Jump to content

User talk:ZimZalaBim/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

My sig

I really do not think it is a big deal. --La gloria è a dio 00:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to be sure you were aware of the suggested considerations. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleting attack pages

Hey ZZB. Re: [1], when deleting attack pages it would be a good idea not to include the disparaging info into the deletion log, which is visible to all and which even oversight cannot remove. This has been a friendly sysop tip from - crz crztalk 03:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point - hadn't thought of that. Will take care to remove that automatic summary when deleting attack pages in the future. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Moose teaches.gif & Image:SchoolhouseSM.gif

Yeah, I saw these as well. Google didn't turn up clear claims of copyright for them, so I figured I'd let them sit out for a few days until they got deleted through the magic of {{No copyright holder}}. Thanks for mentioning them. FreplySpang 03:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No prob. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:JHSsqSM.jpg

I was going to get permission via email. I did not notice that the site had a copyright. Also I am pretty familar with the policy. --Sir James Paul.La gloria è a dio 22:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Assuming this is your school, might I suggest just going outside and taking a picture of it yourself and releasing it to the public domain, rather than needing to get the proper permission from the copyright owner of this particular image. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Booster Juice

Please stop editing the Booster Juice stub. I am in the process of expanding it. As it is a work in progress, your evaluation as to it sounding like an "advertisement" is premature, to say the least. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MaerlynsRainbow (talk • contribs).

I suggest you either work on the article in your own user space (ie, create a subpage), or use the {{inuse}} tag to notify others that it is a work in progress. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion about the "inuse" tag. I am following the format of the Jamba Juice article in both tone and format as these are similar companies. I will be editing this page over the next couple of days, as I accumulate information. Please be patient. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MaerlynsRainbow (talk • contribs).

re: sign your pages

As I am just learning, your suggeestions are very helpful. Also, as I am TRYING to make Wikipedia a better place by expanding a stub, I would appreciate some leaway and/or discussion before you delete my edits. You have still not addressed my request to leave my Booster Juice edit alone. MaerlynsRainbow 03:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)MaerlynsRainbow

When I removed the long list of ingredients, I left a descriptive edit summary and left a comment on the article's talk page. That is where further discussion should take place, rather than just re-inserting the deleted content without explanation or an attempt to arrive at consensus. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverts

The reason why I am making these bad reverts does have something to do with having little trust with people editing under IP's. I have not really noticed it until you left the comment. It is something that I need to work on. Also why do you think I am reverting in bad faith? Thanks. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 15:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say you are reverting in bad faith, but that you should assume good faith in other people's edits. There are legitimate reasons why users might edit under an IP: forgot to login, want anonymity due to controversial edit, brand new user, etc. Please do not revert on sight simply because the edit is from an IP. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, you mentioned distrust in IP edits above, so that must be a factor (removing barnstar, thanks, but no thanks) --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Good luck

...with the dissertation. --Kukini 03:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Sam ov the blue sand/Ace Combat X Fictional Aircraft

That's not a User Page (well kinda but not really) its an attachment to my page so I can fix a certain deleted page. Just felt like correcting you.Sam ov the blue sand 22:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Got it. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox warnings

Well, you are not suppose to be taking off the template at the top. I think that for doing something like that they should have a warning. Also I think they should not be allowed to say offensive things. I will be reverting everything I think is offensive or what others may think are offensive. Have a nice week. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 00:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

yes, it is good to put the template back, but just no need to warn. More likely than not, you'll just piss someone off (for example), since they were told to go there for experimenting in the first place. And I don't know what you mean about reverting whatever you think is offensive - that is not a sufficient criteria to revert edits. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User pages

Like I said before, if it is him he can login and add them. Have a nice week. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 02:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

But you are unnecessarily making more work for editors. That's my concern. Why not just assume good faith that it was him/her and leave it be? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Horace Mann School

Right, Ham. I always forget about the ham. --Haemo 03:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL/ --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Not belaboring the point

Hi - regarding your edit summary here [1]: 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 may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I find it offensive that you attack my beliefs. I do not go around attacking your beliefs. Please think before you say things. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 18:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest you both just drop this and disengage for a while. A questionable edit was done almost a month ago, and there's no point belaboring the point now. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Your right, i think there is not likely much Sir James Paul and i have to constructively say to each other, i can drop it indefinitely. Especailly since he seems to be simply deleting my talk comments from his page on the topic. My mistake for the personal attack, i'll behave better in the future.

Thanks for your help and Herculian patience in this matter. Paxuscalta 03:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No prob. I'm not comfortable with his removing comments from his talk page, but I think it is within his perogative (esp since they stay in history). Anyway, happy editing! -ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: Apple Inc.

