits. I doubt you'd disagree with me regarding their nature. Thanks. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello and thanks. Sorry for the (very) belated reply. My Talk Page got very congested, and I was not able to get to some of the posts. My apologies. I now have some free time to clean up some older posts on my Talk Page. Again, my apologies for the belated reply. I hope that the above situation resolved to your liking. Thanks. Happy New Year! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)