Jump to content

User talk:Zzuuzz/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Welcome!

Hello, Zzuuzz/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 
MicahMN | Talk 19:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UKCOTW: Demographics of the United Kingdom

Just to let you know, an article you've voted for, has became this week's UKCOTW: Demographics of the United Kingdom. Come and help out! :D -- Joolz 14:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Libraryspiral.jpg

Zzuzz, Thank for your work on copyright issues on images. However, I'd like to point out a couple things about current CSD policy. You tagged the image as deletable due to copyright violation. While this does correctly fit CSD Criteria A8, CSD criteria for images works slightly differently. Image CSD 5 states "Copyrighted images uploaded without permission of the copyright holder, or under a license which does not permit commercial use, which have not been used in any article for more than seven days (so-called "orphaned fair use images"). Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article.". The image in question was uploaded today, which meant that the image would not qualify under this criteria until the 24th. The appropriate tag in this case would be {{nosource}}, which would call for the image to be deleted after 7 days, if copyright status is not resolved. Thank you again for your work on image processing.

Further, thank you for mentioning on User:Randomskywalker's talk page that copyrighted works are not allowed. Please don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages, you can do so by typing four tildes, "~~~~", which will automatically add your name and date. Thanks again for your contributions, and keep up the good work! Best regards, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 05:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that. I misread the CSD. zzuuzz (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How to create an image

Hello ZzuuzZ. It's me, Abyab, again. But can you just give me a guide to create an image. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abyab (talk • contribs) .

Noname1

eu acho tudo maravilhoso ebom tudo bem eu não vou estou cansadoBold text —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.13.18.206 (talk • contribs) .

This translates from Portugese to English as: I find all wonderful ebom all good I I do not go I am tired zzuuzz (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review article on Irish people?

The additions and editions made on this page even within recent weeks - especily photos - has vastly improved it, to the better I think. Would you support it being submitted for a peer review, and help tidy it up/add some more? Fergananim 14:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you recently edited the Irish population of Ireland to say "Ireland-born". I don't agree with this number being used here because it ignores the number of foreign born ethnic Irish who have immigrated back to Ireland. If it is possible to find the number of those as well as people of Irish descent living in the UK, not just Ireland born, please let me know otherwise I will research the numbers myself. Thanks, Epf 04:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Travel Insurance Section

Hi, I began by creating the Travel Insurance section a while ago and noticed that a few links I added have been removed by you.. why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by B2bhandshake (talk • contribs) .

Hi. Thanks for your work on the travel insurance section. I made this edit because the links appeared to have little relevant content, and/or seemed to be placed in the article for only commercial purposes. I see on your talk page (User_talk:B2bhandshake) that you have been previously notified about this activity. Perhaps you should read WP:SPAM and Wikipedia:External links#What should not be linked to. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ANPR

Um, do you think you could leave my 'opinion' alone? The technology can be used for the purposes I have listed. That's a fact. Now, instead of giving people a line of bullshit about the positives it can be used for, it might be helpful to give the negatives, like using that technology to enslave people. I'd say that's important. It can be used for that, that's fact, not opinion. Now, as a research article, I would think if you're going to give nothing but positives, it's not a god damn research article. We're suddenly going to suppress possible realities because 'it's an opinion'? If it was a history on bombs, you would support only telling that it's been used for mining operations, and suppress the fact it blows people apart wouldn't ya....now leave my 'opinion' alone, because the possibility it could be used as enslavement technology is beyond opinion, that is fact. Hitler gave the concentration camp jews tattoos, all a part of the primitive surveillance they had at that time. Things changed, we're into new hi-tech digital tattooing now. Now leave my shit alone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.233.156.251 (talk • contribs) .

