Goodbye

I am very sorry to have become disruptive but if I may I would like to explain my position. This is my very first attempt to join Wikipedia. My first contribution was a brief quote from a Rabbi which was immediately reverted. My second attempt was a brief quotation from Rabbi Worch which was reverted with the following comment "(rv nonsense sourced to a vanity press publication from some idiot)" which hurt me very deeply because of my deep reverence for the Rabbi. I next added an apostrophe after "1800's" which was immediately reverted. I provided Zsero information from "Guide to Punctuation", by Larry Trask, University of Suxxex wherein he states "In British usage, we do not use an apostrophe in pluralizing dates. American usage, however, does put an apostrophe here." After which he instructs his British readers not to adopt this American practice unless writing for an American audience. Zsero, however, continued to revert the apostrophe. Now that apostrophe was not important to me but he insulted me in my very first editing experience in Wikipedia and then makes a big deal out of an apostrophe,which angered me. So I kept putting the apostrophe back and he kept reverting it, over and over. Finally I just gave up. I went to another site and he followed me there. So I decided to test him. I made a "no change" edit in the Halaka article. He immediately reverted it although there was nothing to revert and no reason for doing it. This angered me and I confronted him with this. He denied there was a "no change" edit and reversion although it is on record for all to see. My anger prompted me to make various comments and childish taunts. By the way, my "Apostrophe Hater" comment was meant as a joke. Obviously I do not believe the world is going to come to an end because of Apostrophe's or that Einstein quoted such. It was an attempt to turn a war into humor. To this very day I am unable to make a SINGLE contribution to Wikipedia in any way, shape, or form. I find this to be a useless place where just anyone off the streets can come in and edit, revert, and take out there frustrations on other attempting editors. I will not back to Wikipedia. RebCoh (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MESSAGE TO ZSERO:

 GOTCHA

You have persisted in vigorous editing of anything and EVERYTHING that I have attempted to contribute to Wikipedia. You have stooped so low as to repeatedly revert a simple little apostrophe (') although I gave credible reason for its inclusion. I have been unable to do ANYTHING because of your obsessive compulsive behavior. You have stalked me to EVERY site I have attempted to visit. On one discussion page I wrote something and later realized I knew not enough about the subject to comment on it so I reverted my own contribution myself. You then attempted to revert my own reversion of my own edit. You have printed online libel concerning a certain Rabbi I quoted. You have stalked me like sociopath. I am unable to contribute even an apostrophe or comment.

So I decided to test you. On paper I typed a statement as to what type of a test I was going to perform and why. To this I signed my name before a Notary Public (a neighbor who is an attorney) and wrote the time of signature beside my name. I later went online and went to the article entitled "Halacha." I entered the editing room but I MADE ABSOLUTELY NO CHANGES WHATSOEVER!!!!! The history of the article showed I had been in the editing room but showed no changes made. You took the bait. You went into that article and YOU REVERTED SOMETHING I NEVER EVEN EDITED IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!

What will be your claim for doing this? There is but ONE answer...HARASSMENT!!!

This is pure and simple VANDALISM!!!!

I suggest you stop your childish behavior immediately.

RebCoh

It is impossible to revert a non-change. If a version is identical with the previous one no edit is recorded. If you had made no change whatsoever then the history would not have any record of it at all. And if my reversion made no difference then it would not have been recorded in the history. For instance, if I were to try to rollback your changes to Hiram Bingham IV nothing at all would happen, because your final version is exactly like the version before you started. That is a fact, not one of your fantasies. The fact is that you did make a change to that page, however small. So, no gotcha. -- Zsero (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The history speaks for itself. If you had made no change there would be no record in the edit history, nor would there be any record of my reverting it. -- Zsero (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YOU ARE WRONG!!!! Simply go to the Halacha article and click on the history. Check my contribution (which was zero) and then check what you reverted (which was nothing). You displayed your childish nature by reverting something that did not need reverted. You are a Vandal, proven and plain.

If that were true, the edit history would not show any edits at all, by either of us. Null edits do not create an entry in the history; that is an incontrovertible fact. The history does show an edit by you and a rollback by me, therefore there was a change. QED. -- Zsero (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOOK ZSERO...Just GO TO THE ARTICLE entitled Halakha and look at what you reverted THEN come back and tell me what I previously edited and what you reverted. Tell me EXACTLEY what if anything. Go ahead...I'm waiting. (there was nothing...)

