User talk:Zaathras

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Talk page

Start. Zaathras (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I don't take objection to your removal of my talk post on Donald Trump's page, I do take odjection to your mockery of my love for wikipedia. I truely do love it. It is something I count on every day to be neutral and unbiased so I can read factual information on any random topic that has my interest. For years I have only been on the receiving end of what it has to offer, never thinking that I had anything worthwhile to contribute. But I want to start contributing so I can repay all that it has done for me and continue helping others who seek info like I have. FreshTec843 (talk) 05:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@FreshTec843:, always start a new topic with a new section heading (see WP:TPG) and new stuff goes at the bottom of the page. Also, if you want to talk about what someone else said, include a WP:DIFF, in this case I think you mean this [1]], with edit sum just the usual pissing & moaning, couched in "i used to love wiki!"). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Zaathras have sad life, probably have sad death, but at least there is symmetry. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thumbs-up. Zaathras (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Donald Trump

Why would you remove my good faith contribution to the talk thread of a semi-protected or protected article as "Tiring"? Is there some evidence that the blatant OR/POV text in question which I cited referencing unnamed scholars and historians has been reviewed and seemed appropriate for an online encyclopedia? (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was not made in good faith. The question you posed has already been asked and answered numerous times, and it is really a waste of time to deal with it again. Zaathras (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not by or to me. I just came upon it. I try to avoid obviously stressful and contentious articles but this text is blatantly unsourced, POV/OR. Could you refer me to the thread on which this particular text is discussed? Thanks. (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Answered at Talk:Donald Trump. Stop posting here, please. Zaathras (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DRN notice

Your edit-warrior friend has neglected to notify you that he has begun a discussion at WP:DRN#Peet's Coffee. Avilich (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Predictable. Thanks for the heads-up. Zaathras (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems he's become my problem now, lel. He immediately decided to throw his weight on my own DRN discussion. Avilich (talk) 02:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi there. Please be aware of MOS:DATERANGE. "From 2007-10" is not correct, "From 2007 to 2010" is. I've restored the correct version at Vitaly Gerasimov. Kind regards, (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As long as we're still referring to a dead Russian as a dead Russian, that's fine. Zaathras (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heh. Happy editing, (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DS alert US politics


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

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

👍 Like Zaathras (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't disrupt discussions with accusations. Follow relevant policies

Meritless chest-thumping. Zaathras (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi. In the Donald Trump talk page I started a thread to discuss the number of paragraphs in the lead section, a discussion I intended to focus on the layout, per the Manual of Style. For some reason you decided to start attacking me and disrupt the discussion, taking it off-topic, against WP:READFIRST, which states, "Comment on content, not on the contributor or It's the edits that matter, not the editor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating." I requested that if you had any accusations against me to take it to my talk page, per WP:FOC, which also states, "Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor. Wikipedia is written through collaboration, and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is therefore vital. Bringing up conduct during discussions about content creates a distraction to the discussion and may inflame the situation." For some reason you decided to ignore my request and kept with the accusations and off topic comments, disrupting the discussion. I have noticed that I am not the only editor that is the target of your conduct. You should understand that some editors, like myself, spend hours researching guidelines and policies to improve articles and your warrantless and baseless accusations are completely unhelpful and damage the legitimate work of editors. Again, if you thought I made mistakes or had accusations against me, you should not have used the thread I opened to discuss the layout of the lede, you should have either used my talk page or an appropriate venue. I hope you get to act according to relevant policies and consider the efforts editors make to improve articles. Thinker78 (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think everyone would be wise to take these bits of advice to heart
WP:Focus on content
WP:Don't take the bait
WP:Writing for the opponent
It never hurts to go back and redact <s>....</s> ill-considered comments, though one should add a comment somewhere saying something about the redaction.
Ok that's all, everyone share the sandbox and play nice.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mr. @Thinker78:, you are a detrimental presence in the politics topic area. Kindly do not post my talk page again. Zaathras (talk) 04:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Viktor Orbán

Hi! In Hungary, he is REALLY called cannibal. Ltbuni (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, please note that both and are reliable sources. Ltbuni (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is a stupid pejorative because he "devours" opponents or opposition. You can't make a literal link to cannibalism and call him that in an encyclopedia article. Zaathras (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A pie for you!

A very beautiful Nectarine Pie.jpg I got about halfway through that talk page comment and my eyes rolled out of the back of my head. Here's a pie for removing it. Fbifriday (talk) 05:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 2022

Information icon Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Democracy: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. General Ization Talk 02:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good to know, thanks. Zaathras (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MLK and extremism

But as I continued to think about the matter, I gradually gained a bit of satisfaction from being considered an extremist. Was not Jesus an extremist in love? -- "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you." [...] Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist? -- "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." So the question is not whether we will be extremist, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate, or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice, or will we be extremists for the cause of justice?

Good stuff. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting. Zaathras (talk) 04:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for your efforts. I decided to delete it, because the complainants were missing the point that the OP was likely just trolling, and likely won't be back anyway, at least not under that user ID. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah well. Your call, but this SamuelRiv guy has been turning up like a bad penny lately. Officious, condescending, acts like an admin but obviously isn't. Zaathras (talk) 03:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's hope it stays that way, eh? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Green? Greene? / It's Greene they say / On the far right of the Hill…" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That isn't the official photo... see thread on talk and commons. Both are just arbitrary random free license pics of her from a convention. Turns out the official photo doesn't have the right license info. Andre🚐 02:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Yes, self-reverted. What is amazing is that Congresswoman Q-Lady here can even manage to muck up a straightforward issue such as an official gov't photo id... Zaathras (talk) 02:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Haha. She probably never attended the Congressional picture day because the deep state? Privacy concerns? Or she just didn't like the photo they took of her, and wanted her own to be there, but didn't realize she needed to release it under a CC license. Though MTG is a noted scholar of copyright law, of course. Andre🚐 02:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


For the words of support, I wanted to say thank you. 😀 –Daveout(talk) 18:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The feathers sure are rustled tonight. You may just want to fall on your sword on this one and re-think the post on the talk page, though. Don't accept whatshisname's knee-jerk censorship, that wasn't his place. But soften the phrase in question to something of your own wording. Zaathras (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar

Content Creativity Barnstar Hires.png The Content Creativity Barnstar
For advancing the state of the art. Andre🚐 01:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Face-surprise.svg Zaathras (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please enable your email. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Negative, Ghost Rider, the pattern is full. I have trust issues with this place.Zaathras (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's Ghost Rider? The email system works fine. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't know your classic film history? And I just never wanted to associate an email address with Wikipedia is all. The place is run by pseudonymous meatballs with no accountability. Zaathras (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

election deniers

Hi, thank you for coming in at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_October_12#Category:American_election_deniers with your reasonable-IMO view. I don't think that discussion went fairly, and I don't agree with the close, but I also have come around to thinking that a good article on election denial, which would include a list of prominent election deniers, is needed. Perhaps it is better to get the terms defined well, and to create explicit understanding of what a politician is doing/saying by expressing election denial, first. Many of the participants in the CFD seemed not to care what "election denier" means, but though it was not what anyone properly expressed IMO, perhaps it would have been valid to say the category is premature if there's not yet a more developed definition of the terms in a standalone article.

I have barely began to jot some notes at Draft:Election denial; i would be happy if you chose to help develop there. --Doncram (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Non-admin close by some rando. Lovely. Yea I'll take a look at the page there. Zaathras (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article is a derivative under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. A link to the original article can be found here and attribution parties here. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use. Gpedia Ⓡ is a registered trademark of the Cyberajah Pty Ltd.