Hi, thanks for 'your shit'. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we prefer encyclopaedic entries, and not opinions which start with 'in the opinion of this editor...'. If you can provide some verifiable sources to any balance out any POV you perceive to be in the article, please do so in an encyclopaedic way. Thanks -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of reverting

You reverted Demographics of Islam without addressing any of the points I raised on the talk page. Insisting that we can't have any figures unless we have a figure for Shi'a (even if there are only 50, 100, 1000, whatever) is simply not sensible. However, if we round off the figures AND strengthen the provisos and caveats, I think the article would be defensible.

It might also be useful to point out that whereas Christian churches can in many cases COUNT their members, as they are bureaucracies with records, there are no such records involved in Islam. We have to go by bureaucratic estimates and self-reports on census forms. Zora 11:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

replied on your talk page -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uf the CIA World Factbook says that (just to make up a case) the population of a country is 72% Roman Catholic, 23% various Protestant, and and 3% Jewish, there's no reason to believe that there's some huge population of Hindus that the Factbook is covering up. If it says that the population of Algeria is 99% Sunni Muslim (I just looked this up), then there's no reason to suspect those figures.
That's why I suggested rounding off the figures, so that it's clear that they're exact only to the nearest (whatever) and that groups with less than that (whatever) are going to appear nonexistent. That's why we explicitly have that caveat about the Shi'a being undercounted -- if there are minorities in every country that are too small to appear in the "by country" statistics, overall they might add up to another percentage point. Zora 17:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ogilvy

See Talk:Peter Ogilvy. 66.167.136.6 12:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Twilight-Bark.com confusion

How can I clarify Twilight-Bark's copyright issues... being the Webmaster of the above site, please let me know what I have to do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrblogs (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia

I like wikipedia, and i do want to stay as long as possible. Thanks for trying to help me. Anyway, the time limit for moving pages is 3 days —This unsigned comment was added by Abyab (talk • contribs) .

Moving Pages

There is a time limit, it is 3 days —This unsigned comment was added by Abyab (talk • contribs) .

Not Self Reference

These categories are accounting designations for education, they should be left alone, so editors at wikipedia can join them. It is very common to include a related article in a category using the |* to bring it to the top of the +cat Cordially SirIsaacBrock 01:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Leeds. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Tim 15:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Please read the guidelines at WP:EL to understand why I removed all those superfluous external links - something I mentioned in my edit summary. I've trimmed the links again, and I've also left you a note about WP:AGF which I'd encourage you to read. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have read WP:EL and I agree with your recent re-trimming. The first one was far too extreme, leaving very few external links. If it makes you happier I will avoid the word vandalism next time someone is too severe with a 'pruning' and leave a different message for them, instead of the official template. --Tim 18:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism reverts

Yeah, Sorry about that, what happened is that a user added a bit on nonsense to the article, and while I was working on reverting it, another user reverted it, meaning that I reverted to a version prior to the previous revert. I reverted back - everything should be in order now. Sfacets 01:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising

Hi

I going to edit some of the articles I have been looking at relating to divorce. However we run the UK's biggest website dealing with divorce (see google natural listings) and I was surprised that there were no links to any UK based websites in the external links section. There has to be a balance surely or else what is the point of having external links? Our website contains page after page of free information about all aspects of divorce from the legislation, to procedure to the emotional side, all free. Can you reinstate the links please as it is a very niche subject? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.58.83.172 (talk • contribs) .

Hi. The point of external links is generally to extend this free encyclopaedia. However, we encourage content instead of links - if there is any relevant content please add it to the article without advertising your site. I couldn't really see much relevant content on your site. There are guidelines about external links which you should read before editing - links added to promote a site which exists primarily to sell goods or services are in the section links to normally avoid. So, in respect of the links - thanks but no thanks. Feel free to add content though. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to welding training program?

Why can't I reference a online university dedicated to welding training, how is it spam? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toolingu (talk • contribs) .

