User talk:Zara1709

Nordic Race article

Hi Zara, I was specifically refering to Grant and Guenther's work. "This race is long skulled, very tall, fair skinned, with blond or brown hair and light colored eyes."  "The so-called red haired branch of the Nordic race has special characters in addition to red hair, such as a greenish cast of eye, a skin of peculiar texture tending either to great clarity or to freckles, and certain peculiar temperamental traits." "Eye color is of very great importance in race determination, because all blue, gray, or green eyes in the world to-day came originally from the same source, namely, the Nordic race of northern Europe." - Passing of the Great Race 166.205.7.54 (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

1) Add new messages AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE. 2) Give me a verifiable quote, including book title, year of publication and page number. - Then we can talk. Or you can wait until I actually have enough spare times to read a few early 20th century 'racists' myself. Zara1709 (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

My apologies friend, I did not know where exactly to post this. The quotes above are direct quotes from Passing of the Great Race by Madison Grant, the book was published in 1916, but I am using a fourth revised edition published in 1921 by Charles Scribner's Sons. The respective page numbers for the quotes are on page 20, 24, 26, and 32.

Ok, if you can provide a verbatim quote from Madison Grant, you should add it to the article, but in the appropriate place. Afterwards, we can discuss what to do with that quote. Zara1709 (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ostara (magazine)

Whether or not it's right wing (and I don't know anything about it - so no claim either way from me), (1)it is a POV statement to say it is, and (2) it is completely irrelevant in a disambiguation line linking it from an unrelated page. Aleta 22:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse my rigorous tone, but

1) it is not point-of-view to state that the magazine Ostara was right-wing. If 'right-wing' is to ambiguous for you, I could substitute it with 'racist' or 'anti-Semitic'. In 'Ostara' Lanz von Liebenfels claimed that the aryan race was superior to all other races, especially to the so-called Semitic ones. This, of course, was his subjective opinion. That he had that point-of-view and elaborated it in the magazine Ostara, however, is an objective statement.

2) Furthermore, the magazine Ostara is not unrelated to the Ostara of this article. The Magazine Ostara was named after a supposed pagan Godness Ostara. Treating Ostara and Ostara (magazine) in different articles might actually qualify as a POV fork (see Wikipedia:Content forking). I know that most neopagans would absolutely rejecet the views of Lanz von Liebensfels; but there is a relation between Germanic mysticism and Germanic neopaganism. I think this should definitely be mentioned here. Zara1709 23:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, well I removed it again (either just before or just after posting my comments above. I still disagree with you, but if you put it back, I'll leave it alone, at least for the time being. As for the separate articles, I take your point about their being related as one is named for the other. However, one is a holiday, the other a magazine - two completely different entities - so I do not think it is a POV fork for them to be in separate articles. (Likewise, I would not a magazine called Christmas necessarily to be in the article on the holiday Christmas.) Aleta 23:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I don't know if you're aware of it, but I just discovered that there are nearly identical articles called Ostara and Ostara (Easter festival). I've posted proposed merger tags on the two pages. I though you might be interested. Aleta 23:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I look it up tomorrow. I have to be in the library anyway, since I'm writing a term paper on a related topic. Brief notes on Ostara are somewhere in: "Wilfried Daim: Der Mann, der Hitler die Ideen gab. Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels." I am quite sure that the speculation about a Goddness called Ostara was first, Lanz named his magazine after her and a holiday with that name is even a more recent invention, like a neopagan Easter. And unlike Christmas, a holiday called 'Ostara' is only observed by a really small minority. Also there doesn't need to be a separate article for every topic, especially not if they are such short articles anyway. Zara1709 00:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Request

Would you please use edit summaries. I know saving repeatedly is advisable so you don't lose material, but you've made 18 consecutive edits to Eostre with only three edit summaries. Editors who use vandal fighting programs and the anti-vandal bots flag every edit you make without a summary as potential vandalism, and every time you hit "Save" without an edit summary on articles, it pops up as vandalism. With Easter coming up, even moreso. Fill the rest of the world in on what you are doing :-D - WeniWidiWiki 15:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, couldn't know that. I didn't think that bots and programs would react that paranoid. I will try to remember that. -Zara1709 16:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Germanic mysticism

Hello again. About your recent edits: I agree that the old introduction was miles too long and needed to be split, but the article already has sections on "GM and the Nazis" and on the postwar movements. Also, "relations to neopaganism" sounds a litle odd, as if Germanic neopaganism were something completely different. All the movements in the article are neopagan, even if some of them are also Christian at the same time. (Well, Wagner managed it.)

I'm thinking about moving parts of those two sections back into the intro (because they read like a summary) and moving other parts of them into the two last sections of the main text. But by all means revert me if you think it doesn't work out as good.

The other point is that much of this material was moved from Nazi mysticism into the new article because it mostly isn't a predecessor to Nazi ideology. (Hitler, after all, advocated "Positive Christianity", not Ariosophy.) Your edits broke the connection between Goodrick-Clarke and his finding that there is "little evidence of direct influence". I think it's important to note that Goodrick-Clarke himself finds few direct influences (and says so!) in spite of the title of his book.

Also, to say that the book is "rightly" titled The Occult Roots of Nazism is a point of view. I think, myself, that the book is very misleadingly titled since it actually demonstrates the opposite of what the title suggests, and I am not the first person who has commented on it. (But that is also a point of view, and I wouldn't want the article to state that one either.)

Writing over-long posts is one of my failings so I'll shut up now, but I hope we can agree on this. On the whole, our edits seem to work in the same direction. Gnostrat 00:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I knew that the edits could be problematic. When I wrote about Germanic mysticism as a predecessor to Nazi ideology in the edit summary, I meant that some ideological similarities are just striking (at least i.m.h.o.). However, I know quite well that there are but a few direct influences. I would completely agree with you to debate those few under Nazi mysticism; only that somehow the GM article has to stress the point that there are strong similarities, but few direct influences, right at the beginning. Otherwise the term Germanic mysticism would seem like a euphemism for a semi-religious racist and anti-Semitic ideology. I hopefully will find some time to work in the library with the book by Goodrick-Clarke in a few hours. I am quite sure that we can find a good agreement here. -Zara1709 04:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You see that I added some quotes from the book to that section. Still, my attempt to summarize it could be done a lot better. When I wrote that it is rightly titled The Occult Roots of Nazism, I wanted that this title is really good. A title like: The occult Side of Nazism would have been bad, because Ariosophy was not that important for Nazism. On the other hand a historian (or religious scholar, if you like) must not downplay the relation between some semi-religious ideas and a the later implementation of the same ideas. This is the point in the critique of Stephen E. Flowers by Stefanie von Schnurbein. The book by Goodrick-Clarke is good, because he manages to find the middle between these two demands.-Zara1709 10:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes that I hope we can both agree on. First, I've tried to summarise it a little better (and some other minor stuff).

Secondly, I took out the word "rightly". I see what you meant by it, but I think it can be taken for POV and the meaning still comes across without it.

More importantly, I moved the quotes on Lanz to the last section. As things stood, we were discussing Lanz and his influence on Hitler out of sequence, at a point before the guy and his ideas have been properly introduced. (Not sure about introducing the term Ariosophy at this stage either, but I've left it in for now.) The connection between Lanz and Hitler is certainly worth discussing -- and in even greater detail than so far -- but there's room for it at the end. I think the first section is more the place for a short summary or overview.

Certainly I agree that something should be said about the Nazi 'connection' right at the beginning -- but maybe putting so much emphasis on this question right at the start detracts from considering GM as a movement in its own right? I often wonder if it is intellectually healthy that we are having to look at subjects of this nature always with hindsight and with one eye on Hitler.

You're right, it's important not to obscure connections. I'm just equally concerned not to give a questionable impression that there is some historical inevitability about the chain of causes. Anyway, "Occult Roots" implies that Nazism directly and organically grew out of Germanic occultism, and that isn't an appropriate phrase when we're talking about a party that mainstream Germanic occultists (I don't mean mavericks like Wiligut!) had no control over from the year it was founded.

I'm going to make one final change which is to merge the first two sections and just call the whole thing 'Overview'. We can keep that for a brief summary of the Nazi issue and put the more detailed discussion into 'GM and the Nazis'. I hope you're ok with my edits; if not, let me know and I'll see what I can do. Gnostrat 05:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, we still seem to disagree on the emphasis, that should be given to the relation between Germanic mysticism and Nazi mysticism. In my opinion their ideological similarities make the first a predecessor to the latter. This does not mean that I would endorse a view of historical inevitability. If it had not been for the crisis of the Weimarer Republik, Hitler would not have come to power, I think. This irrational occult sub-current did not really influence the political events. And - so much for direct influences - none of the ariosphic occultist later could influence nazi politics either. With all this modern mythology of Nazi occultism around, it would be quite important to distinguish between these two kinds of influences. I don't know if this is sufficient to explain my point. However, I don't want to spent too much time on wikipedia, and from my political viewpoint I can live with the articles as they are a.t.m. Living in Germany and dealing with German history, I have to look at this subject always with one eye on Hitler. I also wondered often if it is intellectually healthy to do this - this subject really destroys your faith in the good in humanity. But this 'evil' will not go away if one ignores it, although many people, especially in Germany, attempt this. -Zara1709 12:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Christianization in Europe

Zara, thanks for you response to my static IP address regarding the points and additions I made to Christianization in Europe. Please feel free to contact me at American_cavalier@yahoo.com. Thanks!