I already reverted Apple, Inc. back to a redirect. GabrielF 19:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll stay

I'll stay but will not be as active. There still might be a chance I will retire but not now. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 02:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

hi zimzalabim

you insist that i not edit the iphone wikipedia page. i can also do likewise. please remove the apple biased information. thanks, -bill —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.102.36.140 (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Hi Bill. If you think there is biased information in the article, feel free to discuss it at Talk:iPhone. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

iphone

zimzalabim, if you care about being unbiased, please include information on both iphone (linksys) and iphone (apple) on the iphone wikipedia entry. do *not* simply redirect or include info on the apple product. you seem reasonable and you seem to care about the accuracy of information. or am i wrong? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whointhe (talk • contribs) 16:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Please follow the discussion on the talk page. WP:NAME seems to support having iPhone be about the Apple product, and the redirects are appropriate. This isn't the place to hash out your company's trademark dispute. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I presume you are the same person as 64.102.36.140 (talk · contribs), a Cisco employee? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete article process

When I see an article that I think should be deleted I tag it with {{delete}} . I could ignore it instead. Would you prefer that? WAS 4.250 17:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No, as I suggested, you should follow the guidelines at WP:DEL. Not every article qualifies for using the {{delete}} tage (reserved for speedy deletion candidates), and it is preferred you give a reason or use a more specific tag. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
As of now, my choice is to tag with delete or to ignore. The delete process is not something I want to have much to do with. I'm unsucessfully trying to have less to do with wikipedia and learning even more about Wikipedia's delete rules is moving in the wrong direction. WAS 4.250 17:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't qualify to have the {{delete}} tag, so perhaps you should ignore it.... --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Category removal from iPhone

Hey, Let me clear up some confusion. A smartphone must be able to run native applications that can be loaded or unloaded from the device. The iPhone lacks this capability and is therefore not a smartphone as it runs proprietary software. Rather, it is a very impressive, capable, and powerful cellular phone. Hope that clears it up, I'm going to look into the matter a bit more before I remove that category again. Cheers. StayinAnon 22:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure where you're getting your "loaded or unloaded" qualification from, but the opening sentence at smartphone says, "A smartphone or sphone is any electronic handheld device that integrates the functionality of a mobile phone, personal digital assistant (PDA) or other information appliance." - sounds like the iPhone fits the bill. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Right, but the third sentence says "A key feature of a smartphone is that additional native applications can be installed on the device. The applications can be developed by the manufacturer of the handheld device, by the operator or by any other third-party software developer." The iPhone can't do this. StayinAnon 22:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and I've questioned that requirement on the talk page, as it is uncited. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Prank Call on iPhone

Hey Zim, I saw that you removed the reference to the first public iPhone prank call. I can't find any WP policies that would render that reference irrelevant; I will be putting that reference back up. It is just the kind of content that will interest readers. Thank you. standonbibleTalk! 22:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The contents of Jobs' call is irrelevant and not of encyclopedia value. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comments

What you are asking me to do is not resonable. Also I have talked over my philosophy with people on IRC and they seem fine with it, actualy they have the same philosophy. Have a nice week. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 01:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sir, it is reasonable and necessary. Please do not wholesale remove YouTube videos (or blogs, for that matter) from articles. One must examine the context of articles, even when fighting vandalism. (And it matters not whether your friends on IRC agree). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Usually, yes. But please use judgmenet and don't just automatically remove any blog you come across. I'm not saying you've done that (vs. your actions with YouTube links)...just a reminder. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
First, be more careful. And second, how would "reverting" have been any more appropriate in that case? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 06:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Kks krishna

I notice that you've left a warning for Kks krishna in October. FYI, I just removed a bunch of external links added by Kks krishna. I'm a bit fuzzy whether it's acceptable for us newbies to post warnings for others. Ideoplex 14:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I left a warning, but sure, even newbies can leave warning messages when appropriate. A helpful grid of warnings is here: WP:WARN. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Metahacker

I'm suppose to archeive old comments and he is not, thats not right. Also the reason for removing the uncyclopedia comment was because it has nothing to do with wikipedia. About the edit summaries, I have been using it to tell how I edited the article. Please do not enfource a personal policy. Have a nice week and god bless. --James, La gloria è a dio 17:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, archiving talk pages is preferred. So why didn't you leave him/her a message to that effect, rather than reverting as vandalism and giving a test1 warning? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
S/he left you a message about an edit, and you replied. Fine. After s/he removed your replies from her/his talk page, you treated MetaHacker as a common vandal, reverting the edit as vandalism and giving a test1 warning. That is the "treatment" I'm referring to. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. But can you address the most recent concerns I mentioned at your talk page? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Linksys iPhone

Not sure what your complaint was with "original research". The comments on potential challenges for Cisco to defend its trademark are rather direct consequences of IP law--there is no "research" involved here. Any information that supports the arguments--i.e., acquisition dates, company claims, etc.--are readily available and are in no way original.

I do not work for either Apple or Cisco. I have an interest in IP law, which is what brought me to this page (and the story).

One cannot discuss any iPhone without mentioning the other or the dispute.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lone.cowboy (talk • contribs).

Please see policy on original research. What you added might be true, but it needs to be verifiable, preferably from reliable sources. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have citations on the data (i.e., the dates of acquisition and such)--this is easily verifiable. I can see how the rest can be interpreted as research--although I phrased it as possible arguments, a reader may interpret them as opinions on appropriate legal arguments. In this sense, it becomes speculation. I'll try to incorporate the factual info in another way.

As far as the images are concerned, I incorrectly copied the info from another image. The photos are from promotional materials supplied by the manufacturer. However, they are indeed only used for informational purposes (and historical record), and qualify under fair use. I was unable to find the correct template for the appropriate copyright claim. It should be similar to the one for the photo that was originally on the page (and includes BTW a logo statement as well). --Lone.cowboy (talk • contribs) 05:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on copyright or fair use, but I wonder if a fair use claim can be made with the {{Promotional}} tag given that free images could be made of these items - just need to find one at a store or in a home to take a picture of. Don't know.... --ZimZalaBim (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've followed the use of similar images on Wiki when claiming fair use of promotional materials. It is true that it should not be difficult to create new images--that's precisely why promotional images cannot be denied fair use status when used to support informational statements, such as reviews or news. The use of the original promo materials is actually important here because it shows the precise issue on point--that the company rebranded the product without other changes. This is quintessential fair use.