If there really were nothing, then the edit history wouldn't show any record of either of us touching it. -- Zsero (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

=

WHY CAN"T YOU JUST ANSWER=

Why can't you just answer the question?

I asked you to go to the Halakhah article and tell me WHAT I edited and WHAT you reverted back.

Go look at the edit and revert history. NOTHING WAS EDITED AND NOTHING WAS REVERTED!!!!!!!!!

If there was then tell me WHAT. RebCoh (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to tell you anything. The incontrovertible fact is that you changed something, because the edit history records an entry for you, and another entry for me when I reverted it. You have not yet made a single useful edit to any article. Go and improve Wikipedia, in some fashion, and then you can expect people to treat you with some sort of respect; until then you're just a nudnik. -- Zsero (talk) 06:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HA HA HA..I was right! You can't anwer me. You CAN NOT tell me what I edited or what you reverted.

If you don't know what you reverted then why did you do it?

Hmmmm....harassment maybe?.....Vandalism?......

Oh how sweet victory is.

RebCoh (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know what I reverted. But I have no reason to tell you - you can look at the edits if you like. Just don't try to tell me you changed nothing, when the evidence that you did is right before your eyes. -- Zsero (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha HA HA ...IWAS RIGHT!!!

HA HA HA ......I WAS RIGHT, wasn't I? RebCoh (talk) 13:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

Please stop adding nonsense to Semicha. Your changes have been reverted as vandalism. -- Zsero (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop introducing silly errors into Semicha and then complaining when they are reverted. -- Zsero (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1830s is not a possessive, it's a plural. There is NO apostrophe. Unless you're a green'gr'o'ce'r, selling potato's and tomato's. -- Zsero (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apostrophe Proper in American English

"In British usage, we do not use an apostrophe in pluralizing dates:

    This research was carried out in the 1970s.

American usage, however, does put an apostrophe here:

    (A) This research was carried out in the 1970's.

You should not adopt this practice unless you are specifically writing for an American audience." "Guide to Punctuation", Larry Trask, University of Suxxex http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/department/docs/punctuation/node21.html

User: RebCoh

The above statement "In British useage we do not...etc" the author was saying what "we" (referring to himself and other Brits) do not use an apostrophe. He continues to say Brits "should not adopt this practice unless...writing for an American." He was speaking to BRITISH people when writing for AMERICANS. However Americans should write with their OWN correct punctuation which is to use the apostrophe.

Message tp ZSERO :

 GOTCHA

You have persisted in vigorous editing of anything and EVERYTHING that I have attempted to contribute to Wikipedia. You have stooped so low as to repeatedly revert a simple little apostrophe (') although I gave credible reason for its inclusion. I have been unable to do ANYTHING because of your obsessive compulsive behavior. You have stalked me to EVERY site I have attempted to visit. On one discussion page I wrote something and later realized I knew not enough about the subject to comment on it so I reverted my own contribution myself. You then attempted to revert my own reversion of my own edit. You have printed online libel concerning a certain Rabbi I quoted. You have stalked me like sociopath. I am unable to contribute even an apostrophe or comment.

So I decided to test you. On paper I typed a statement as to what type of a test I was going to perform and why. To this I signed my name before a Notary Public (a neighbor who is an attorney) and wrote the time of signature beside my name. I later went online and went to the article entitled "Halacha." I entered the editing room but I MADE ABSOLUTELY NO CHANGES WHATSOEVER!!!!! The history of the article showed I had been in the editing room but showed no changes made. You took the bait. You went into that article and YOU REVERTED SOMETHING I NEVER EVEN EDITED IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!

What will be your claim for doing this? There is but ONE answer...HARASSMENT!!!

This is pure and simple VANDALISM!!!!

I suggest you stop your childish behavior immediately.

RebCoh

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. If you are the user, please log in under that account and proceed to make the changes. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VANDALISM BY ZSERO

I have not delted anything from anyone elses talk page. I have only deleted MY OWN statement from MY OWN talk page.

Zsero has lowered himself to name calling and degrading comments. My only charge toward him is Vandalism, hasassment, and cyber-stalking, which can easily be proven true.