Strohm

Hello Zara, just a note to say I haven't forgotten about the Strohm book. I'm having some problems with my e-mail connectivity and I will mail you as soon as I have it fixed. Gnostrat 20:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Amazing Stories Lemuria.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Amazing Stories Lemuria.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Has cleared. -Zara1709 11:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Temple at Uppsala

Hi Zara, I see that you have run into the problem of the excavations under the church at Gamla Uppsala. Personally, I do *not* trust the excavation analysis, because I have studied archaeology and I am familiar with how extremely difficult it is to "confirm" anything. The excavations under the church found several wooden constructions, but the archaeologist in charge of the excavation did not consider the finding "conclusive" as to whether there was a pagan temple under the church, or not. The wooden constructions could have been the temple or an early wooden church.--Berig 15:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the information. Probably you might want to take a look at the controversies at Persecution of Germanic Pagans and Historical persecution by Christians. -Zara1709 15:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I will have a look later, or tomorrow. I am not too fond of "persecution of X" and "persecution by X" articles because by nature they are havens of both allegations and apologeticism. Good work on the article, BTW.--Berig 16:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Christianization of Sweden

It's great that you began a revision of this section. There are many things to say about this part of Swedish history, and as your edits correctly emphasised, there was a long and rather peaceful co-existence.--Berig 19:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your no-nonsense approach and valuable work in cleaning up murky topics in disarray, such as Nazi occultism. dab () 13:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation. However, I can't understand what the difficulty behind Nazi occultism was anyway. One only needs to look it up in Goodrick-Clarke's book. I am more concerned about the whole religious persecution issue. -Zara1709 13:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

yes I know, it's only a matter of sitting down and doing it properly. The point is that certain topics attract more chaff than others. I've expressed what I think of the "persecution series" here. There are obviously some valid titles, such as Persecution of Huguenots under Louis XV. Others, such as "Persecution of Ancient Greek religion should be gently merged into more constructive approaches. dab () 13:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Persecution of Germanic Pagans issue

Liftarn, this is the final notice before I take this to the appropriate administrator noticeboard. We have a fundamental disagreement about the question whether there was a persecution of Germanic pagans and about whether there was a continuity of Germanic Paganism into the present time. The burden of proof is on your side. I have been willing to sort this out, but the discussion has been leading nowhere. It is also apparent that you performed your last revert at exactly 24:01 hours after the 2nd previous one. -Zara1709 15:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice timing. I did not notice. There are references given for each case (sometimes several) so I don't see what more I have to proof. I have also presented a published academic journal/book (it's a rather thin book and it has both ISBN and ISSN numbers) as evidence. You have so far been utterly unwilling to discuss the issue. // Liftarn

Liftarn, in the beginning I had accepted that the burden of proof was on my side. However, in the discussion on Talk:Historical persecution by Christians it became obvious that the burden of proof that there was a persecution of Germanic Pagans is on your side. Read Wikipedia:Fringe theories and make sure that you understand this. I said this previously, and you have never replied to it: If someone demands European history to be rewritten, he readily admits that he is an academic outsider. This is far below a request for mediation. If you continue to be disruptive, I have to ask that you get banned, at least from editing the relevant pages. -Zara1709 15:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And I have indeed added information with references. As I said before you are entitled to your opinion however I must ask you not to be disruptive and use sources for all your statements in articles. // Liftarn

So you are accusing me of being disruptive and and not stating my sources? Does this mean that I am entitled to the opinion that you are not capable of applying Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Fringe theories effectively? -Zara1709 16:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The editing have been a bit messy at times, but I recall that you have added strong statements without sources. If I'm wrong please excuse me. Are you interested in making the articles better or more interested in ad hominem attacks? // Liftarn

No, I can't excuse this at the moment. There is no need to debate this further. -Zara1709 17:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I do think there is an obvious need to discuss the development of the articles. // Liftarn

what you are doing, Liftarn, is not honest discussion. You are playing (I hope) stupid in an attempt to spin the articles in your desired direction. You insist on building entire articles on "persecution" based on a single dubitable internet page stating prison inmates in a high security tract in some US prison at one point in 2001 were deprived of their Thor's Hammer medallions. That's ridiculous. You should accept with good grace that if you have no case, you have no case, no matter how much you wish you had a case. Anything else is not good faith editing. dab () 09:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's count the sources again. I find four sources. I don't think The Boston Globe, NY Times and the First Amendment Center can be called "a single dubitable internet page". The only source that can be called that is perhaps PrisonerLife.com. // Liftarn

yes, so that's three reliable sources reporting that US courts uphold religious righs in US prisons. Where is the "persecution"? dab () 09:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I find we already have a full article on this, Cutter v. Wilkinson. This is patently not about Asatru in particular, since the very claimants include a Satanist, a Wiccan and a white supremacist "Christian" besides two Asatruers. dab () 10:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Since we are discussing this on my discussion page, let me add here too, that I would suggest to merge that part into Prisons in the United States.Zara1709 10:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I am actually enjoying this sort of thing now and again. It may have something to do with seeing all the puerile stupidity at large on the internet somehow makes one feel very mature and intelligent by comparison :) dab () 19:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Lords of Chaos

Yes I've read the book. I would be glad to help you out to make this a B article. What would you like me to do? Jmm6f488 16:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Now, for one thing I have only read the first edition. So if you have read the 2nd edition, you could help verify that it was indeed updated with a section on Nazi Ufos. Secondly, I need to decide if that book falls within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Neopaganism or other projects. And 3rd, I think his "Wotanism"-thesis should be mentioned. The reason for the last point has something to do with my edits at Nazi occultism, but that should become obvious once we start. Zara1709 17:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Socionomics article

Zara, thanks for your thoughtful remarks on the socionomics talk page. Please know that I did not rewrite and post the socionomic article to "challenge" anyone -- I took scrupulous care to show that it meets all of Wikipedia's article standards. I also made sure I consulted the guide to deletion, which says:

If you think that an article was wrongly deleted, you can recreate the article. If you do decide to recreate it, pay careful attention to the reasons that were proffered for deletion. Overcome the objections, and show that your new, improved work meets Wikipedia article policies….If you manage to improve on the earlier version of the article and overcome its (perceived) shortcomings, the new article cannot be speedily deleted, and any attempt to remove it again must be settled before the community, on AFD.

I hope you agree that this does allow a careful editor to present a new and improved work. Thanks.--Rgfolsom 01:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Lords of Chaos

I think you have done a good job so far with cleanup. I agree that Moynihan tries to make Black Metal into some type of mystic-fascist reawakening. His buddy Boyd Rice does the same thing with industrial and noise music. I think he also takes the Nazi imagery out of context. In the USA many Latino biker gangs use swastika's and Nazi images to shock people, not because they are Nazis. (Its kind of hard to be for white power if your not white). I think that many of the members of Black Metal bands did this when they were younger for the same reason, not because they were really Nazis.

I though you did a really good job with this article the one sentence you might want to consider changing would be:

Apparently, Moynihan is not so much interested in Black Metal as a subgenre of Heavy metal music, but in Black Metal as an extreme right political movement. He "is less concerned with sound than fury."[1] The last part of the final chapter is devoted to the tale of Ragnarök:

To maybe:

Apparently, Moynihan is not as interested in Black Metal as a subgenre of Heavy metal music, but in Black Metal as an extreme right political movement. He "is less concerned with sound than fury."[1] The last part of the final chapter is devoted to the tale of Ragnarök:

This is a minor changes but the first gives the impression that he is more or less unfamiliar with Black Metal (even though this may be the case) the second just seems less POV.