I've also rewrote the legal arguments. They no longer look like "original research" and are heavily referenced. Feel free to verify and correct, if you are so inclined. --Lone.cowboy 10:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

AMA

I knew someone would have that concern but I feel I am fine. If I feel I need help I'll ask for help from another advocate. Thanks for telling me that though. --James, La gloria è a dio 20:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Good luck. --ZimZalaBim (talk)
Um, how does the promise of a reward/barnstar for playing nice fit within the Guide to Advocacy or the AMA Handbook. I think I need to reassert my concern that you're in over your head here. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
(sorry, didn't realize this is what you were replying to). In response, its not that you can't do it. But rather, what purpose does it serve. Your role is to be an advocate, and I just wasn't understanding how cut/pasting a message to all parties saying "If your civil, and work with the others well I'll reward you" is actually supposed to help resolve a content dispute. Honestly, while I applaud your enthusiasm, I don't think you have the requisite policy experience/knowledge in order to fulfill your role in this matter. But that's not for me to decide. Good luck. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Warnings

Its called common sense and restraint. Look at your counter-vandalism unit's guidelines: Don't bite the newbies. Why should a user whose only edit is to blank a page (which very well might have been an accident - assume good faith) merit a warning that states nothing more than "Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia." There's no helpful links to how to contribute constructively, no links to the sandbox for experimenting. Just a cold, harsh threat. Trust me on this (and others that have pointed this out to you previously). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I know it and have done it that way in the past. It really is not a big deal though. Thanks for bringing it up though. --James, La gloria è a dio 22:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a big deal because we have a manual of style to adhere to. Consistency and clarity is important - just providing a raw URL is not helpful nor informative to readers. A properly-formatted link tells readers what to expect when clicking on that link. Please try to understand. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Abdul Hamid Sharaf School

why was the information i wrote about AHSS school in Jordan removed? You could ask every student who attended that school and they'll agree. It's a matter of fact and the school can't lie to people and say that 'it's highly recommended and respected' when if you tell someone in Jordan that your from that school they'll think low of you automatically. What I said was fair, a little harsh but it was all true trust me on this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.212.62.1 (talk • contribs).

If you're talking about Abdul Hamid Sharaf School, please familiarize yourself with policies regarding neutral point of view, original research, and verifiability. If you find reliable sources for your contribution, it would have a better chance of remaining in the article. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Upright vacuum cleaner.jpg and Image:Laura Dellutri, author of Speed Cleaning 101.jpg

I gather from your contributions that unlike many of us who have essayed wikibreaks in order to focus on the monotony of real life and to say in school, employed, married, etc., you have done a relatively good job weaning yourself from the beast, and so I'll surely understand should you not be able to reply for a while; this issue is not a pressing one, and I come to you simply to seek a second opinion (and because, unlike me, you make the big bucks here).

Chuck recently uploaded the instant images to illustrate his prospective first article, tagging each as {{promotional}} fair use, but I fear that neither image satisifes our fair use criteria and imagine that each ought, if used in mainspace, to be IfDed (for now, they should, as unused in mainspace, probably be CSD I5ed): (a) the vacuum cleaner image, even if used to illustrate Vacuum cleaner#Configurations, would probably not be deemed under our criteria as irreplacable, and surely is, at least under our policies and perhaps under US law, not fair use as a decoration of an article about cleaning; and (b) the (probably replacable) picture of the author is probably not, at least under our policies, fair use as an illustration for an article about her and surely not fair use as a decoration of an article about her book (which I don't think would itself merit encyclopedic inclusion) or as a decoration of an article about cleaning.

I'll leave Chuck a note (a bit clearer, I'd hope) to be above effect and w/r/to the need to delete orphaned fair use images, and I write you to ask whether you concur in my assessment that neither image (if undeleted for use in mainspace) would serve any permissible purpose in an article similar to that on which Chuck is working (I worry that Chuck thinks some of us to be wikistalking him and capriciously challenging his contributions, and so I want to ensure that someone else joins in my view that, though we appreciate Chuck's uploading these images, they are simply not appropriate for the project at present). Joe 21:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Maintaining the wikibreak has proven difficult, especially since I rely on WP as a resource, and often see edits I feel must be addressed just in my day-to-day use. Anyway, regarding the images from Chuck you mentioned, it seems you are correct that they fail to properly satisfy his fair use claims. Image:Upright vacuum cleaner.jpg is easily repeatable, and many public domain images are freely available at Wikimedia Commons]. I don't have enough expertise to offer a solid opinion on Image:Laura Dellutri, author of Speed Cleaning 101.jpg, but it seems you are correct in noting that is likely replaceable (presuming she makes public appearances), and not even appropriate fair use for an article that is generally about cleaning. Combined with the fact that his "first article" (now in a sandbox) would likely not survive if he ever moves it to mainspace, it seems appropriate to list them as CSD:I5. Feel free to leave Chuck a message, and I'll endorse it. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

commons:User:ZimZalaBim

I assert to be the same person as commons:User:ZimZalaBim. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

go ahead

I'm sick of fighting about my article, so i'm gonna do the honors myself, and don't expect much more contributions from me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gliky (talk • contribs) 22:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

padddy5

Hello im padddy5. I love to contribute and fix articles whenever i can.I would like to know one thing: How do i get noticed to see if i deserve an award?