It was not a reference - but an advert. Wikipedia is not the place for advertising. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Dreyfus

May I ask you interest in Jack Dreyfus? Hooiemajoris 09:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I actually have no interest at all in Jack Dreyfus. As with any other article I would like to see it improved in any way possible. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you ever get tired of removing my link (Card Magic). If that's what you want to do, then why don't you delete links in all pages. Let's see if you can do that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.81.175.25 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 8 May 2006.

Please stop attempting to promote your site. Your link will continue to be reverted because it is inappropriate. It contains a very objectionable amount of AdSense ads, and very little content. Please either sort the site out, or stop spamming the link. Preferably both. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHY?

Why does my site always gets removed. Look at Optical Illusions. There are many external links there and there's even a blogspot domain but yet not removed. Why? Explain.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.167.26.55 (talk • contribs) .

I explained above. See WP:EL for more information. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip on Optical illusion. I went ahead and cleaned up this article's external link section. Monkeyman(talk) 13:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Market Research

This is not a soliciation for recruits, it is an accurate page with real links to not only this article but other industry bodies and information on Market Research. I'm not going to argue with you about this. I have contributed a great deal to this article and further information is found on this link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donut44 (talk • contribs) .

It's nothing but a solicitation for recruits - there is no relevant content at all. Please stop trying to promote your site here. Really, see WP:EL for more information. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abyab

Thanks for the advice of using 4 tidles, i find it quite useful. --Abyab 17:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Abyab[reply]

How do you rotate images? --Abyab 17:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Abyab[reply]

Hi Abyab. I don't know of any method of rotating images on Wikipedia. As you know I have been wrong before so you may want to check for yourself, by starting at the images page. You may be able to rotate them offline in a photo editor, but check the copyright status first. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Z!

I'm not sure if your welcome to Wikipedia was an auto-gen message, but thanks all the same.

Especially the tip about the 4x~ for my signature.. I wondered if I was even allowed to add them!

Dom0803 00:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dom - no problem. See the messages for yourself ;-) -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that's not true

You probably get a lot of spam so it's easy to dimiss a site. However, internetization.com is still being developed but is already valueable. You may think that is a little private site, but that's how a lot of big public sites start off.

True I only put it online a couple of days ago, and it hasn't even been indexed yet. But I feel that it will be a useful and informative tool for many people in the future. It also encourages community input (there's a wiki spaces part) and shows the trend of how activities are constantly being moved online and the number of things we can't do onlie is diminishing.

So remove it again if you choose, but I'm betting a lot of people would have liked to see the comprehensive and ever-changing listing.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.105.39.160 (talk • contribs) .

Italy

Thanks for reverting Italy from strange ethnic insults. "Bandes de Pedes" appears to be the Spanish equvalent of "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" or more simply "bends over backwards." Thanks: --V. Joe 20:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ANPR

Hi Zzuuzz,

I have included the company Alpha Vision Design as they manufacture a new 'breed' of Smart ANPR camera that may educate the readers. That is why the link was added.

In relation to commercial companies, as an academic I agree. However, if commercial links are going to added to the bottom, there is no reason why Alpha Vision Design, a leading ANPR company whose sales exceed the listed companies should be excluded.

If the high moral ground is to be taken all the links to commercial companies should be taken out not just Alpha Vision Designs.

All the best, Niall

Hi Niall / Ndorr,
There appears to be some consensus on that page that commercial links can be included (and there is nothing specifically against commercial links at the relevant guideline). However, the point of external links is to provide further information for the readers (they are even labelled as such in the Automatic number plate recognition article). Clearly in many cases, some of the larger commercial companies hold more extensive and authoritative information about the technology on their websites than can be included here. However I could not see that the link you inserted provided this additional information. The link appeared to have been inserted only to promote the company - and this is not what the links are for. I'd encourage you to study the external links guidelines and spam policies further - inserting links to your own company is especially frowned upon. Please understand this is not about the size of the companies or the profit they make, but the size of the information they offer in relation to what can be included in Wikipedia articles. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How did you gain editorial control at wikipedia?