Great job!!! Jmm6f488 18:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

PS. You should change that "speaks English at a near native level" userbox, I thought from the way you wrote you were an American or from England. ;). Jmm6f488 07:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I commented on the talk page for this article. I asked Cyrus XIII if he could please show example of a non-neutral point of view instead of just tagging the whole article. I myself didn't see any huge point of view problem then again, I am in agreement with you on most points about both this author and this book. However, even if there maybe some small amount of bias in the article against Moynihan that we have both missed, I can't see it calling for a dispute tag. Maybe he just disagreed with the wording of a few sentences and was to quick to tag the whole article. I do think that if he is unable or unwilling to provide actually instances of bias in the article that the "neutrality dispute tag" should be removed. As it stands now, he gave no reason at all for placing the tag on the article. Jmm6f488 01:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I posted what I think are the two different versions that you and Cyrus think should be the opening to the article, please check and make sure they are correct. Jmm6f488 20:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think your right but I think that there are editors who will agree with Cyrus. It maybe best to figure out what his criticisms are and change those parts that are not central to the article. Once we can get to the fundamentals then it will be easier to fill out the article without a lot of people trying to change the wording of the existing article.Jmm6f488 20:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hitler and the Occult Screenshot.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Hitler and the Occult Screenshot.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 17:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

help expanding article?

Would you like me to help you expand the contents section of the article. You seem to know a lot more about occult subjects than I do, but I am a big fan of both death metal and black metal and could help out particularly on the first few chapter of the book. Jmm6f488 21:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I add some new stuff particularly a link to National Socialist black metal that Moyhnihan spends most of the book obsessing about. Jmm6f488 16:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Rightist Moynihan

This is from the German Wikipedia of Lords of Chaos. If I remember any of my German I think this says that Moynihan is a rightist extremist. (rechtsextremistische?) :

Dies hängt unter anderem mit den Verstrickungen von Michael Moynihan in die rechte bis rechtsextremistische Szene zusammen.

Jmm6f488 00:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't get discouraged

You have done a great job on the article. I think if he had actually read the book he would see there is no POV pushing going on. Anyway I made some changes to the article feel free to change anything I have added. The way I feel is that the article would still be basically a stub or start if you had not worked so hard on it. This is why I think you deserve final say on most of the edits. I think he is trying so hard to be neutral that the article misses some of the points Moyinahan brings up. Anyway keep up the good work! Jmm6f488 00:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletes

I hope none of the deletes were my fault. Anyway make a page like User:Zara1709/sandbox and store all your proposed editing there, that way you don't lose it. Jmm6f488 02:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• on an unrelated topic, I love Schwarzbiers what are some good brands I might be able to special order them in the states. I've tried some domestics and some local breweries that are owned by Germans and have always been impressed. Any suggestions? Jmm6f488 02:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the edits are all preserved in the backlog. See the diff from 16:34, August 11, 2007. I would have appreciated it if you had reverted to my version and continued to edit that one, but Cyrus XIII would never have agreed to that anyway.

• And unfortunately I am mostly (but not completely) Abstinenzler concerning alcohol. I know that there are probably thousands of beer brands in Germany, but I have only tasted a few and none of the was a Schwarzbier. Zara1709 02:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

cool, it must be hard in living in Germany being almost sober. You also make the best white wines. Anyway sorry I edited on top of of Cyrus' version not yours. As I said feel free to change any of the wording I put in. The only problem I think some of your edits have is tense. Which is understandably. From what I've heard from foreign speakers of English, English is easy to learn but we have a strange system of grammar. Don't feel bad, I barely passed an introduction to German and can't carry on a basic conversation in German. Jmm6f488 02:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Merging Fallen angels and Evil Angels

You indicated a willingness to perform the merge. Still willing? Pairadox 01:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but unfortunetely I only rarely have access to the internet at the moment. If I have q constqnt Internet connection again, I will do it. Zara1709 12:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Lords of Chaos

I think that that one guy is gone if you would like to continue editing this page I will help you. Jmm6f488 07:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think, I will add a few important points back into that article. But I only have access to the Internet at a Computer at the University at the momenent, so I don't have the ressources to work some new stuff in. I also made a note about this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Of course, if you have some ideas of what do add, just do it. Zara1709 10:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for Thanking me

I'm new to editing on wikipedia, though I have used the site for a long time. I knew Lords of Chaos was full of crap anyways. I have a wide knowledge of metal and its history. So thanks for the kudos.Navnløs 18:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I could use your help

I don't know whether or not your into metal, but I made this article, Bestial Warlust, and now some people are trying to get it deleted becuase they dont think the band is noteworthy enough, and some other errors. I put my case here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bestial Warlust and would appreciate any help. I'm sure my article isn't perfect, and it made need some editing (after all I'm a n00b to this), but I believe this band deserves a page here on Wikipedia. You can see my reasons for that belief in my case. Thank you.Navnløs 22:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow thank you for helping me with that information. That was great stuff, and if I wasn't clear on my case, you certainly came up with a great reason to keep that article all by yourself.Navnløs 21:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Link to Esotericism in Germany and Austria

The link in the anthroposophy article is a bit of a stretch, especially as the visible text and the article linked to are quite different in nature. "Spiritual and philosophical research" is not coextensive with German and Austrian esotericism. The latter article is interesting, though it needs some work; can we find another place to link to it (see also?)? Hgilbert 17:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Your new link is much better. Hgilbert 11:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes it takes a second attempt. :) (In don't mind you reverting the first attempt at all.) If you know something about the early history of Anthroposophy, would you like to help with Esotericism in Germany and Austria. My source is on Ariosophy, it doesn't include much about Anthroposophy. Zara1709 11:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Amazing Stories Lemuria.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Amazing Stories Lemuria.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Amazing Stories Lemuria.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Amazing Stories Lemuria.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Amazing Stories Lemuria.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Amazing Stories Lemuria.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Alleged Dubya quotes

The two sources you use for the statements allegedly made by Bush are both from sources with a strong anti-Bush POV. Our standards as to reliable sources require sourcing from impartial third-party sources, not parties to the controversies involved. If he said it, it should be easy to source from the local papers there or other contemporary reports. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually I don't live in the United States and I don't care THAT MUCH about this issue. But if no one else has written the few lines that are necessary to give the basic information about this, I guess I have to do it. Please consider participating in the discussion on Talk:Separation of church and state in the United States. Zara1709 (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Guten Tag, Herren

Hello, I realize we have not talked in a long time, but you once thanked me for helping with the Lords Of Chaos article. You also once helped keep the Bestial Warlust article that I created. Once again, the article got nominated for deletion by a certain user I have had spats with. This time there is no way it will get deleted, however, if you like, feel free to comment on whether it should be kept or not. Thanks. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear Lord... Pat sighs... It is my personal opinion that the article should be deleted. I did not AfD the article because it was created by Navnlos. I have already stated on my talk page that I did not even know he created the said article. Scarian^Talk 12:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

My mistake

I'm sorry, I made a mistake: I thought I was "reverting" an edit that had long before been reverted. Apologies, please ignore the edit. dab () 15:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Historical persecution by Christians

Hi, the reason behind nominating this article for deletion was POV forking as the info could go into other Persecution of X articles. However, if this article stay, then I think other similar article like Persecution by Hindus etc. should be created otherwise article like this will become POV. Wikipedia has article on persecution by Christians, persecution by Muslims, but not persecution by Hindus. But throughout the history, there are numerous incidents of religious persecution by Hindus, against Buddhist in ancient times, and against Muslims and Christians in modern times. I think this gap should be filled. BTW I am withdrawing my nomination of Historical persecution by Christians since most of the people are eager to keep. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason you couldn't try to create an article Persecution by Hindus. But from what I know about the topic (which is essentially what I've learned from dealing with a section in religious persecution) you might not be able to find enough reliable sources that speak of "persecution". That we have cases of religious violence by Hindus should not be controversial, however. The appropriate place to deal with this would be Status of religious freedom in India. Concerning the 'Persecution by Christians' article - I am going to clean it up further and have proposed to move it in the meantime. Zara1709 (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Zara1709, I have to renominate the article for deletion because their are diverse opinions. I do understand that you do not feel good if an article with your contributions get deleted. But you and we all have to respect other's opinions also. As their are opinions for deleting the article, I am renominating it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Zara. During the AfD I don't believe we saw eye to eye with respect to the arguments we forwaded. Perhaps it was due to the discussion occuring in the context of the AfD, wherein opinions will always be polarised and stances can easily be misunderstood. I also didn't mean to come across as confrontational, if that impression was being given. I think the renamed article (i.e. "Christian debate on ...") has more potential in terms of encyclopedicity - so I don't think the rename was a step back, but I do feel it wasn't well timed (that's in the past now, however). It can also always cite historical examples in the context of the debate. But I still have a problem with indiscriminate listings. If I have the time, I would be happy to discuss this with you further on the talk page. Regards, ITAQALLAH 18:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I took the last two weeks for some improvement on article. I also thought about whether my arguments were correct, but I didn't find anything wrong with them. The only reason for our strong disagreement that I can see is that have a strong inclusionist view [1] and you have a strong deletionist view [2]. But on the other hand - whereas there are probably no reliable sources for cases of persecution by Hindus, there are sufficient reliable sources for persecution by Christians; if I would spent a day on this I could probably gather the titles of 200 history books that deal with the topic. I actually just worked though one completely, the book by Coffey which I have quoted repeatedly. I can see the point in your concern that the article in its old state was probably a case of wp:SYN, and if we had talked outside of an afd about the topic, I would have been much less polemical. But this wasn't the argument for which the article was proposed for deletion in the first place. The point that Augistine, Aquinas, Luther and Calvin have advocated religious persecution is in no way content forking from an article Persecution of Christians or any other "Persecution of" topic. And afds are like either/or questions anyway: either the article gets deleted or it doesn't. You can't compromise there. I was going to rewrite the article anyway, and I have already done some of the work. I will need to take a break from WP for a few days now, but when I am back I would welcome your comments. Zara1709 (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Collapsable sections

