User talk:Zarel

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Zarel}} on your talk.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Zarel, welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips:

Take a look at the Simplified Ruleset.
Read the Tutorial, How to edit a page and the Manual of Style.
Create a User page.
Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
Add yourself to the New user log.
Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
Be bold!
Use the Show preview button
Provide an Edit summary.

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, Alphax ^τεχ 03:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My block to 65.116.102.4

It was my decision to block said IP (65.116.102.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) for 2.718 months because of the following reasons:

The block log indicated that this was the user's 9th block.
The user's sixth block by Hall Monitor was for 3 months.
Vandalism to e (Thus meriting 2.718 months).

Now, if you look at the block log, you will see that I unblocked said IP after trying to block for 2.718 months. The server misinterpreted that to mean 27 months, meaning that the block would expire sometime in 2008. I unblocked, and changed it to 83 days.

Sorry for any inconviences this block has cost you, but I too also edited on a school computer, only to have it blocked twice for 3 months apiece. Needless to say, my editing habits were affected.

If you have any further questions, please leave me a note at my talk page. Ian Manka Talk to me! 17:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when writing notes on peoples talk pages, be sure to sign all of your posts with ~~~~. This helps by automatically producing a link to your user page, and thus, having an easy link to your talk page. Thanks, and happy editing! Ian Manka Talk to me! 17:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing -- if you are upset by not being able to edit, feel free to look at the Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal. Ian Manka Talk to me! 18:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5.342ba

For a long time ;) Wotnarg

Finally, I'm no longer behind the Great Firewall, and can post. So, hey. --Zarel 02:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you for addressing my question.

Also I apreshate the welcome! It's been a long time Since I've really edited something or asked a question

much abliged

but hey at least I remeber to sign at the end :3

Setokira (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Open source video games template

Yeah, I agree. I made it because I want free software games to be more accessible and documented. Sadly, only so many free games make it onto Wikipedia without being deleted, but that is what the Libregamewiki is for (well, for entirely free games that is). Shame people try and stop me from linking to that external resource, as well as the other FreeGameDev network sites such as Free Gamer. If only one single god-damn GNU/Linux/free software magazine would mention that site. Then it would be perfectly verifiable! Comrade Graham (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 21:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits?

Hey, Zarel,

Just out of curiosity, why did you deleted my recent addition to the article entitled 'The Game (mind game)'?

A reply would be much appreciated,

-Luke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmtengs (talk • contribs) 01:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary said "Unsourced".

Specifically, you wrote things like "In North America, a widely accepted rule states that Chuck Norris replaces the role of the British Prime Minister." While not necessarily completely wrong, I don't think it's "widely accepted" - at least not enough to merit a mention in a Wikipedia article.

How the rules work when two Wikipedia editors disagree like this is you need to cite sources. Basically, if it's really widely accepted like you say it is, there should be sources like newspaper articles, or academic papers, or very trustworthy websites that say so. Wikipedia:Citing sources talks in greater detail about what sort of things count as sources. It's pretty complicated, though, but if you can find me a newspaper article or something like that, I'd be happy to help you add it to the article.

You might think this policy is a bit biased against adding things to articles. This is true, and for it, I am sorry. But it's the only way to be reasonably confident that we don't have wrong information in our articles. :/

By the way, you sign your messages by adding --~~~~ to the end.

For instance, if I type:

Hello! --~~~~

It will look like this:

Hello! --Zarel (talk⋅c) 10:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope this helps! :) --Zarel (talk⋅c) 10:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catfight (animal behavior)

Please note it is the burden of the person adding or restoring content to provide reliable sources. You did not see any merged content because there was ZERO sourced content TO merge. Active Banana (^bananaphone 00:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have left your edits alone if you simply removed whatever content from the article you disagreed with. That's not what you did, though, and what I did was revert an out-of-process deletion that circumvented WP:AfD. I understand that you're trying to use a technicality in an interpretation of how merging and reverting works, and perhaps that's a valid interpretation of policy. But all I'm saying here is, what you're doing here is essentially deleting an article. Can't you just list the article on AfD first? --Zarel (talk⋅c) 01:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I like your "bananaphone" link. :) --Zarel (talk⋅c) 01:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think Active Banana's solution is better than an AFD. This way, the content is all still there in the histories of Catfight (animal behavior) and Kneading (cats). Once sources are found, the articles can be re-created from their histories and the sources added. That's much less work than rewriting the articles from scratch, which is what would be necessary if the histories were deleted through AFD. —Angr (talk) 09:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

I am a user of Pokemon Showdown!, and spend lots of my Internet life on it. Hope it gets out of beta soon. 1966batfan (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Zarel. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Zarel. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Zarel. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:MITY logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MITY logo.png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]