Hi,

I recently was censored by you and I don't mind. I was just goofin around to see what could be done over here.

I won't do it again. BUT, I'm now curious as to how someone gets editorial powers here at Wikipedia? Is there a process you can share with me?

I'm a writer and I have lots to say about democracy in America. There is none right now, but there could be if we only voted on the Internet and used this technology to have Real VOTING for real issues as we do in California and 22 other states.

So, I'm looking for ways to get attention on this concept. Would you like to help your country evolve?

Mike Mathiesen www.votingontheinternet.com 831-420-0107 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Votingontheinternet (talk • contribs) .

Hi Mike. We are all editors here - have a look at the Introduction. There are a number of Policies and guidelines which guide editing - I think WP:SPAM and WP:NOT are probably most relevant here. Basically, Wikipedia is not the place for advertising. I hope you have lots to add, but remember this is an encyclopaedia - you should only add verifiable information from reliable sources which conforms to a neutral point of view. There is also a policy against original research. I suggest you have a look at the article, Electronic voting. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Social status

No, you were correct in removing it. I had begun the template as "social and legal status" but realised "social status" as it is now, is about the common use of the term, rather than in regard to designations within stratification or social class - which I decided were irrelevant to the topic anyway. Thanks -Ste|vertigo 17:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banks

Sorry I was trying to find the MS word article I had done :(. Once I find it can I go into do it again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.129.23.153 (talk • contribs) .

I will add pictures of my cousins for the Asian people and Eurasian (mixed ancestry) pages if pictures on these pages must not be copyrighted. All but Thuy's pic is copyrighted, so please explain to all other users adding pics to the Asian people page Wikipedia's policy on pictures.--Dark Tichondrias 02:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tilde?

Hi You write "Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (Grendlegrutch 17:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC))" Well, I would, if I could work out how to type just one tilde (never mind four of the little squigglies) on an AZERTY keyboard. I guess I'll just have to do it the old-fashioned way, and remain, yours faithfully, Grufflechump[reply]

Grufflechump, there is a button to insert the tildes when you are editing a page, just below the edit summary box. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asian people Wikipedians on Wiki articles

There are pictures of otherwise unknown people as examples in other Wikipedia pages. I want to see the policy that states exemplarary pictures should not be displayed on appropriate articles if they are pictures of non-famous Asian Americans/East Asian Americans/Japanese Americans like myself.--Dark Tichondrias 22:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is covered in the guidelines at WP:VAIN, probably more importantly the picture of a really low quality. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message from vandal

Stop sending me messages please or i will have to report you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markcarter (talk • contribs) .

That was the first and last message I will be sending you. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Vandalism Response

Hey

Try an online admin, e.g. User:TigerShark. That should speed things up.

Cheers -- Chris Lester talk 12:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<removed>

removed

Shiny thing!

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For fast and efficient removal of vandalism and spam. --GraemeL (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]



Keep up the good work --GraemeL (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graeme, much appreciated ;) -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Life in the United Kingdom Test

I'm the administrator of the Prepare: Life in the UK Test website (www.lifeintheuk.org). I've noticed that you have removed the link to our website from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_in_the_United_Kingdom_test) in number of occasions. Your explanation was spammy link.

Firstly, our website is neither commercial nor spammy. We do not charge people at all. Advertisements placed on the website is to cover the cost of hosting. I do not even ask for donations. We never disclose e-mail addresses.

Secondly, if you look at the contents of the site, you will notice that it is the only website that offers both study material and sample questions (legally) to its users free of charge. We are much more useful than the current link wikipedia has to BBC website which is nothing more than a joke and misleading for lots of people.

I'll place the link again and I hope you will value my comments and leave it intact this time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Efidan (talk • contribs) .