Chuck Marean

I need the images for the article.Chuck Marean 22:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Please don't delete them again. Chuck Marean 22:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you might need images of such objects for your test article, but the particular images you uploaded do not qualify as fair use and violate our copyright policy. As I suggested, either seek out free versions at the Commons, or create your own free versions to upload. If you continue to upload un-free images, they will be deleted, and you will risk a block due to violating copyright policy. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Please undelete the Images. There's nothing wrong with them or using them. Chuck Marean 22:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Have you read the explanation I provided on your talk page? They are not fair use. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand it, and we don't have a "Johnny Mop." I can not take a picture of one. I never heard of one before. I thought people would find it interesting. From what I read of "fair use," using the picture is a fair use. The same is true of the drawing of the vacuum cleaner. I can not take a picture of the original. I don't know where it is. I included it because it doesn't identify any brand. The picture of the sponges also doesn't show the brand name. It is obviously fair use. If permission from the web site is needed, how would that be proven? -- Chuck Marean 00:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Helpful pages for you include Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Fair use, and Wikipedia:Uploading_images. The concern here is that someone (most likely) owns a copyright on the images you uploaded, including the drawing of the vacuum cleaner, and including a logo-free image of the sponge - the person who took those photos and made that drawing own the copyright to them. Your proposed use of the images do not satisfy the fair use claim you made ({{promotional}}) because they are easily repeatable: rather than using someone else's copryright-protected images, one can easily find or create "free" images of the same items. I'll give you additional help at your talk page. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think they're copyright-protected images. That's why I put fair use. They're available to be used and are not being sold. -- Chuck Marean 00:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It is becoming clear you don't have a good understanding of copyright or fair use policy. That's ok - they're complicated. I'd suggest you either use the images I've shown you or just drop it. (This all is likely moot, anyway, since your housecleaning article isn't likely to succeed in main article space anyway, I'm afraid to say) --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


'personal attack'

Where? Proto ► 20:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Here: "If you consider it is, then you are a retard and I wish to never talk to you." --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
That's incivil, not a personal attack. You wanted the {{uw-defamatory}} template, not {{uw-npa2}}, which is for a personal attack directed at a specific editor. Or maybe {{uw-joke2}}. Proto ► 20:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Whatever - just stop it. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry man, I'm short-tempered right now, I didn't mean to be a smartass, and I clearly was being one. Time to turn the computer off and leave it for the day, I think. {{uw-defamatory}} is a handy template to use, though, the advice is good (if not the way I said it). Sorry again. Proto ► 20:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
No prob. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 00:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me

Done. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

WhyTheAreDead.com

Are you a scientologist because I know they do not like anything negative about there religion on the internet. It is a perfectly fine link. We should have both positive and negative links. It should not be one sided. --James, La gloria è a dio 02:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(sighing) I am not a Scientologist. Assume good faith: I am merely an editor trying to ensure links added to articles comply with the external link and neutral point of view policies. This link provides nothing more than original research and weakly argued conspiracy theories. Please familiarize yourself with the policy on reliable sources --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is the Dinoco logo I keep uploading a copyright violation? I made it myself! A•N•N•Afoxlover 00:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted your 3rd attempt to upload it because it had already been deleted (twice). I don't have expertise on the particular copyright issues, so perhaps you should ask one of the two editors who originally deleted it: Zscout370 (talk · contribs) or Cyde (talk · contribs). (But even if you made it yourself, my guess is that it still is likely protected by copyright: I could make my own Coca-Cola logo, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a copyright (or trademark) violation....) --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for setting up that RFC on cow tipping. It looked like a small edit war could've taken place on that caption. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 14:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No prob. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikibreak

ZimZalaBim's claim to be on a "Wikibreak" is factually incorrect. It should be noted that wikipedia quality standards strive for the utmost in accuracy. Knowingly providing false information is considered to be a form of vandalism. Kaiser Vinny 03:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My failure to maintain my wikibreak is a fault of mine, not of the encyclopedia. (sigh). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Tom Monfils

I would like to know SPECIFICALLY for what reason you deleted the article Tom Monfils. You cited WP:BIO but did not expound on specifically WHAT was flawed. Deleting a page & protecting against re-creation is a major step and one which should not be taken lightly. It would be more appropriate to DISCUSS issues than to summarily eliminate a page, the importance & relevance of which may not be immediately apparent to you. Kaiser Vinny 14:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I am familiar with the Tom Monfils murder. Sad case, but not every murder victim is worthy of an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of biographical information. Second, if you find page you created was deleted, you should always check the deletion log that is linked on the empty article page to see why it was deleted and by whom, and also read the Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? link provided, and follow the instructions there. Simply recreating the article is improper, as you did on two occasions. Now, if you feel that Mr. Monfils does fulfil the notability guidelines outlined in WP:BIO, feel free to provide the necessary reliable sources and supporting information either at the article's talk page or you can request a deletion review. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

just curious, ZimZalaBim says Tom Monfils is non-notable... So why is it he (or she) would be "familiar with it"? this seems a contradiction. If the case is apparently so well known by ZimZalaBim, does it not stand to reason that it is well known by a good number of wikipedians, and therefore "notable"? Khenemet 00:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with it because I used to live in the region. Please consult our notability requirements for biographies; you'll notice that "familiarity by ZimZalaBim" is not one of the criteria. ;) --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Julox

This was not copied. That website was used as a source and so was his Myspace page, all of which is general knowledge to fans like myself. Being that it is a Bio it has similar information. I changed many portions of that bio and updated it as well. I'm new to trying to update wikipedia and feel that Julox is just as relevant as many of the musicians that have articles on here already. If you could help explain what I have to do to get this to stick around I would appreciate it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slick80 (talk • contribs).

