Sherrzo

Messages

Please leave messages at the bottom of the particular discussion, and start new topics under the existing ones.

Thanks for your contributions on History of Terrorism!Mcenroeucsb (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome Back

Welcome back Sherzo. I see you are still making disruptive edits to POV push articles related to British Student Television. You don't own wikipedia, so for once, just admit you are wrong. Have a nice day. TorstenGuise (talk) 09:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Polite as ever I see,Sherzo (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar! I really do appreciate it, also I plan to put the article forward for GA status this weekend if I get the chance. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

NaSTA

How about using the talk page before just deciding to go and delete a perfectly good article... even wikis computer thinks that you are being stupid you got a -9000 score so maybe you should just leave the article alone as it has more right to be there than the link that is currently there... and just to add we might need to come to some kind of agreement on how this article should be i think it is totally fine to have it in my state i dont know why you dont think that but please write back and tell me Xrateddan (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(copied from Talk:British_student_television#Keep_NaSTA_Where_It_Is) You may not see the justification Sherzo, but this is a relatively new debate. You are quoting one that is two years old. Don't get me wrong here, but point of views change. You are acting as if you own the articles in question, which you don't (WP:OWN). You're reverting decisions without consensus. I understand your point of insufficient independent evidence, but you can't justifiably use an old debate to justify your actions. Xrateddan has a different point of view to yourself and needs to to more work in citing NaSTA in independent sources, but he can't do that methodically if you are just marking his edits as vandalism and reverting them. This is the same with the Glasgow University Student Television debate. There wasn't a consensus there, just inactivity. You said yourself that that was the reason you did the redirect. This was followed by the large debate against your decision and your RfC on me and all of the editors who opposed you. People have different point of views to you. Please respect them (Copy to all parties on their talk page, but please reply here) TorstenGuise (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of History of terrorism

The article History of terrorism you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:History of terrorism for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the presence of those tags, some of which appear to have been justified on my run through, are enough to quick fail the article. Just go through and replace the "citation needed" tags with reliable references as well as have another editor give the article a good copy-edit, and then seek a third party review to see if the tags can be removed. If this is done, as well as an expansion of the lead, then I'd say have another shot at GA, but not until then. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you anywaySherzo (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Cerejota (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Cerejota (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC regarding WP:TERRORIST

Hi: Apologies in advance for the spam -- I've started a RFC concerning the WP:TERRORIST guideline. Most of the other users I've notified are all contributors to previous discussions, but I thought you might be interested based on our interaction at Talk:History of terrorism. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry for imposing. Best, Ray^Talk 18:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar I really do appreciate it. Hopefully I can get it to FA status soon. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 01:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Student Television

Do what you like. I'm fed up sticking up for people and facing a rising mountain of opposition by deletionists. Originally, I never had an interest in editing the Student television articles, but I'm fed up of the bigotry and and abuse, not just of the system, but of users. TorstenGuise (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you discuss your edits on GUST before making them, please. Either that, or resolve anything you believe is an issue with the article, rather than just marking it. It's quite disruptive. JMalky (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No removing valid tags is disruptive, and its lack of notability isn't an issue that i have the power to resolve, try Rupert Murdoch. Sherzo (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

An edit war, really? JMalky (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No I've placed tags to indicate what needs to be improved particularly with regards to sourcing and undone your vandalism Sherzo (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted those edits, and will only say this. Either discuss those changes like a grown-up, or submit the article for deletion again, which is clearly what you're aiming for. Stop vandalising the page (and don't for one instant deny that's what you're doing) and do something constructive with your clearly ample free time. If you're going to be a child about this, stay out. You have a vendetta against student television, and for the life of me I can't figure out why. JMalky (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The only person vandalising anything is you by removing tags, resolve the issues don't simply remove them, as for a vendetta I think perhaps you are to invested in this article and thus a little paranoid. Sherzo (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. Be reasonable. Can we settle this like adults? An edit war is a silly way to go about business. And please sign comments on my talk page after you make them. JMalky (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Its not an edit war, since its not a matter of different opinions on content, you are vandalising wikipedia by removing tags rather than resolving them and I am reverting that vandalism. Sherzo (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have requested a wikiquette alert regarding the whole affair. Please comment Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Sherzo.2C_British_Student_Television_and_Glasgow_University_Student_Television TorstenGuise (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you kindly stop adding vandalism warnings to my talk page. Thanks. JMalky (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert on your disruptive behaviour