Thank you for commenting, but I respectfully disagree. The Google AdSense ads at the top of the main page, the Amazon affiliate links at the bottom, and even both on the same page; the primary existence of the site to make money from the sale of the book; the lack of any worthwhile content without registration (indeed no privacy policy and probably further marketing); your insistence of placing the link; and the fact that you have done nothing else with our encyclopaedia places this link outside of the external links guidelines, or rather places it firmly within the links to normally avoid. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Points taken. I've placed a site policy now and also made it clear on the first page that I do not share or sell their e-mail addresses. I thought I've made it clear why do I have advertisements on the page. I cannot afford to host the site (I've tried cheap hosting and they cannot handle the traffic I have). The primary existence of the site is not to sell the book. Otherwise I wouldn't copy all the relevant chapters and put them on the site. I'm not sure what you mean by 'lack of any worthwhile content without registration'. All study materials are available without registration and I cannot make tests available without registration as they need an account (This is moodle limitation, I will be glad to know if there is a way). I'll see what I can add to wikipedia content.Efidan 23:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Web design

Hi, I saw your edits at Web design to take out all that 2nd person language. Thanks, they improved that article, but... didn't that whole section seem like it was copied from somewhere? I couldn't find a source, but the tone just seemed really wrong. So I thought I'd get your opinion on it--does it really seem like a good encyclopedic addition to the article? Does it fit, is it germane, is it too much detail on that one subject? · rodii · 22:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely looks like it was copied and pasted, though I wasn't able to find a source either. --GraemeL (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your sentiment, and I was this →|← close to deleting it completely. The content is very closely associated with the links which were added, but I cannot see it is copied at this time (it actually looks like it has been 'adapted'). I think the general content is a useful addition (even the .edu link which was added) - the design process adds something which wasn't in the article before. My edit was to remove the awful tone of it - to make it readable - as a prelude to further editing. I fully expect it to be further hacked about mercilessly, or even removed completely. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's damn close. :) I searched for the editor's names too (it's his/her/their only edit), but no luck. OK, good approach, I'm happy to go with that. · rodii · 01:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niche market

I tried to add an external link to this site that I found great links that are ranked by people on [www.oozm.com/niche_market oozm search engine tags on niche market] and you removed that external link. Why are those not considered relevant data in the age of new technology where people have a say? Just like wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.94.158.102 (talk • contribs) .

Please read the guidelines about external links, and stop attempting to promote your site here. In addition, the site is of no relevance and has virtually no content. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't answered my question but you went on this rampage of accusations. You are doing a wonderful job in keeping wikipedia from advancing.
It's not a rampage. The link adds no value to this encyclopaedia at all. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I posted

Was fact and I'm offended that you claim it to be nonsense.

You seem to have no idea and be a little drunk with power. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tomred7 (talk • contribs) .

Hi. You may think it to be fact, but I disagree. None of the material you added had any sources. I'm sorry you are offended - you shouldn't take it personally. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ZZuuzz, I noticed that a few links I added have been removed by you.. why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.145.211.26 (talk • contribs) .

The link to the hotel booking site appeared to fall foul of the external links guidelines, additionally your edits seemed to suggest relevance to the spam guidelines. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support in my RfA!

Thanks for voting!
Hello Zzuuzz/Archive 1, and thanks for your support in my recent RfA. I'm pleased to announce that it passed with a final tally of (96/0/0). I was overwhelmed by all of the nice comments and votes of confidence from everyone. Thanks again, and see you in the vandal/spammer fighting trenches! OhNoitsJamie Talk 06:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donationcoder