Familiarize yourself with our copyright policy (since a large majority of the text appeared to have simply been cut & pasted), as well as our notability guidelines, especially for musicians. And, in general, Wikipedia:How to write a great article and Help:Contents might be useful, too. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I got to tell ya, I read the notability guidelines and they seem very open for inturputation. A "cult following" is certainly open for inturputation. But I shall read up even more. Slick80 17:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


RE:Your Signature

Okay. How's this: DTD ? Better?

IMO (and supported by the spirit of WP:SIG), its size distracts. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's creepin' me out!

Almost every time I make a mistake, you notify me about it. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's kinda creeping me out the way that it happens almost every single time. How do you do that? Do you check my contributions every minute of the day? How? A•N•N•Afoxlover 01:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith: its not uncommon for more experienced editors to double-check edits of relatively new members who have shown less-than-complete knowledge of some of our policies and guidelines. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Petrarch article

I put a warning on talk page of User 170.158.81.56 so if he keeps this up, we will have to go to the next level. --Doug talk 16:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - you beat me to the warning... --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Surpass-A

Probably. I'm going to nominate all of them for deletion, just to be on the safe side. Regards ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

yeah, i wasn't sure if they qualified for speedy or not. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

tom monfils afd thingie?

Wanna fill me in on the backstory about that thing you mentioned at the murder of tom monfils AFD (which I closed and speedied a few seconds ago)? You said you were going to defer to another admin, and since you said you had salted the first one, I figure you'd know what happened. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 04:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The history and talk at Tom Monfils tells most of the story, as does Vinceipierce's talk page before he blanked it. A non-notable murder victim, who's page was speedied as A7 3 times. Vinceipierce wasn't happy, vandalized my talk page a bit to make a WP:POINT, then blanked his page and disappeared. Usual story. Now this new article, by what I presume is a sock. Thanks for speedying the new page. I'll keep an eye on it. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
np. If the page is recreated, I'll speedy it again, and block the sock. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 05:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

RE:Poem Page

Ah. Okay. I'm just happy that you didn't delete it for me...I need to save those poems to my computer. (not)(listening)

No prob. Save them, place the tag, and then I'll delete it. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing it promptly. I've deleted the page. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

What?!

You just left me a message saying I was spamming with geocities forum links? What are you talking about? There is no such thing as a geocities forum. The ONLY geocities links I posted led to fansites for the thing I posted them under and NOT forums. This is within the rules, and am very offended to be accused of something I did not do.>( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.163.193.239 (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

You are adding the same personal site hosted on Geocities to multiple articles with the description "Broken Clock-Clock Tower fansite and largest forum in existence" (emphasis added). That constitutes a link to be avoided. Please stop. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

So

In response to the second message left for me:

"You are adding the same personal site hosted on Geocities to multiple articles"

This is not spamming. These are NOT random articles. The site is not a personal site-it is a fansite with lots of information regarding that series. I posted it on the pages for the different games in the series and no others. All of the games are ones covered on the site I linked, thus it is not spam.


"with the description "Broken Clock-Clock Tower fansite and largest forum in existence" (emphasis added). That constitutes a link to be avoided. Please stop"

The link does not lead to a forum. If you do not believe me, click on it. There is a forum that can be found on the website that shares the same name. I included it in the link so that people would know it was there and not confuse the two since they share the same name.

I really detest you accusing me of all these things. I have read the Wiki rules and I am not in violation of them. If you continue to harass me and delete my links, I will report you, because it is not appreciated.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.163.193.239 (talk • contribs).

Please relax and assume good faith - no one is harassing you. You claimed it wasn't a forum, so I pointed out that you described it as such. It seems the vast majority of your edits have been to simply add links to fan sites, which, according to the external link policy should be avoided. That is why multiple editors have warned you about link spamming. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


I just read the "links to be avoided page". I do not see a single one that my link it violating. Would you care to point it out? And I already told you why the word forum was included. Either way, the link does not lead to a forum and is perfecly within the rules.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.163.193.239 (talk • contribs).

The link "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article". It is low content, offering a few screenshots of the characters, and primarily a link to some forum, which you already now is frowned upon. Stop re-adding them, or you will also be in violation of the three revert rule. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


It is low on content because it is still being worked on. And now you are accusing me of stealing too? You have no right to single out that site over all the others posted, just because there are still some sections that have not been finished. Those links have been up for months, and certainly contain more info than all those other Gamespot and such links, but I don't see you deleting those. This is clearly harassment, and I do intend to see that you are reported.67.163.193.239 03:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please dispense with the threats and remain civil. I'm not accusing you of stealing, but rather expressing concern over use of copyright protected images (whether one considers that stealing is a separate issue). Perhaps it is fair use - I'm just brining up the concern. And I haven't had the time to scrutinize the other links, and even if they are problematic that's not a reason to allow other problematic links. Finally, if by your own admission your site is "still being worked on" it shouldn't be considered for inclusion until complete. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
BTW, you were recently blocked for adding links to a forum to these pages, and now, after the block expires, you add a bunch of links to some low-content fansite that consists mainly of a link to....that forum. That is link spamming. Please stop. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


I'm sick of being civil! You are singling my link out, and it is not fair! There is nothing stolen on it and it is not against the rules. I don't know why you have something against it, but you have got a lot of nerve. That link has been up for a long time, and there has never been a problem, but because of a bunch of completely bogus accusations you are going to delete it? That is something I cannot tolerate.