Hi! You have done considerable work on the {{Nazism sidebar}}. There has been considerable discussion on the issue of the collapsable sections of templates like that one. I created a centralized place for discussion about this issue here. I hope you can bring your views to the discussion. - C mon (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edits at WP:N/CA

I just wanted to say thank you for your edits - you've really tightened the text up and made it easier to understand Fritzpoll (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Nordic theory → Nordic race

Regarding your above request, WP:RM does not handle article merges, only article moves. If consensus has been achieved (to be honest, the talk page is a mess, and I didn't look through the whole thing), you should probably either list your request at WP:PM or appeal to a administrator who has extensive article-merging experience (I'm sorry I don't have one to recommend off the top of my head). JPG-GR (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is, the article IS ALREADY MERGED. But I merged the shorter article Nordic race in the longer article Nordic theory. Now only the current Nordic theory article needs to be moved to Nordic race, but since the discussion of that page needs to be archive somewhere, this will require some effort. I am sorry if the words "complex merger situation" were misleading, but this is what I meant by them. Zara1709 (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Religion freedom map.png

Hi there, about the map I have actually created it by using a website that provides maps; the book is actually called 'The Atlas of Religion' by Joanne O'Brien & Martin Palmer. They have given the maps on the internet which can be opened by PDF, so I have just used it from there to create it from openDemocracy[3].

AfD nomination of Thule Society

An article that you have been involved in editing, Thule Society, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thule Society. Thank you. LeadSongDog (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:N/CA

Because of the limited discussion, this proposal was marked rejected. It can be resurrected at any time, and may become useful in the future, but for now, just wanted to thank you for your contributions. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thule deletion and edit/opinion wars

Zara, I tried to go in and at first cite and then NPOV the reference to Hitler in both the Walpurgisnacht and Thule Society pages. I see that my work in attempting to find middle ground pending credible sources for both has come to naught. I DO want to make a point of your statement that Hitler had NO interest in the occult. I have no clue what he was interested in, but there is a definite link (or association, as I tried to word it) between him and members of Thule. In the interest of NPOV and Encyclopedic form, I tried to keep the article unbiased. To state what you did without citations is, IMHO, not scholarly, and I don't want to get into an edit war on the page. I'm having trouble finding an academic enough source to show that, in the least, the people surrounding him WERE interested in the occult via the Thule Society, and thus his association. I'm open to discussion via email, or even better, phone. I've got free LD in North America, and also respond to email quicly. I'm also a member of the Neopaganism Project, and interested in "the Occult", although I prefer to call it "Gnosticism". Perhaps we might chat... chill AT r351570r.com Shamanchill (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you had gotten that impression, but I did not mean to assume bad faith, I just didn't have much time when I correct that one point. If you are interested in the topic, read The Occult Roots of Nazism (and don't believe things that are said in tv-documentaries.) I would write a longer apology, but I don't have much time now, either. Zara1709 (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I liked your edit in Walpurgisnacht. It was what I was trying to convey. I'll read the article you posted shortly, but still think that an "association" with Thule is appropriate to mention, given the number of, from what I've read, confirmed memebers in his inner circle. Shamanchill (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Mind if I jump in here? The Thule article actually does mention that Hans Frank and Rudolf Hess had been members before they became leading Nazis, but other associations only amount to people like Rosenberg and Eckart having attending some meetings. So, strictly speaking, there were no confirmed (and continuing) members in Hitler's inner circle. To rephrase what Zara said, don't believe everything you've read either. Reliable sources matter just as much as NPOV. I think the article as it stands is getting the balance about right and, since these questions are dealt with in the text, I don't feel that we need to make a lengthy point about it in the lead. Good to hear of your Neopagan/Gnostic interests, Shamanchill, and feel free to drop by my talk page if you want to discuss anything : ) Gnostrat (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind at all, and always welcome discourse. I'll concede the point for now, and agree about "History Channel Documentaries" (interested more in sensationalism than academic validity). That's what got me going on this, in that someone had a claim from one such documentary added to the Walpurgisnacht page and I was trying to work with it a bit to remove the bias. It's probably not worth the time involved to find that NPOV middle ground, although I think that there may be some validity to the "association" I mention and perhaps even and ideological link between the two organizations, whether Hitler was cognizant of it or not. Sending more specific comments to your own talk page, and thanks Zara for your time... . Shamanchill (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Lost lands (mergure)

Just dropping a note on your mergure suggestion for this article. I would like to save the prehistorical facts and registered history about some lost lands as a seperate article if this mergure would occur. This is the part about the real submerged lands, probably with a general introduction that is not so much different from the present one, probably with a distinction between proven submerged lands from prehistorical times (Zealandia, Doggerland) and recorded history (Strand, Reimerswaal). Maybe a bit more complicated than just merging, but still worthwhile. Tschüß! Pepijnk (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Maria Orsitsch

Hi Zara! Following a link from the german WP I found this article. I have some serious problems with it's contents and the non-fictitious way they are presented. As you did some very good work on the Vril-article i would just like to discuss with you whether the MO-article should be rewritten oder deleted (in the moment, i prefer the last). As writing on english is always somewhat complicated for me, i have also added a note on your german disk-page. nice greetings, Crypto-ffm (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanx! Deletion was the best solution :-). heartly, 10:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crypto-ffm (talk • contribs)

race egypt

i removed your race and culture section you cant be pitting two extreme views against one and another in the lead section and holdong a biased toward one or another it should hold for the most part mainstream views of egyptology today not the nordicist or afrocentrics views though it could be mentioned in race and culture but without a biased toward one or another,or in seperate sections, race and culture section its to sypathetic toward afrocentric leanings--Wikiscribe (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

your edit was removed again there are serious issues with your re work of the article and dont seem nuetral and issues have been raised on the talk page ,race of the ancient egyptians is a highly controverial issue so before makeing any further major changes post your changes on the talk page so a consenous can be reached,any further reverting will end up with the request the page being fully protected from any editing from an administrator--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge that there may been an issue with my writing. But on the other hand YOU have an issue with your conduct. We can have a "serious" discussion on the article talk page, but don't delete without discussion first. Zara1709 (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Christian debate on persecution and toleration

Hi, I think this article should be renamed to "Religious persecution by Christians". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I know that you are of this opinion, but do you have any arguments? You wrote previously on my talk page: "But you and we all have to respect other's opinions also." Actually, I don't have to. Imagine yourself in an university's history course on Christian history, and someone is of the opinion that Christians have never persecuted each other or other religions. You would not need to respect that opinion, because it is not sustainable and because the person who is of this opinion doesn't know much about Christianity: What about Augustine? What about Luther? What about Calvin? What about the Inquisition? etc...

On the other hand, imagine yourself handing in a paper titled "Persecution by Christians"; not titled "Persecution by Christians in the late Antiquity / late middle Ages / early modern times" but titled "Persecution by Christians". You can expect to get an F, because the teacher will ask: What about Locke? What about Pope John Paul II? What about Dietrich Bonhoeffer? or: What about Jesus himself?

We need an article on this. (Of course, it is relevant.) But we need an article that gives both sides. Debating one without the other would be against wp:NPOV. Zara1709 (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge tags

Zara, I have no objection to the merge you proposed, but you should date your tags. There is a large backlog of mergers to be cleared and without a date on the tag we can't tell if this is obsolete. If you need any help with the process, I'm glad to help. good luck with your merger. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Religious toleration

Privileges can be granted by law. Indeed, they usually are; hence the etymology of the word ( < leges privae). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the Act of Toleration was a "real milestone" towards the right of religious freedom. For the first time toleration did not longer depend on the personal attitude of the ruler or the political circumstances. Zara1709 (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I would describe this as Whig history, were Macaulay not a prominent source against it. The Act of Toleration was an unsystematic bundle of privileges. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

So you rather take the revisionist position? I've got that about the "real milestone" from Coffey, who is taking a "post-revisionist" view. But I am currently busy with other topics, and won't have the time to debate this much further. (Aside from the point that I would need to read a little more on this.) So we can just leave it at you version. Ideally, though, the article would need to be expanded to debate this. Zara1709 (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should be. But revisionist from whom? My source is Macaulay's History of England Chapter XI:

The sound principle undoubtedly is, that mere theological error ought not to be punished by the civil magistrate. This principle the Toleration Act not only does not recognise, but positively disclaims. Not a single one of the cruel laws enacted against nonconformists by the Tudors or the Stuarts is repealed. Persecution continues to be the general rule. Toleration is the exception. Nor is this all. The freedom which is given to conscience is given in the most capricious manner. A Quaker, by making a declaration of faith in general terms, obtains the full benefit of the Act without signing one of the thirty-nine Articles. An Independent minister, who is perfectly willing to make the declaration required from the Quaker, but who has doubts about six or seven of the Articles, remains still subject to the penal laws.