You're quick. I went to prod it and got an edit conflict cause you got there first. Any odds on whether they contest and we have to go to AfD? Fan1967 20:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it happens, I'll beat you to it again :-) -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brett H Wilson. You beat me again. Fan1967 21:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you guys are competing for fastest deletions from wikipedia. I bet neighter of you had a chance to read the content you want to delete. I think your activity is quite destructive (of course, IMHO). Can you comment a bit about your motivation if not reasons for proposed deletion? Alex Kosorukoff 21:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we read the content. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate web directory. The standard is specified at WP:WEB. Fan1967 21:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are amazingly fast in your discrimination! It took me several days to read an article about this website, learn how it works, find out that there is no article yet in wikipedia about it, and finally decide to create one. It took you just 1 minute to make the opposite judgement! I understand that you didn't think too much before proposing, am I wrong? Can I see an example of some article that you had created rather than deleted? Alex Kosorukoff 21:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've placed too much emphasis on a light-hearted comment stemming from an edit-conflict. Did you see that other article mentioned above? If you think proposing stuff for deletion is destructive then you probably have no idea how much absolute crap is posted to Wikipedia every minute, or indeed how much of that crap has been speedily deleted in the last few hours. An article about a website that neither asserts any sort of notability (apart from perhaps a noble idea), nor cites any credible third party sources establishing that notability, is not worth anything to anyone. here's an article I created yesterday btw. I add a lot of stuff to existing articles too, but I also remove a lot of stuff that doesn't belong here (vanity, advertising, hoaxes, abuse, totally unremarkable people and websites, etc). It's a crucial task in an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. I am a researcher in evolutionary computation and I understand quite well that deletions are necessary for Wikipedia to remain useful. There is nothing wrong with deletion proposal. What was striking for me is how little time you spent to make this decision. My point is that unreasonable deletions are not helpful, as they make impression that new contributions are not welcome. I contribute to Wikipedia for three years already and I will unlikely to stop doing this. However, if I were a new user I would feel quite frustrated when my article was prodded before I finished editing it. If people will stop contributing content, we all will loose as a result. Alex Kosorukoff 23:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alex, articles get prodded quickly like that all the time. Perhaps it was premature, but it's easy enough (modulo a little glitch like the misuderstanding about PROD) to fix that by removing the tag. (It is definitely the case that new pages patrollers sometimes are a little quick on the trigger finger, but they do important work--sometimes there's a false positive, unfortunately. It did look a little rough, but... a cleanup tag might have been a better way to go.) Just shrug it off, improve the article and let it go. The key thing you'll have to establish is that the site is notable per WP:WEB.· rodii · 23:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We were editing this page at the same time :) I appreciate your comment, and you are right, it is false positive. I am concerned that the rate of false positives is growing recently and some people I know stopped contributing to wikipedia because of this. I think this tendency might become a problem comparable to vandalism. Alex Kosorukoff 23:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Hello, thank you for welcoming me to wikipedia. I just dared to actually create a page from scratch, about sociologist Erik Olin Wright, because it was a personality I repeatedly searched for here for some time, never finding an article. I'm very proud that I managed to have the stub template on it :-), but I think I made a little mess with the title, because I did not notice that I had forgotten some capitals. I was just pouring over the instructions to help repair that, when someone made a redirect to the right spelling. They even added a link to his website on the page I had just made! I did not think things were so fast here. It's great! Now the talk page and the main page have different headings, though. I don't know how to make the talk page 'Erik olin wright' go with the article 'Erik Olin Wright'. Do you have to be an administrator to change titles? Anyway, thank you again for your welcome :-) --Cleversnail 14:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings again. I was rather amazed too that the article didn't exist - such an influential scholar in his field. I was even more amazed that he didn't exist on the List of sociologists. I think you did well for your first attempt btw :) If you look at the page history you will see what happened wrt the changes you mention. As a result of the page move, Erik olin wright is now a redirect to the new page. I'm glad you mentioned the talk page - I've just moved that as well. Page moves are explained here. Any more questions, just ask. See you around -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart

Hello, despite some misgivings - there's a huge epistemic can o'worms here - I substantially revised the opening paragraph of the Mozart article as per your advice. --Ggbroad 15:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USA is an empire

USA is an empire----this is agreed b most of the people outside of USA. I hope you don't make nonsense to deny this fact. I know youa are a so-called "american".-----Blair —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.56.6.80 (talk • contribs) .