And not you are bringing up that block? I did not even know that forums were not allowed when I added those links, and I did not even get the warnings until I had already been banned. I reported this, because it is hardly fair. And it is in no way link spamming, and don't you dare call it that. It may not have a lot of content, but that fansite is legit and relates to all four of the articles it was posted it. I swear, you have got to be the rudest mod I've ever met!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.163.193.239 (talk • contribs).

Third Opinion

WP:EL states that "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority" (#11). The article on personal web pages cites GeoCities as an example, so this link should not be added in my opinion. ZimZalaBim is correct. It is, in fact, linkspamming. Please see WP:SPAM for more information. Cheers, PTO 03:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


I looked at that, and it stated personal websites were ones that were for a person or had a resumen and the like, which most people make on Geocities. However, my link was not to a personal site, it was to an informative one.67.163.193.239 03:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if we could make a distinction between a "personal" Geocities site and an "informative" one, your site, I'm afraid is not informative in a way to qualify as "a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article". Your site merely points to the forums you were previously blocked for adding. Sorry, but this simply isn't an acceptable link for our encyclopedia. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That's because it is still being editted. You are really a horrible person to single me out like this. Those links have been up for a long time, and only now they;re a problem? I'm not stupid. I know what you're up to and it is an abuse of power.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.163.193.239 (talk • contribs).

First, quit with the personal attacks. Second, you are not being singled out (note that someone else removed other improper links from the articles). Third, if your site is under construction, then wait until it is complete, and then propose its addition on the appropriate article talk pages. There's really nothing more to say on this matter. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry ZimZalaBim, you're not being unfair at all. This user has said in over 5 talk pages things like "I find what you did unfair". He (or she) thinks he's right and everyone is being 'unfair' with him, because we all hate him despite we don't know him. Pfff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.64.71.250 (talk) 06:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Like you're not only saying that because you got banned from her forum. We knew someone involved in the trolling had something to do with this, but you? For shame, Ikary! i would have thought you were better than that! You're mad because Obscure banned you, so you figure you're gonna terrorize her through Wiki? That's just low!67.163.193.239 18:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, please keep your off-wikipedia grievances off of wikipedia, and especially off of my talk page. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Club Bleach

I would really like to put the page "Club Bleach" as a wikipedia article, so if it is possible can you please tell me a way to somehow change it so that it is not considered advertisin, jut merely diaplaying objectively the purpose of the forum. I would really like to either get some advice or some sufficient reason as to the articles's dleetion. Thank You for readiong this and I hope you get back to me. Sanji-san 11:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the deletion log provided on the empty page, you'll see it was deleted according to the WP:WEB and WP:WP:CSD#A7 policies. You should read those policies. Forums generally do not qualify for inclusion in our encyclopedia. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

add my artical

Der sir,

i want to add my artical in your website. It is a small business, not a commercial. It is controlled and used in nepal. it is a kind of organisation opened by the young people. I m the founder of my company. It is not started yet, but will start soon. clickmandu.com is my domain and in nepal we dont need any registration. this website is only discussed in nepal. but we make sure it is fully copyright.

your sincerly Rupesh lal Singh —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clickmandu (talk • contribs) 13:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

The very fact that your company has "not started yet" suggests that it does not qualify for inclusion in our encyclopedia. Please do not re-add it again. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Tecumseh High School (Michigan)

excuse me, we are doing a project for my high school class at Tecumseh High School and you have deleted our material. Will you please stop deleting everything. I understand that some of the articles were not done but they were being done today.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Medialitclass (talk • contribs).

Please read my comments on the article's talk page. Encyclopedia articles are not student manuals, nor free web space to include this extraneous information. Also, do not simply revert other editor's changes without comment or discussion. thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is REALLY beginning to get irritating...

Now what's the problem?! The other mod already said my RoR link was fine if I removed the word "largest", which I did. And you can't say that site is not informative because it is. So, why are you deleting it and threatening to block me now?!67.163.193.239 17:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what "mod" you're referring to. There are no "mods" here - just editors, some of whom are administrators (like me). An editor provided a third opinion (above), who agrees with my position. You've been blocked before, and I won't hesitate to consider blocking you again. Please understand our policies. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Administrator then. His names is Sir James, I believe. You did not answer my question-what is wrong with the link? The fansite is dedicated to the game whose page it was on AND it was complete and full of information, so what is the problem? I don't appreciate your threats. You told me the reason my other link got deleted was because the site was not informative enough. This site is beyond informative, so why are you deleting it? How can you expect me to believe you are not harassing me, when you are clearly singling me out? There is NOTHING wrong with that link, or else that other admin would have said something! He told me it would be fine if I removed the word largest, which I DID.67.163.193.239 17:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


Most fan pages are not welcomed. If they were, every wikipedia article would have around 300 links. Your fansite isn't even an 'important' one, you don't get information from Sony about the game, you have a very limited bandwidth, and it doesn't even have a registered domain. Pages like that are created all the time, and there's no need for them to be here.
-Pablo BsAs