I would also agree with Macaulay that it succeeded in securing peace, and is laudable for doing so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC for Race of Ancient Egyptians

An RfC has begun for this article and I noticed that you may have some interest in this topic so I thought that I'd let you know. Thanks.--Woland (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler and Ludwig Wittgenstein

Hi, I've just spent some considerable time looking into this. It's not been confirmed that the boy indicated is LW. The highest I've seen it put is "highly probable", and I don't think we can go beyond that. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 13:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That's why I suggested "has been identified". If we link the book that purports that thesis, that should be a neutral formulation. I personally only once read an article on this, I've done more one the relation between Hitler and Lanz von Liebenfels.Zara1709 (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Empire vs. Reich]

Well, this has been hashed out in the talk at length. "Empire" is sometimes a translation of "Reich, but it is not the literal translation. Look at the the current English usage. Find a single published scholarly book that uses "Third Empire" instead of "Third Reich," for example. In an earlier post on talk, I cited Richard Evans, who in one of the best recent books on the Third Reich explains the why he stays with Reich:

'Reich,' which, as Chapter 1 explains, had particular, untranslatable resonances in German far beyond its English equivalent of 'empire'.... This is a word which ought be be familiar to every English-speaking reader, and it would be artificial to speak, for example of the 'Third Empire' instead of the 'Third Reich'.... (p. xxxi).

If you're going to argue for "Empire" as a translation, how about providing evidence that experts in the area use it. Bytwerk (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The historian you quote is, I would totally agree, correct. However, in the context of Nazi Germany, the same goes for Volk. English historians too only speak of the völkisch movement, if you want I can give you a quote for this. And, when the word is applied to Hitler, Führer doesn't necessarily need to be translated. Since many historians leave Volk untranslated, too, well we should go with the literal translation Volk=People, Reich=Empire, Führer=Leader OR leave the Motto completely untranslated. If you want to make sure that the English-speaking reader will be aware of the difficulties of the translation, do a wikidictionary entry on Volk and Reich, we could link those then.

On the other hand though, the two German state formations, to which the Nazis claimed a historic continuity in using the word Reich, are described in English as German Empire and Holy Roman Empire, respectively. To point this out to an English-speaking reader, it would be necessary to translate Reich as Empire. Zara1709 (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Your current edit to the article deals with the situation nicely. Thanks. Bytwerk (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Re this edit summary. Yes, that was a repair based on the disambiguation manual of style WP:MOSDAB. I removed the redlinks and the pipelink, moved the list of name holders to the end, and removed the extraneous name tags, which would be appropriate if the name holder list were split off to its own article. Please read WP:MOSDAB and leave off your oblique insults in your edit summaries. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If you take a look at the edit history, you will see that I spent at least 15 minutes figuring out the full name of an Italian political scientist. I don't care if the MoS says that there shouldn't be redlinks in disambig-pages. [Emilio Gentile]] would deserve his own article, and on the Italian WP he already got one. Furthermore, changing: "Gentile is the English word for a non-Jew" to " A Gentile is a non-Jew. " might be more formally in-line with the MoS, but if you look at the article "Gentile", the first version fits better. And considering that the question whether someone was a Jew or a non-Jew has historically often been a question of life or death, I would say that the first version displays more diligence. And, please inform the readers that Gentile is also a common Italian name, or do you want to leave him wonder why some people of Italian origin have a name that means "non-Jew". I think you edits reduced the encyclopaedic value of the disambig page, therefore my rhetorical question in the edit summary. This was not an issue of civility - if you want examples of that take a look at the recent controversy at Talk:History of Hinduism. I probably should have been more polite, but I couldn't think of anything better. Of course, if you have good arguments why you revision is better, feel free to discuss it. I personally wouldn't split the disambig-page, but if you want to make the effort I am not going to oppose it. (Just leave my political scientist in there.) Zara1709 (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:OWN. Just because you spent 15 minutes figuring out the full name of a non-notable scientist doesn't mean the information has to stay (if it's a notable scientist, please create a stub article for him; there's no way to verify whatever you found in 15 minutes otherwise). Not being able to think of anything better doesn't excuse snide edit summaries. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Woah, by your standards you're being uncivil now. Emilo Gentile is notable, which you could have seen if you'd had checked "What links here" in accordance with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). I never claimed that I would own that article, I am only trying to write an encyclopaedia on the religious aspects of Nazism here, and this political scientist is someone who has written about this. Zara1709 (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Devil's advocate

I appreciate your efforts on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Deletion of Walter Sedlmayr edit history required, and especially like that your arguments are thought out and without pleas to emotion especially in the face of others who would rather use wikipedia on the basis of vengeance. However I feel you may have overlooked my arguments for their inclusion, which were hidden amongst my devil's advocate opposition to the other people on the side of inclusion simply because they were murderers and thus had no rights and thus we need to "punish" them. If you could go back and read my reasons for inclusion and get back to me I would appreciate it (I am also studying Rousseau currently, along with Kant and Locke). –– Lid^(Talk) 01:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Strangely I only just realised I originally wrote my arguments in opposition to your own arguments but got distracted by having to fight against Bugs' self crusade against what he termed "left wing bleeding heart" bias to remove the names, a designation I found hilarious as I have no illusions I am anywhere but on the left wing of political ideals but have found grounded reasons for my point of view. –– Lid^(Talk) 01:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I am trying. After the initial head has cooled down, it should be possible to sort out the issue in a polite and civil manner (which doesn't mean that I don't have strong views, though.) I've taken another look at your arguments, and I will take a longer one on them tomorrow, and will try to give you a comprehensive reply either here or at the discussion page, but I didn't find the time for this today. Zara1709 (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the eventual reply, and I have responded as well. However in that time it seems another user has entered the fray to your side, Lyn, who has taken part of the Bugs method of insulting opposition to their views as out and out wrong just in a more condescending way rather than straight out. It's pretty sad when after crafting a response they effectively write a long winded reply that is equivelent to "nuh uh you're just wrong". –– Lid^(Talk) 07:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right

My recent replies have been curt and sharp rather than my usual politeness, but I can to a small degree explain it. I can take obvious insults, or even bull-headed stubbornness easily and consistantly (when I was up for adminship I was voted in because I was able to keep a near level head at all time). However, what this particular discussion seems to have gotten to me on isn't the content of the debate, I've been i many of these, but rather my perceived way in that Lyn has been dismissive of me and condescending to my replies which I specifically seem to have grown to bear a grudge against in that debate. This has absolutely nothing to do with the content of Lyn's replies, only the way they have protrayed them (its the same as Bugs, I agree to a certain degree with Bugs content but find the way he portrays them to be wrong and terrible).

I always, always, give everyones arguments a fair shot and in this debate have never said your side has no merit and will concede to degrees the philosophical implications however I am on the other side because I find their argument more compelling and closer to backed by wikipedias policies.

