This is an archive of past discussions about User:ZimZalaBim. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hey, the anon hasn't been warned since December 8th, thats almost a month so he can't be blocked with just one edit, the next time he vandalizes, he should be hit with a {{subst:test3}} , and then a test4 if he still goes at it, after a test4, he can then be blocked! Thanks for letting me know, and happy editing. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk19:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Two things:
When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.
for the obviously same person using a different anonIP vandal hit him with a {{subst:multipleIPs}} warning which is the same as jumping up to a test3KelleyCook17:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Copyright (cheesefest)
well, i live in little chute, and from what i saw on the website nothing is copyrighted, and i have also seen numerous websites with that same information as well...so i hope not
thanks!
Re: the Brett Favre image
Hi there! I've just replied in Talk:Brett Favre about why I removed the image. I believe my rationale is sound (and would actually justify removing the other two image covers from the Peyton Manning article), but I'd appreciate input on the matter. It's not that I want the images removed, but I'm not confident the justification works. Skybunny03:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The thing that makes me worry, in the 'magazine cover' fair use tag is that the image must "to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question", which I take to mean that there has to be some sort of significant reference to the article - or that the Wikipedia article has to be about the magazine article rather than the person. I did see your reply in the magazine cover template, and I'll be interested what the consensus there is - honestly, in the hope that I'm wrong and this is really just fine to run with. I want to see an image on the Brett Favre article as much as I imagine you do...best of luck. Skybunny04:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Some nonsense appeared in this article ("It's all about me!") with your ID in the edit history (see here). It's been reverted. DavidH01:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
NEVERMIND -- that nonsense was there before you (it was just still in your edit). Sorry, cheers. DavidH01:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
You have a long road ahead of you with this Striver character, trying to insert his misinformation about the opinions Charlie Sheen may have on the events of 9/11. If you're bored, examine his edit history...he is near to exhausting the communities patience.--MONGO14:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thanks for the message on my talk page. unfortunately, I was caught up in real world events and was not on wiki for a while. It looks like everything is sorted out, if I'm not mistaken. Let me know if there's anything else you need, and keep up the good work. --Alhutch04:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi
Thanks for you comment. However, i do not agree with any of the points you maid. I did not creat Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews to have a pov Fork, i created it since it deserves its own article. It would dominate any other article it would be put in, just look at the talk page of Charlie Sheen. I added it to the see also of Showbiz Tonight, since they broke the story in mainstream media, and hence it is higly relevant to the show. I added it to A.J. Hammer since he is the one resposible for the show accepting it, and also since he endorces me Sheen's version. The Ellis Henican link is obvious, since he participiate on a show on the sole reason of commenting the interviews. And please, stop accusing me of doing POINT, it rather upsets me. Peace.--Striver03:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I creat articles since they should be created, i doubt you mean that Showbiz Tonight and A.J. Hammer are not articles in their own right. And i will continue to link to the article. Not to oppose you or any personal reason, but only since i dont belive that article should be deleted, and neither am i going to pretend it is already deleted. Have a good day/night! --Striver03:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I dont see what the problem is. I was creating a article about a real and well sourced event, i saw that prominent issues related to the article where not created, so i created them, and naturaly gave a link between them, since there is such a verified link.
Im sure its not your intent, but i get upsett when people accusse me of doing POINT or being a POV hawk for doing exactly what wikipedia is about, creating articles and linking them to eachother. The only problem i see is that people rather not see the article i create, since its about subjects they dont like, in contrast to having any valid objections. And after i have created the articles they detest, they become even more upsett to see other articles link to it, specialy if its me that created them.
Im sorry, but i see nothing but acting emotional when people do this kind of things.
Now, i know that you probable feel offended by this message, and i wish that was not the case. I see no other way than being honest about how i feel, and hope you can be equally honest, so we can understand eachoter.
I wish not to become unfriendly with you, in the contrary, i appreciate you expresing your conserns and views. Peace! --Striver12:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I plan to expand the article, but i know it will be afd if i do that, so i afd'd it without the controversial stuff, so people can consentrate on the guys notability, and after that, when it is established that he is not non-notable, then i can expand on him.
Maybe not the best thing to do, i got a bit angry at geting perfectly notable articles deleted only since people cant tolerate views they dont share, even thogh they fullfill the Wikipedia criteria. For a recent example, just see my Sheen-Alex article, it fullfills all wikipedia criteria for inclusion, but its geting deleted.--Striver15:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
POINT is when X is done, and you belive X should not be done, so to prove it, you do X to Y. I did not do that. I asked the comunity to vote on the notability of a article i created.
If somebody had afd'd my article, and then i had gone and afd'd a unrelated article just to make a POINT, that would have been POINT. But not this. --Striver15:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, anywhow, i agree that it maybe was not the best thing to do. Ill try the tag you mentioned, and the request to creat was not a bad idea either.--Striver15:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, saving electrons, reusing the heading. "Any thoughts on a course of action?" That is the question, and I don't know the answer. I assume Striver means well, and just lets his enthusiasm carry him away. It would be interesting to know just how much of Prisonplanet's and other's page rank is due to links from Wikipedia, but I don't know how to estimate that. Tom HarrisonTalk01:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
one might not need a definition from paragraph 1 to paragraph 2 of tracking as you have it now, but it does need something significant to make that transition because the paragraphs are substantively different. the definition made the conceptual translation between substances before. repair or revert is necessary for readers. --Buridan15:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