And excuse me, but who do you think you are? You have no right to claim the fansite is not an "important" one. It has got loads of information, and we fixed the bandwith problem ages ago. Currently, it is the largest and most extensive site dedicated to Rule of Rose on the net, not to mention one of the only ones. Even on the discussion page it was voted to be allowed to stay, not to mention an admin decided that it could.67.163.193.239 17:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If you mean User:Sir james paul, he is not an admin. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
An important fansite isn't one that just has information. If it was, then I could create a geocities account, copy everything wikipedia says about argentina, and there I have it, An IMPORTANT fansite about argentina, so I could spam Argentina's article with that. Your fansite isn't related to sony in any way, its just a site with some information (which isn't much in fact). Even if it were important, probably it shouldn't be in wikipedia.
-P.V. BsAs —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.64.77.137 (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm only repeating what he told me. Either way, you are avoiding the question at hand. The only reason you claimed to delete the Clock Tower link was because the fansite did not have enough information. But this Rule of Rose link is the most exstensive fansite out there, so what's your excuse for deleting it and threatening me? No one has any right to call it "unimportant", just because it is hosted on geocities. It is not against wikipedia guidlines, because it is not personal-it is informative.

And of course it does not have anything to do with sony-it's not a sony fansite. And the website not only has information, it has guides, pictures, fan contributions, discussed all the game symbolism, a FAQ, and so much more. And nothing on it is copied from Wikipedia. All wikipedias guidelines say is that if you post a link, it can't be personal-it has to be informative. And my site is.67.163.193.239 17:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please take discussion of the merits of that particular fansite to Talk:Rule of Rose. thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop ignoring the question!!! I've asked you about six times why you keep deleting the link and threatening me. We already discussed this is the talk section, which apparently means nothing, since you keep deleting the link even though the majority wanted to keep it!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.163.193.239 (talk • contribs).

I have not deleted any link from Rule of Rose. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Nobody wants to keep it except from you and the people you ask to say "Yes, I want it", or readd the link. I saw it with my own eyes that you ask people to re-add the links. We already told you, the link is not important. Did I hurt your feelings? So sorry, but it's in fact not important at all. You know how many fanpages do things like... Iron Maiden have? They must have hundreds, but there's no point in adding them to the article. Its only a fansite. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.64.77.137 (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

You're wrong and the discussion page proves it. And Rule of Rose is NOT Iron Maiden. It only has two fansites. Mine is the most extensive and the best out there.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.163.193.239 (talk • contribs).

I would recommend calming down. The site you added was removed by my bot, because you appeared to be spamming it into the article. Apart from this, your additions fall under Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline, which is another reason to remove the link. If you have any problems with the deletion of the link, take them to the talkpage or to me and stop harassing our editors before you're blocked for incivility. Shadow1 (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

How do I add a copyright tag to a photograph I took myself? I said I took the photo in the description and I checked the copyright box that said I took the photo and that it was public domain. Then I log-in today there's a big red box on my photo page saying it requires a copyright tag or it'll be deleted. What?? I took the photo, it's not copyrighted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jarnagin (talk • contribs).

I'm not sure why you're asking me this, but even if you took an image yourself and uploaded it, it still needs to be properly licensed (by you) for use at Wikipedia. You must select the appropriate copyright tag from here. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

False Claim to Wikibreak

Ok, let's jump through some hoops. ZimZalaBim claims to be on "wikibreak" on his user page. He or she actually is not. This has been pointed out, and ignored. so, What is the deal with this? Being that you are an administrator, I should not have to point out to you that wikipedia in general disapproves of posting false information. What does it say about you when you do it, apparently, for no reason whatsoever? A legitimate response would be appreciated this time. Kaiser Vinny 01:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sir, it really is not your concern whether I am able to maintain a wikibreak or not. It has no relevance to anything - especially your repeated attempt to create a non-notable biography (Tom Monfils), and your suspected use of a sockpuppet in that endeavor. Please drop it. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You did post it on wikipedia, and it is false, so that makes it my concern. That is the nature of a wiki based project. Kaiser Vinny 01:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, I can't believe you just linked "Tom Monfils" back to the page that you yourself deleted.. What's WITH that?

This is crazy. Can an editor state that they won't be editing at their full capacity without getting accused of spreading "false information"? You should be ashamed, Kaiser Vinny. PTO 02:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

ZimZalaBim said nothing about "full capacity". the quote is "LONG WIKIBREAK". check it out. up at the top of the page. Kaiser Vinny 02:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

if you are looking for a place to make constructive contributions to our encyclopedia, here's a good place to start. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not even remotely an answer to my question. Kaiser Vinny 02:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Kaiser Vinny, what ZimZalaBim does in real life is his business, and his alone. If he wants to declare that he's taking a wikibreak, which can mean anything from a cold-turkey leave to simply a period of lesser editing, then he has the liberty to do so. Please, leave him alone. PTO 03:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)



Cow tipping

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits. Readers looking for serious articles will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write whatever you want. You might also want to check out Uncyclopedia. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That was not put on there as a joke. It is a real thing and I wasn't expecting to get laughs out of it. Although it may not be popular where you live it is well known in the Hampton Rhodes area of Virginia.

Cow Tipping

You said that I was making a joke and I clearly wasn't. I put that on their because it is a real thing. Although you may not have heard of it where you live it is very popular in the Hampton Rhodes area of Virginia.

Tecumseh High School

Thank you for your helpful comments and edits to my students' development of the Tecumseh High School page. It is a great learning experience for all of us. I agree that the lengthy class descriptions are not necessary. Now that these are removed, I hope you will agree that the current page is written appropriately and will remain in Wikipedia. I'm assuming that the comment: "This article or section is not written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article." refers to text that is now deleted?