In the talk pages of yourself, and Lyn, I have maintained a calm demeanor (at least I hope to have) but the debate has run on to the point of argumentum ad nauseum with no possible conclusion in sight, especially as it's being held on an ANI subpage that is not linked to on ANI itself. To get a wider consensus to this issue, which is what needs to happen not just two sets of people spewing words at each other, it needs a wider forum. –– Lid^(Talk) 22:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Discrimination against atheists

Could u pls start a discussion for your merge proposal. Thanks. Docku: What up? 18:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

3RR at Adolf Hitler

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Adolf Hitler. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

I think you could be unblocked at once if you agree to cease edit warring on this article. To be specific, you should wait for a consensus of the other editors on the Talk page that the claim about Hitler's Catholicism belongs in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Race of the Sphinx

Re the Race of the Sphinx debate - in order to preserve the difference between factual articles and unsupported opinions, should this section perhaps be moved from the Sphinx article to the existing Ancient Egyptian race controversy article, which already has some relevant discussion? Wdford (talk) 11:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I replied at Talk:Great Sphinx of Giza‎. Zara1709 (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

"Race"/Ethnicity of Tutankhamun

I've responded at length.[4] Comments? deeceevoice (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to comment there, but I spent my today's work on Wikipedia at the dumb debate whether we should say that Adolf Hitler was "nominally Catholic". If you would like, you might want to comment on the issue at Talk:Adolf Hitler#Hitler, nominally Catholic?. I, for my part, am totally convinced that my a source for this is fine and that some other editors just can't accept this because it wouldn't fit in their world view. I know that you probably can't wait for an answer at Talk:Tutankhamun, but one of the reasons why I started the discussion the way I did was that we could take time for the discussion then. There is no risk of an edit war, since we haven't actually started to work the material into the article yet, very unlike the current issue at the Hitler-article. I should find the time for a reply at Talk:Tutankhamun tomorrow, unless, of course, there is another edit war about Adolf Hitler. Zara1709 (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, looks as if I didn't find the time today. You'll get a reply for sure, but it might just be that it will take a few days. Zara1709 (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, technically speaking, I suppose Hitler could have been just about anything. In researching something else about Nazi Germany and Jewish stereotypes, I came across the fact that Hitler was mostly a vegetarian, though he supposedly had a weakness for certain fare from his native region that included sausage and a few other meat-based dishes. I never knew that. The guy was concerned about animal welfare and actually wanted to outlaw the eating of meat in Germany and, eventually, throughout Europe. Imagine that. (I'm a former vegan, so I understand the sentiment -- though its clear this a**hole was a zealot in just about everything.) He couldn't stomach the idea of shooting a harmless woodland creature, but had no compunction about directing the slaughter of millions of innocent human beings. If anyone doubts Hitler was clinically and criminally insane, I'd say that's a pretty good indication!

About Tut -- I'm in no hurry. I figure you'll get to it when you can. Besides, I've got some pretty intense/insane deadlines on my desk right now, so I won't be doing much at Wikipedia for a week or so -- if then. (I just found out a week-long ban has been rescinded -- though, frankly, if it had persisted, I wouldn't have missed this place.) This recent spike in my Wiki activity is an aberration. I haven't been paying much attention to the site for quite a while now, but the discussion at Tutankhamun and a couple of other places snagged my eye when I dropped in. I've already spent far too much time here than my schedule permits. But I'll check back -- and maybe nudge you -- to read what you think of my entry. Peace. :) deeceevoice (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Discrimination against atheists, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. We have some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Verbal chat 13:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Discrimination against atheists. 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. Verbal chat 14:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your unwarranted and inappropriate warning about edit warring. You might not believe that I am only trying to improve controversial articles. All that I could say in my defence would Persecution of Germanic Pagans, Nazi mysticism, Nordic race or Historical Persecution by Christians anyway. Goodbye. Zara1709 (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what your defence is to do with. 3RR is a "bright line" that cannot be crossed except for in certain narrow circumstances. The point of warning is to stop you from getting blocked, which is much worse than a simple warning. Thanks, Verbal chat 14:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't understand it at all, do you? I just checked. I have over 4000 mainspace edits, and of course I am familiar with Wikipedia's 3RR policy and with all other policies, too. That I have broken 3RR previously was because I couldn't take the ignorance of other editors any more. In the current issue: The section on Germany was fine, except a little tweaking. The suggestion to move the article was part of a futile attempt to actually get the other editors into a discussion where they would justify actions. Instead of taking my view into consideration, you spammed my talk page with a pointless warning.

When I joined the project I was very enthusiastic about Wikipedia, but all of this is gone now. Currently I don't a reason to contribute any more. Zara1709 (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If you realised no one was talking, why didn't you start a discussion before making your edits? There is no need to leave the project. Start a new thread on the German section on the talk page, with your reasons for why you don't think it is OR or meets inclusion standards. I, and others probably, will then respond. Just restoring the material that was removed with a justification, without discussion or justification, is not going to help. Maybe it's a language thing, but the title you moved to just doesn't make sense to a native English speaker - and controversial edits and moves should always be discussed. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, templating a regular with boilerplate that starts "Welcome to Wikipedia" is supremely rude, and you've been told this before (for example, by user:Gandalf61). Please switch to hand-written messages from now on, templates are not something you use well.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

replied on GMW page, apologies. Verbal chat 20:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

please don't leave

You'd be missed. Enigma^msg 09:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If you check my contributions you will see that I am still editing. I will have to add some clarification to my user page, but the times when I spend whole days editing are definitely over. Probably I overreacted, but then, on the other hand, I can understandably only take a certain amount of ignorance and I already had my share of that at Talk:Adolf Hitler. I don't know whether it would be worth it to point out why I reacted so strongly, so I save myself the time for now. And a great Thanks to all the editors who let me know that they care. Zara1709 (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Abusive Vandal

I've reverted the abusive edits made against you and reported the abusive account to WP:AIV. Verbal chat 12:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to apologise about the "welcome to wikipedia" template I used above - I had honestly completely missed that in my reading of the template and realise that it would appear very rude, which was not my intention. I also apologise for using two templates, one warning should have been enough as they were linked. All the best, and I hope you continue doing what you enjoy. Yours, Verbal chat 20:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Occult Nazis and Wunderwaffen

Still interested in this topic? You want to have a look at

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Black_Sun_(occult_symbol)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Die Glocke

--Pjacobi (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks

Yeah, sorry about that.

Could you teach me exactly how a talk page, or any other page for that matter, is archived?

I was trying to sweep off a discussion that looked stale and expired.

Shentino (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Motya-1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Motya-1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hitler

Zara, you need to relax. Edit summaries like this aren't especially civil; all I was doing was pointing out where an additional citation was necessary. There's no need to bite my head off. Parsecboy (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, can't relax about Hitler. Check my reply at Talk:Adolf Hitler‎. Zara1709 (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw your comment there. If you can't relax with Hitler, perhaps it's better for you to back away from the article, and edit topics with which you're not so personally involved. I know edit conflicts are irritating (try evaluating reports at WP:AIV during busy periods) but there's no need to lash out at the other editor. Parsecboy (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't get it. I am not clotting up the edit history with those inuse-tags for fun, I do it because I expect other editors not to interrupt me when editing. If you want me to apologize for writing 'f***' in an edit summary, you're at the wrong place. Of course, this is uncivil, but so is ignoring an inuse-tag. It was either writing an uncivil reply and finishing that section in two minutes, or asking myself for two minutes why other editors are so ignorant that they fail to notice an inuse-tag and ask for a citation that I was about to give anyway. Zara1709 (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you're taking getting an edit conflict a bit too personally; edit conflicts happen all the time. Failing to see an inuse template is not uncivil (or even editing an article knowing full well there is such a template, for the matter); no one owns any article, not for even 5 minutes. Also, you hadn't edited the page for several minutes, how was I to know you intended to add a citation? As for your two options as to how to deal with the edit conflict, perhaps you should review #36. Regardless, this discussion is obviously not going to be productive, so this will be my last comment here. Parsecboy (talk) 03:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Afrocentric historiography

Moreschi has blotted it all out - there is literally one sentence left standing! I couldn't believe it! He is using the "scope" argument again. If you want to add stuff that complies with his personal idea of "scope" then go for it, but I have opened the debate again at Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? Please could you assist to build up this debate as well. Good weekendWdford (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The original Afrocentric historiography article has been killed off, as it quickly degenerated into a semantic debate about the meaning of historiography. That title now redirects to Afrocentrism. If you want to go ahead with your proposed Radical Afrocentric Historiography, the way is clear to start a fresh article. Good luck Wdford (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am sorry about that; this is not encouraging, but you simply stumbled into one of the most controversial issues at Wikipedia. The next thing we need to see is to get the material on the controversies in the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article. And then I can look into an article Radical Afrocentric Historiography or that like. My fundamentals in the "semantic debate about the meaning of historiography" are certainly better than Moreschi's in his idea of "Afrocentric memes".Zara1709 (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The Radical Afrocentric Historiography article is now redirecting to Afrocentrism, on the basis it seems that its a subsection of Afrocentrism. Where else would like me to put it? Wdford (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we meanwhile create the Radical Afrocentric Historiography article as a sub-section of Afrocentrism, where nobody can fault its relevance, and then spin it off once its established? Wdford (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't get it. Simply because you 'can' create an article or section within an article with a few clicks, this doesn't mean that you have to. I don't think that there are any honest arguments against creating an a section of RAH in the Afrocentrism article, but someone will object anyway. This is why I will not create the article like that. The next thing we would have to do is get Deeceevoice to be outvoted at Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy, so that the full protection can be lifted. All that I then have to do is to convince Dab and /or Moreschi that sections on Tutankhamun, Cleopatra VII, Great Sphinx of Giza and 'Kemet' have to be included in the article, and seriously, with you having gone around wildly creating articles, that is not going to be easy. Couldn't you simple search another topic to work on for a few weeks? Zara1709 (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"?