I am new to Wikipedia and wished to make some valuable contributions to various articles. I was especially concerned about some anti-Semitic material in the Semicha article which states that Semicha was broken and no longer has an unbroken succession to present day. The Roman Catholic Church repeatedly boasts in their articles that their Apostolic Succession (the Christian alternative to Semicha) was never broken and still retains an unbroken succession from the Apostles to the present day. HOWEVER there is no more historical proof of this then there is for an unbroken Jewish Semicha. As a matter of fact there are MORE indications of an unbroken chain of Semicha then their is for Roman Cathoic Apostolic Succession. I quoted two rabbinical sources and because of the publishing house I quoted those particular books were printed by Zsero came in and deleted them. I put it back on and again he deleted them. So I gave up. Next I saw a word that need an apostrophe and added it. Zsero came in and reverted it. I put back the apostrophe. Zsero reverted it. I put it back, he reverted it. Finally I told him to forget it I surrendered (although I had quoted an authoritive source stating the apostrophe was warranted in this case). I next tried to correct a spelling error. he reverted it. Suspicious I had a cyber stalker I decided to test him. I went to the Halaka article and made a change and then undid the change BEFORE I hit the submit button. Therefore the history of the Article showed I made a change but when looking at the history there in reality was no change at all to be observed. Zsero came in AND REVERTED MY EDIT THAT HAD NO CHANGE IN IT WHATSOEVER!!! Zsero cannot claim he reverted it because I edited an error or that I added something wrong. All he can say is the obvious...he edited it just because it was submitted by ME. This is harassment, vandalism, and cyber stalking. I next went to various unrelated articles making "NO CHANGE edits" and he has reverted EVERY "NO CHANGE edit" I have made. There is NOT ONE SINGLE THING I HAVE OR CAN EDIT, ADD, OR SUBTRACT that he will not revert. I have not been able to add as much as a period or an apostrophe that he doesn't go straight there and revert it. I have left messages in his talk page and he immediately reverts them.This individual is a problem that needs to be permanently blocked from harassing editors trying to add beneficial contributions to Wikipedia. Please advise as how this should be handeled. Thank you very much,

RebCoh (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your and Zsero's dispute

I have taken a quick look. There are concerns with both sides, but more with user:RebCoh:

Zsero - I'm at a loss to understand edits like this, which seem to show a revert of no real value at all and have an inflammatory effect on the matter. Also reverts like this with inflammatory edit summaries, that have lacked discussion. When it's clear a matter is the subject of dispute, then reverting with no discussion may not be best every time.

RebCoh - your editing is actually far more the concerning of the two. Epithets such as "Mr Apostrophe Hater!" [1] count as personal attacks, edits such as visiting an article specifically adding apostrophes everywhere [2], labelling a revert that is actually, quite reasonable (the lack of apostrophes is indeed a communal norm) as "vandalism" [3], edits such as this adding many quotes/apostrophes, edits such as this, this and this are childish and provocative, edits like this are disruptive (even if others have done the same sometimes), and posting the identical comment here here here here is unnecessarily flooding user pages and poor conduct.

You may find genuine discussion - rather than argument - helps.

Cross-posted to both your user pages. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Apology

I am very sorry to have become disruptive but if I may I would like to explain my position. This is my very first attempt to join Wikipedia. My first contribution was a brief quote from a Rabbi which was immediately reverted. My second attempt was a brief quotation from Rabbi Worch which was reverted with the following comment "(rv nonsense sourced to a vanity press publication from some idiot)" which hurt me very deeply because of my deep reverence for the Rabbi. I next added an apostrophe after "1800's" which was immediately reverted. I provided Zsero information from "Guide to Punctuation", by Larry Trask, University of Suxxex wherein he states "In British usage, we do not use an apostrophe in pluralizing dates. American usage, however, does put an apostrophe here." After which he instructs his British readers not to adopt this American practice unless writing for an American audience. Zsero, however, continued to revert the apostrophe. Now that apostrophe was not important to me but he insulted me in my very first editing experience in Wikipedia and then makes a big deal out of an apostrophe,which angered me. So I kept putting the apostrophe back and he kept reverting it, over and over. Finally I just gave up. I went to another site and he followed me there. So I decided to test him. I made a "no change" edit in the Halaka article. He immediately reverted it although there was nothing to revert and no reason for doing it. This angered me and I confronted him with this. He denied there was a "no change" edit and reversion although it is on record for all to see. My anger prompted me to make various comments and childish taunts. By the way, my "Apostrophe Hater" comment was meant as a joke. Obviously I do not believe the world is going to come to an end because of Apostrophe's or that Einstein quoted such. It was an attempt to turn a war into humor. To this very day I am unable to make a SINGLE contribution to Wikipedia in any way, shape, or form. I find this to be a useless place where just anyone off the streets can come in and edit, revert, and take out their frustrations on other attempting editors. I will not back to Wikipedia. RebCoh (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]