We would like to add a History link for which we have extensive information, including some wonderful pictures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Medialitclass (talk • contribs) 12:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC).


Proposed merge of Dr. Doug Powell into Food Safety Network

I am sending you this message because you edited Food Safety Network. I added a merge template to Dr. Doug Powell proposing that it be merged into Food Safety Network. There has been some debate about whether Dr. Powell is sufficiently notable to have a separate article. It appears that the FSN is much more likely to be considered notable than its director. Some of the info about Dr. Powell is already in the FSN article; perhaps a bit more could be added, then delete the article on Dr. Powell. If you wish to comment, please go to Talk:Food Safety Network. Please do not delete the merge templates until there is adequate time to discuss, generally about four weeks unless there appears to be significant agreement earlier. For details about the merging process, see Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. Thanks. Ward3001 23:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Might need some help

This Adopt-a-User thing with Deskana doesn't seem to be working out. He doesn't think I care about Wikipedia, but I do care...GREATLY!!! I kind of want to stop this Adopt-a-User thing with him, since he is assuming wrong things about me too much, but he has helped me in the past. What should I do? I'm asking you because you seem to be helping me a bit also. A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 19:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As I just noted on your talk page, I generally agree with Deskana's assessment. But I know nothing of the Adopt-a-User process. Perhaps you can find help here: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

24.39.181.168

24.39.181.168 keeps vandalising Wikipedia, even though many people gave 24.39.181.168 a last warning. Could you block him? I can't seem to find anyone who can. A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 13:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. (S)He's been blocked. A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 13:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Please report persistent vandals at WP:AIV. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Pixar

Regarding: Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Pixar; this is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.-- Thanks for warning me but that message was mine and i did not find it necesary i will use the sandbox next time.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martini833 (talk • contribs).

Since that message was left by an IP address (not a logged in user), there was/is no way of knowing if it actually was by you. Even so, you should make note of your reasoning in the edit summary box when deleting comments from talk pages. Also, please sign your comments with 4 tildes (~~~~). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dissertation

Just thought I'd wish you luck. I've got one of those babies due at the end of this (calendar) year. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


Spam

I am being constantly being accused of being an advertiser is there anyway i can prove that i am not affiliated with an advertisement agency. I'm not even old enough to work at Publix. Martini833 22:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

the smallest most unnoticed article evr that hasnt been deleted and made a stub

excuse me but have u seen this article Rancho Verde High School and you support the deletion of mine well after seeing this i hope u changed ur mind or thought of something or w/e —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martini833 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

many consider articles about high schools notable, and on first inspection, this seems to be a valid stub. I urge you not to put it up for deletion out of spite, as it seems you considered to here. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


"Eileen Galvin" article

I hope you plan on fixing the mess you've made of the article. It currently looks quite shite. Gamer Junkie 20:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "mess" you're referring to. My 2 edits] merely removed some superfluous "trivia" and added a {{original research}} to the long essay about the characters supposed personality. If you prefer, I can just delete that entire section. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer you put the tag somewhere where it isn't covering half of Eileen's profile picture. Gamer Junkie 21:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks fine on my browser, but I moved it up nonetheless.--ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
You're obviously on a different display resolution. I assure you, it looked rubbish. Gamer Junkie 21:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

My Talk Page

Hi is it allowed to delete stuff from your talk page. Like you personal one can i clean it up?? Martini833 22:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

it is best to archive discussions on your talk page - you can learn how at WP:ARCHIVE. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

am i allowed to though

Notability Confirmed/ Deletion Notice Should be taken off because this is why it was posted

After minor rephrasing for this page not to look like an ad this page should be updated by taking off the deletion notice because I have found an article that confirms its notability: "MySpace.com announced today it will commemorate the first birthday of the community's most popular franchise, Secret Shows presented by Chili's, by launching an alliance with Best Buy. Under the deal, MySpace Secret Show artists will receive promotion in more than 550 Best Buy stores nationwide." -ClearStation. Anyways if anyone would like to comment on this or edit this or see the full article please do. Article: http://clearstation.etrade.com/cgi-bin/bbs?post_id=7923196 Martini833 23:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC) o and this too http://www.newscorp.com/news/news_318.html

Please keep this discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MySpace Secret Shows. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

i just want to know if you agrreee and yes thats fine with me i will keep it there but about my other question is it ok? Martini833 23:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If my position changes, I'll note it on the discussion page. ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

from User:Vwt

ZimZalaBim. You occasionally revisit to edit Wikipedia Articles, for example of Censorship by Google that are simply example Wall Street Journal Newspaper articles and photographs (international printed newspaper front covers, thus public domain text and images).

These can not be found in Google News Search or Google Image Search. These, are examples of US news and images, censored by Google. Google does not only censor China news and images as referenced in Censorship by Google. Perhaps you'll correct this deletion of a credible publication's link referenced facts and images, censored from Google, thus documenting censorship by Google in the Wikipedia article on Censorship by Google.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vwt (talk • contribs).

Vandal warning toolbox updated

I've finally updated my vandal warning toolbox to use the new array of warning templates. Even if you're already using an updated derivative, you might want to take a look at the documentation to see how I may have handled it differently. I tried to keep things compact. Suggestions are welcome on the documentation's discussion page. Thanks for your interest. --Kbh3rdtalk 15:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ZimZalaBim/Archive_7&oldid=1190100623"