There is a wikiquette alert discussion about your behaviour, which I'm sure you've seen. Take your problems there, stop posting on my talk page. JMalky (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Zombie apocalypse edits

Apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction by definition deals with events that lead to the end of civilization. A zombie outbreak in a city or a town is not apocalyptic. Furthermore your additions contained no sources that even pointed out that those games were examples of apocalyptic fiction, while the other games and mods listed do have sources labeling it as apocalyptic fiction. The mods in question also have articles on Wikipedia which is strong proof that they are notable in themselves. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hits on Google are not enough to prove its apocalyptic without a notable source. Furthermore you ignored the fact that mods also had sources to prove that they were apocalyptic fiction. If there are notable sources describing the games you want to add as apocalyptic fiction then I suggest you use them and I would be completely fine with that. Adding examples without sources is OR. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Listen I'm not trying to start a edit war here, but you cannot just add examples without proper sources to verify the examples. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Yo Sherzo! Thanks for reverting the edits Blueshirts did. i own you this to you --Trickster206 (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Trickster206

huh

you vandalize aticles??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trickster206 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

re: Second Sino-Japanese War

Hi. I have left a note on the article's talk page reminding everyone to remain civil. However, I have little knowledge in this area so I have instead left a comment on the coordinator's talk page a WP:MILHIST, so hopefully this dispute can be worked out to everyone's satisfaction soon. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Aftermath Sarin attack in Tokyo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Aftermath Sarin attack in Tokyo.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. J Milburn (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see this page. Basically, you have to explain why the image meets the non-free content criteria. I'll save you some time now and tell you that the image almost certainly does not meet our non-free content criteria, and so attempting to write a rationale would probably just force me to nominate it for deletion another way. J Milburn (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI thread

Hi, I have started a discussion at WP:ANI about the disruption at History of terrorism that you may be involved in. Quantpole (talk) 08:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

brittish student television

There's been a big argument within the organisation leading to an edit war. I'm not part of the organisation (i do radio not tv) but I keep an eye on the tv page and saw some pretty ridiculous edits. This forum thread should clear it up for you if you can be bothered reading it all. http://www.gust.tv/nasta/forum/viewtopic.php?p=280#p280

I've added a 2nd reference and clarified the new and old systems. I removed gust's logo (it's only there because GUST had a separate article but it got merged into this one) but I kept the studio image for obvious reasons.

It could miby do with a lock if the edit wars start up again, but from reading their forum it looks like it's settled down for now. --cloudo (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

British Student Television - An incredulous request!

I'm not interested in the slightest in any discussion pertaining to this matter.

The fact that you have led a rather anti-article campaign on the matter (from the outset) and have spoken so venomously against editors not sharing your point of view (to the point of accusations of vandalism, forcing them to leave the community and in my own case, check-user accusations and constant incivility) and then have the nerve to ask me to wade in on your side (admittedly to stem the Nasta war that appears to be going on - Yes. I found out yesterday with your own cross-posting efforts), I find highly insulting.

If you read my user page, you will find that I have made it clear in a statement on these matters, that the "actions of some users" have led me to this position. I hopefully need not clarify who I am referring to in this statement.

Consider the matter very firmly closed TorstenGuise (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Aftermath Sarin attack in Tokyo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Aftermath Sarin attack in Tokyo.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. —SpaceFlight89 08:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

official history

Please undo you last edit to Terror bombing. "Sherzo (official history seems odd particularly for a stationary office, in a free country.)" Official histories are quite common as a search of the internet will show you eg the first one that came up when I just ran a search was "The Official History of New Zealand in the Second World War 1939 ..." As for the stationary office until recently that was the publisher for HMG. See HMSO and Office of Public Sector Information. This is something you could have checked in less time than it took to edit the article!--PBS (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I couldn't see find it on google nor does the HMSO have anything listed as an official history Sherzo (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sockpuppetry as proven at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sherrzo. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)