Sherzo

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, Sherzo. 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, Sherzo. 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)

Someone has cloned you - Sherrzo

This morning I woke up to find a rather abusive comment on my talk page pretending to be from you (a similar comment is on JMalky's user page (something he is not likely to see as he has left the project). The user - Sherrzo has wholesale copied your user & talk page.

Regardless to our personal differences, I would like to give you the heads up and opportunity to take the matter further.TorstenGuise (talk) 08:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPI case page is here. TorstenGuise (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. Whatever you do think of me, actions like that are totally unacceptable and I will not stand for it. TorstenGuise (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Email

Hi Sherzo. Please enable your email (using preferences), and email User:FT2 as soon as possible. It is regarding some things that emerged from the case now that the impersonator's solved. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediation at History of terrorism

Hello, a request for informal mediation was made at the Mediation Cabal regarding the history of terrorism article you have edited recently. I have asked at the [Talk:History of terrorism#Informal Mediation|talk page]] of the article whether anyone is interested in participating but I haven't had any responses. If you feel that mediation will help with the article and wish to participate, please let me know. I've been watching the article for a while now, and haven't seen much activity until today (when some potentially sensitive changes were made). If I have at least two people interested in participating in mediation I'll begin the process, otherwise I'll close the case. Thank you. -- Atama頭 16:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:History of terrorism#One month block 2009-12-12. --PBS (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that since I put a block on the page and asked you to go to arbitration that you have not edited at Wikipedi at all.

I see from your contributions that in the last month all you have done is to revert the changes to History of terrorism. I appreciate that editors lead real lives and can not be expected to spend all their time on editing Wikipedia articles. However in this case you are engaged in a slow revert war, and even though you are only reverting once a month, you did not engage in mediation between reverts although a mediation case was available.

I will request that the mediation case remains open, so that next time you are editing Wikipedia you can contribute to it. But I am going to take the full protection off the article so that it can be further developed as protection is meant to be a short term measure (and keeping it protected for months because one party to a dispute is only available one day a month is not an acceptable solution).

However do not take that removal of protection as a licence to revert to an old version of the article every so often. Before you revert again, follow the WP:dispute resolution process and take part in mediation. If you revert again without following the alternatives in dispute resolution I will take further administrative measures to stop you disrupting the editing of the article. --PBS (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Warning

You are engaged in a slow edit war on History of terrorism. Your actions over this are disruptive. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution. Stop the disruption, otherwise you will be blocked from editing. -- PBS (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: History of Terrorism

I'm having some doubts about conducting this mediation, to be perfectly honest. Haberstr is an editor in good standing, he has a clean block log and no legitimate vandalism complaints (only a false complaint anonymously left on his talk page by someone he was in a content dispute with). The fact that you have stated "haberstr action have been recognised as vandalism" gives me great pause as to whether or not mediation will be productive. The main disputants in the article are the two of you, and your participation on the page seems to be to own it without contributing to it significantly. This, coupled with the bad-faith accusation against Philip Baird Shearer at WP:ANI is why I'm not sure mediation will help. Informal mediation requires good faith from all sides; if successful it results in a non-binding agreement between editors about the content in an article. -- Atama頭 22:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for edit warring on History of terrorism

You've been warned a number of times about making reversions on the above article. I've had it watchlisted since a request was made for more admin eyes on the article, and your long-term pattern of blind reverting has been concerning. Your latest revert, rolling back a large amount of work by other editors, indicates to me that this pattern is not going to stop and so I have no choice but to block your account to prevent disruption to the article. When the block expires please be very careful to gain consensus for your edits and engage with other editors productively; further edit warring may lead to blocks of increasing length.

If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. EyeSerene^talk 18:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive599#User:Sherzo 27 February 2010 -- PBS (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Your editing privileges have been indefinitely suspended

You can edit according to consensus, which is arrived at by discussion, or you cannot edit. If you are inclined to change your editing patterns, you may request return of your editing privileges by using the {{unblock|"your reason(s) here"}} template. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sherzo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

What?! how have I edited without consensus, have you read the talk page for the article? consensus is no unanimity, Consensus was for the definition section to be forked into the definition article, consensus was to roll the contras into in the cold war proxies section and consensus was to condense the overlong article to name but 3. so how can I be editing without consensus when the version I restored is the only one that reflects the discussions of the talk pages over several years? or is Haberstr opinion considered a one man consensus this really is quite incredulous Also could you please explain to me how a version that includes material that was removed consensus that deletes sourced content agreed by consensus and has tags that are misrepresentative are consensus as it beggers belief. It is behaviour like this by admins who lack the experience or academic credentials that is killing wikipedia, that is taking that high ideal that all things flow into the avenue and reducing it to a sewer, a soapbox and made wikipedia an academic laughing stock.

Decline reason:

WP:SOAP in lieu of WP:COLLABORATE. Academic credentials is clearly not a substitute for WP:CONSENSUS. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Well, you've "edited without consensus" by -- for all looks and appearances -- completely ignoring your colleagues and posting your own personal essay in place of an article. If you want exclusive copy control, this isn't the website for you. We work by dispute resolution, and simply reverting to your preferred version without contributing to discussion is plainly disruptive to that process. Are you here to collaborate with others or not? – Luna Santin (talk) 08:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you posted that on the wrong guy's page Capt Jack Doicy (talk) 09:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

History of Terrorism

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For tireless trying to hold back the tide and defend an important but ignored article Capt Jack Doicy (talk) 09:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about GLAM TV

Hello, Sherzo,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether GLAM TV should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GLAM TV .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

TP ✎ ✓ 15:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)