HELP!! The article Arguments/Evidence for a "Black Ancient Egypt"? is about to get squashed, just like all the other attempts to air these issues. We need your vote – please take part in the debate!! Wdford (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hate to say I've told you so. You can't expect to solve this problem without some serious amount of discussion. I would like to help, actually, but as you are seeing, there are other discussions that have a higher priority. Zara1709 (talk) 07:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Zara, please, intervene in the discussion, for or against. But intervene! It will take you just one minute. You know very well the evolution of that problematic-article.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Zara for your contribution and sorry for having you disturbed!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Zara, I hardly recognize you. You have been often respectful of consensus among editors. But this time you are very agressive. What happened to you? What's wrong? Please come back to the cool Zara, accepting to loose something for the sake of a common work!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The whole problem is that both sides (Moreschi & Dbachmann vs. Wapondaponda and deeceevoice) start from a black and white scheme in which the other side is not granted anything. It is extremely difficult to put my arguments in a form that gets through, but actually, from my experiences up to this point, Dbachmann certainly is much more able to value a good argument than deeceevoice. Zara1709 (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Zara, if it can be of any help, I'm willing to listen and help convey your concerns to what you call "The B Team". First and foremost this article must comply with Wikipolicies (I'm thinking of NPOV first, but there are more that are important here), and the only way that this article can get rid of its poor reputation is in adhering strictly to these policies. However, as you've candidly remarked, this article tends to be hostage to two opposing ideologies. We need help to advance beyond this situation and I believe that you may be the most approachable person on the "A team" to do just that. That's why it's important to me to keep communication channels open. One suggestion would be for you to make suggestions as to what changes are acceptable (I know you've already done that to a great extent) but say propose a version of the lede that's compatible with what you figure the scope of the article should be and that could be grounds for starting a useful discussion. I believe the best way to get through this is to utterly ignore the personal comments and stick strictly to the subject of the article. In any case, I believe your input is vital in achieving a properly balanced, NPOV article.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The lifting of the full protection was probably the worst thing that could happen in the discussion. On the level it has been going previously we certainly weren't able to find a lasting consensus. No one actually bothered to bring in reputable sources and I was just busy replying to one barely substantiated argument after the other. I hope that this helps me catch my breath. Zara1709 (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy - your recent edits

Z;
Normally I'm a big fan of "bold/revert/discuss." This probably isn't the time for it though, ay? I'm working hard just to keep everyone from killing each other. I've barely had five second to actually, you know, inform myself of the substance of the debate.
If you're frustrated, I've got a talk page. Lots of them, in fact. But bold editting is giving me a toothache, ok?
brenneman 14:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that you are talking to the wrong person here. I know what wp:bold means, and I also know what wp:BRD means. To say that "The current debate over the ethnic identity of dynastic Egypt has its roots in contradictory reports and perceptions accumulated since Classical times." displays a total disregard for several reputable history books on the issue. If Wikipedia does not want articles "based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources" available, you only have to say so. Zara1709 (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It does no good to have articles that are factual if they are not stable. In this case, I'm trying (very gently) to build some level of mutual trust so that people can actually work together towards factual. I'm just asking for you to also be gentle. - brenneman 14:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Zara, I believe that Aaraon's point was that we are still discussing the lead. You could have simply registered your disagreement with Wapondaponda's edit on the talk page. Also, you reverted the addition of copious material just based on a single sentence you disagreed with. Honestly, I personnally don't think that was the best move either.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

But wasn't I building trust? Didn't I agree to Wdfords suggestion? The goal of Wikipedia is to built an encyclopaedia, not to be a community. If I can justifedly say that an edit is wrong, I have to. And these drastic measure were necessary if you look at the history of the issue. And of course, I not only objected to the lead. I also objected to the addition of several subsections. A substantial edit like this can't be discussed step-by-step. Zara1709 (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You're certainly correct in that I don't have much of a long-term view of this article, and all the reading of the archives in the world won't give it to me. It may well be that, in another week, I'll have a totally different opinion of your edits. And I apologise for my failing in that. But for right this second, I'm so busy fighting fires that I'm not getting a chance to have a serious think about the history. I'd be happier (in the sense that it would easier to keep calm) if the article were protected, in whatever version. But then I'd have to slap myself for that.

Little edits, baby steps, give people a chance to complain about (and work out) small stuff. And I'm going to re-look at the history, as I appear ro have missed something or three, ok?

brenneman 14:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I notice you've removed my comments. Too bad. You (and others) might have found them instructive. They were wholly civil. So, you're forcing me to speak to you in the article talk space? Fine. Oh, wait a minute. I forgot. You said you were leaving the article. Again. Great. So, I guess that means after this, we're done!

In your edit note, you cite my "uncivil" comments in the past as justification for expunging legitimate commentary here that you find objectionable, presumably because it calls you on your conduct. You want me to apologize for being "uncivil?" Oh, like you branding me a "troll" and screaming for my head on a stake[5] because I took you on for your disruptive editing/edit warring?

You first. :) deeceevoice (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I explained this in detail at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. My comment was misleading and I am sorry about that. But considering that you haven't reverted Moreschi in his edit war with Big-dynamo, you have no right to revert me now. Moreschi apparently abandoned the discussion as soon as it became clear that he was wrong in a small thing. You are wrong on a big scale, and you are not listing to arguments. Zara1709 (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Nazism

You asked a question doofus, so I gave you an answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekoyaanisqatsi (talk • contribs) 16:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Christianization of Scandinavia

I suggest you respond on the talkpage instead of reverting.--Berig (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Motya-1.jpg

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Motya-1.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[6][7]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because images on Wikipedia need to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License or another free license, which allow anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file, please understand that the vast majority of images found on the internet are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Most content on the internet is copyrighted and the creator of the image has exclusive rights to use it. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others - do not upload images that violate others' copyrights. In certain limited cases, we may be able to use an image under a claim of fair use - if you are certain that fair use would apply here, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list. If no fair use rationale applies, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nazi occultism

Not quite sure what you mean by "of course, you are right"... If Webb has not written about Nazi occultism, why does Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke write that "Webb rescued the study of Nazi occultism"? If James Webb is not relevant to the topic of "Nazi occultism", as understood by Goodrick-Clarke, then why does Goodrick-Clarke even mention James Webb, in appendix with "Nazi occultism" in its title? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please read our policy upon ownership of articles as it seems that Zara1709 may be too invested in this article. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Kierkegaard

Hi Zara, I didn't lose much of your content, just made it flow better grammatically. For example,

• made the countries you listed flow with the previous sentence.
• Reduce redundancy ("A key date" is unnecessary, it's made clear in the previous paragraph that his reception in Germany is key; and so reduced the need for "In Germany")
• made spelling and grammatical corrections
• combined individual sentences together to flow with each other
• Existenzphilosophie is Jaspers' coinage for his "existential philosophy"

Thanks for your edits though, keep it up. Poor Yorick (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

AN/I discussion

Opened here. لennavecia 06:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_I._Sherman

Hi, per this afd I have tagged User:Zara1709/Robert I. Sherman for deletion under G10. Please take it to WP:DRV if you want to restore a staging copy in your userspace. rootology/equality 18:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Thanks. By the way, I know that academic textbooks, too, have their own points of view, I encountered such a case at least once, - but, if we are to have a debate about neutrality, then we need a second reliable source expressing the other POV, preferably another academic textbook, first, before we can have a meaningful discussion. Zara1709 (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding reversions[8] made on July 1 2009 to Christian debate on persecution and toleration

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|Of course I was being sarcastic, when I wrote 'Ban me'. I didn't want that the editors with whom I am engaged in a contented dispute could use the fact that I've broken 3RR as an ad hominem argument in the debate. This would have been rather likely, since on the policy side their case is rather weak. I have a reliable source for the quote they oppose, but they don't have a reliable source to base their objection on. Of course, actually the problem would be a misunderstanding. The history textbook I quoted use 'persecution', 'toleration' and 'pluralism' in a certain sense, probably different from the colloquial understanding. But if they would not even have accepted (which I hope they have done by now) that I am actually quoting an academic secondary source, we would never be able to get to that point. So anyway, although I still don't think that this is actually a 'neutrality issue', I have sufficient reasons to hope that we can continue the discussion without further edit warring.

The current block is counter-productive. I needed a break from Wikipedia yesterday, and a block of 24h from the time of the 3RR violation on would have been helpful for that, but I kept myself away from Wikipedia the remainder of yesterday anyway. I would like to continue working on the topic, and I don't want to wait another 8 hours.Zara1709 (talk) 10:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)}}

Ok, I've lifted the block. Whether you were being sarcastic or not when you reported yourself to WP:AN3, the block was justified. But since no one else was asking for it but you and now you have taken your break, block undone. BTW, I haven't looked at the article but I did want to say that the issue of using quotes in articles can be seriously problematic for WP:NPOV. Sources (even academic textbooks) have their own points of view, and quoting from them rather than summarizing the points of view can give an unbalanced amount of weight to their arguments. I generally have been against quoting in articles unless the quote itself is somehow important (e.g. a famous quotation in a biography, or a passage of text being analyzed in an article about such analysis). Just food for thought: it's more complex than the issue of whether there's a source or not. Mangojuice^talk 13:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Race controversey ancient egyptian

Zara i know for sure you are a good faith editor,but please take editor childofmidnight with a grain of salt he or she kind of came out of the blue to pov article versions of several others editors who have since been banned from this article for a long period as it stands also there has been found by admins to be some pretty elaborate sock puppet cases at this article--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

and also the editor is taking up the banned editors mantra on the article talk now as well--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

I do not mean to dredge up unpleasant memories. But four editors who were considered disruptive have been banned from work on this article for the moment (personaly, I think at least two of the bans are unjustified, but that is just my opinion). My point is, you will find it a more congenial editing environment. If you have a moment, just skim over it, and look at the recent edit history. I suspect that the people currently editing it would value your contributions. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a reason why there are no comments to your suggestion, almost everyone is banned. The article has become a hot potato. I looked at your sources, and they can be used. I have a few issues

• Most of the sources are focused on debates about Afrocentrism and in particular, the African American experience. But there is also a parallel movement in Europe, particularly in France. It is also not only Afrocentrists who are interested in the race of the Ancient Egyptians. But all kinds of people, as per the latest controversy concerning Arsinoe IV of Egypt
• There is already an article Black Athena. So debates relating to the book should primarily take place in that article.
• None of the sources are from the anthropological perspective or even from Egyptologists. I think much of the contemporary work has shifted to scholars like Shomarka Keita, who isn't an Afrocentrist, at least in the traditional sense, but has mainstream credibility.

Wapondaponda (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Wilson Jeremiah Moses

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles you created, as you did with Wilson Jeremiah Moses. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following:

1. Place {{hangon}} on the page. Please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag(s).
2. Make your case on the article's talk page.

Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

SoWhy has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Thanks for adding that section to my essay (WP:A7M). I decided to rewrite it a bit but I am surprised I had forgotten about it, so thanks

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

How to avoid CSD deletions

Hi, saw your post at the CSD talk page. The best way to avoid this is to create your own personal sandbox, create the article there, work on it until it is ready, and the do a copy & paste to create the new article. For info on creating your own sandbox see Wikipedia:User_page#Creating_user_subpages. Mjroots (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ancient Egyptian race controversy. 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 18:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I know the rule, thank you. You might want to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#Edit warring at Ancient Egyptian race controversy continued. Zara1709 (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so, here's a deal. While you should technically be blocked for repeat edit-warring (as should Wdford), I'm pretty sure that that will get nothing done and that you'll inevitably just end up in this same situation. So, in an effort to generate some consensus, I'd like to have you agree to stop editing the page. It's simple; you don't insert any controversial information (correcting typos and such is ok, but please don't try to disguise edits, I'll be reviewing them). Wdford will be operating under the same rules, and if they're not followed, please do not revert. Just come to me and we'll sort this out. I've left Wdford the same message.

Now, this is optional, but I'd really like it if you went along. I'm not a huge fan of having to protect pages and deal out blocks, only because this is the 21st century and we're civilized people. Surely we can make it through one dispute without people receiving time-outs as if they were in kindergarten. Any questions are welcome on my talk page! :) Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 22:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy

Zara, I do not want to keep harping on your tone or attitude and I hope you won't either. No one is perfect, we all lose our cool, and at this point I do not think it helps for anyone to be put on the defensive and that certainly wasn't my intention. My intention was to try to get everyon to shift from making any commnts about persons (including themselves!) to sticking to issues in the article. And I still believe very firmly that if you (all of you, ustedes, vous, yuse guys) could stop trying to provide a global account of every dissagreemnt, or stop giving lists of every objection, and just pick one issue (do we include x? ... if yes, where ... do we agree on this writing) at a time, and owrk towards a compromise, you will all make progress. And I continue to believe that it is best to leave the actual wwording of the intro for last. I am jut trying to give constructive advice. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

On commenting

For some strange reason, no one has tagged that subsection of mine at AN/I as inappropriate for that page, and if no one does, it will stay there for 24 hours after the last comment, then get automatically archived (I think that's how it works). If that happens, feel free to comment on my talk page. I have no idea whether or not any comments on this will do any good, so it may not matter where you post a comment anyway. How's that for cynicism? -- Noroton (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, Zara1709. You have new messages at OrangeDog's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ANI

Thank you. It's always nice to see that people don't hold grudges. I'll see if there is an appropriate barnstar. PS: If you report me to ANI for something today I think I win a special prize - so far I have 2 reports in 24 hrs! I'm worried the prize for a hat-trick might be a perma-ban :) PPS: I am getting tired of all this :( Verbal chat 15:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Clinical toxicology

The article that you saw the abstract for can be read in full here (for a limited time). Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

cuius regio....etc.

Thanks very much, it's very sweet of you to do that! Someday I'll fix it up fully. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The expert template

Howdy. I came across Medical uses of silver and noticed {{Expert-subject-multiple}} was being used on it. I checked the article's talk page and it appears you added the template to the article. Just so you know, that template can take a "type" parameter.--Rockfang (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Medical uses of silver

Please note that a mediation has been requested for Medical uses of silver at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-23/Medical_uses_of_silver#Discussion.

Medical uses of silver

Hi Zara, there has been a report about editing warring at the above, and although you don't seem to have violated 3RR, you have been pushing up against it for a few days. Please try to find a compromise instead of reverting wholesale, and make sure you're familiar with WP:3RR. Cheers, SlimVirgin 18:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

1RR restriction on the article Medical uses of silver?

Hello Zara1709. There is a case at AN3 about this article. As a resolution to the case, I am thinking of proposing a 1RR restriction for this article, which means that no one person could revert more than once a day. Would you be agreeable to that result? EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Book Cover The occult Roots of Nazism.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Book Cover The occult Roots of Nazism.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TAZ 5-10-2007.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TAZ 5-10-2007.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Nordic Race

I have nominated Nordic race for GA reassessment, an article you have previously shown interest in. The criteria have tightened quite a lot since it was last reviewed more than two years ago, and it currently fails on several criteria, some of which are serious. I hope you'll participate in the discussion.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

belief rebirth!

Dear Zara,

I'm reaching out to researchers and writers interested in the emerging, or re-emerging, movements inspired by ancient culture in the areas of religion/theology/mythology/culture...I spare-headed an artistic collaboration between a music professor, rock-vocalist and poet to create a modern multi-media experience of the cathardic journey inspired by ancient pagan poetic traditions; A romance to nature seen as a beautiful, divine and omnipotent woman.

It has singularly been my goal to respect tradition while allowing a free and spontaneous interpretation...I believe the utility of a quasi-rebirth of some aspects of the ancient religious tendancies would be achieved in an increase of tolerance, sympathy, and freedom of expression in our modern discoures on religion...so much needed. Until we have a cultural revolution tantamount to the politcal revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries [aiding the rebirth of a government of, by and for the people] in the area of religion, I will not rest. Until the rebirth of religions which are of, by and for the people, as fluid as art, as deep as mythology and theology and as powerful as culture, I do not believe we will be truly free no matter what economic or political conditions surround us. Democracy without a democratic cultural is as frustrating as it is ineffectual.

If you have a moment could you peruse the poetry project site. http://www.misbeliever.net As you are a worker in these areas, having ebhanced the Wikipedia, the world's greatest encyclopedia, I would be very honored with any remarks or critisms you could offer either me or my collaborators.

thanks much,

sincerely

Pdiffenderfer (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

paul m. diffenderfer

düsseldorf germany +49 (0) 178 178 2117 http://www.misbeliever.net pdiffenderfer@yahoo.com

History of persecutions by Christians listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect History of persecutions by Christians. Since you had some involvement with the History of persecutions by Christians redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Tijfo098 (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Book Cover The occult Roots of Nazism.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Book Cover The occult Roots of Nazism.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Zara1709. 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Zara1709. 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)

History of Christian thought on tolerance and persecution

Hi Zara1709, I am Jenhawk777 and I have recently done some major reconstruction on this article with the goal of improving its focus on what the title says it's about--Christian thought--broadening and extending its references and hopefully getting a consensus that the tags should be removed. I see that you are semi-retired, which I get--I myself am just back from a two year break--but I am going through the talk age contacting anyone who ever demonstrated any care for this article, and I am hoping that hasn't changed. If you ever take any time to look at WP anymore, please stop by and give this one a look. I value your input. Don't be afraid to criticize or correct. Thank you Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)