It was the part about bloody conquering that caught my eye. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer López

I have ensured the Jennifer López article is correct and all replated cats and template also. Thanks for the help. Phildav76 23:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bamber Gascoigne

Thanks for the comments. Very helpful.

BG —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bamber Gascoigne (talk • contribs) .

Message

Hi,

You messaged me but I'm not sure what I did wrong, can you help me out —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Epiphanysolutions (talk • contribs) .

New World Order

Leave my NWO post alone. My sources can be checked on the web, the names given are their own references.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.68.142.23 (talk • contribs) .

The discussion over the lack of references is best had at the article's talk page. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

free of charges

hi

my software is free and no commercial

ok?

then my website is a non commercial this software is really free with no banner and no virus ok?

bye —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hotkeysoft (talk • contribs) .

replied on your talk page. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammmad SHAMS

Hello

I want you to don't touch my article please!

Thank you and good luck! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Free iran (talk • contribs) .

replied on your talk page -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Macedonia

Freedom or death just isn't the macedonian motto. It was the bulgarian's april uprising motto. be sure to delete it—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.246.1.128 (talk • contribs) .

You're saying it's freedom or deaf? Right. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no, i was just, what was it, vandalising whatever. macedonians have NO motto, or at least it is not freedom or death—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.246.1.128 (talk • contribs) .

Your vandalism edits are not helping and I ask you to stop, however you raise a fair point here, so I will ask for a reference for this motto on the article's talk page. Please discuss it further there. Thanks -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British national identity card

Hi Zzzuuzz,

I am just trying to give an alternative,to the surveillance state and to the ever-growing controlling devices such as ID cards/NIR, that can strike a balance between national security and civil liberties. I am not the only one to do so.

Can you tell me why the other alternative solution entitled "ID cards to establish identity without revealing personal information " has not been deleted? It is as subjective as my own article, so why has not it been deleted?

Anne lenoir Anne lenoir (talk • contribs)

replied on your talk page -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

Thank you for experimenting with the page User Talk:VMinus on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -- User:VMinus (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So funny. rofl. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

hello—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mechanismtongs (talk • contribs) .

hello -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PC_Flame

"not a notable website; alexa rank of 682,281; fails WP:WEB -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)"

I'd disagree. My site is growing very quickly, and with a Pagerank of 3, we'll soon be much larger. Please leave this. Would it help if I updated it w/ a list of our many backlinks? -- FPSDavid (talk)

Hello. I think discussion is best had at the afd page, which is where editors will evaluate your site in relation to the standards for inclusion which are generally held around here. You should consider presenting your arguments for retention in relation to WP:WEB, and perhaps you should also read WP:VAIN and WP:SPAM. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said the same thing there, but nobody replied.
Should have mentioned it is this page - it's linked from the article and you have already written there. I'd strongly suggest you frame a response in relation to WP:WEB, but I could see no evidence that it would meet those criteria guidelines. This is not a speedy deletion, so it will take a little time for other editors to comment. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section." If I post many backlinks, wouldn't that be a credible source? --FPSDavid 12:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I do not think so. I could only find 16 backlinks through google - basically two sites - one is an affiliate link, and one is a forum post by you. It really needs to be third-party coverage of your site - ideally a discussion or something from a reliable source. This criteria is really quite high. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MSN and Yahoo have many more backlinks than Google for my site I believe. --FPSDavid 12:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit of Danielle Fishel

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Danielle Fishel. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.3.136.31 (talk • contribs) .

yes, rofl. I have asked you to supply a verifiable source for this information, per official policy. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ace & Aqua

How would you know its not a notablable forthcoming flash animation? Have you checked my blog lately about my show? Have you even seen the animation test I did for this show? www.stephenstudios.com/aqua_anim.mov . You dont know anything about this show!

Steve—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.27.234.155 (talk • contribs) .

That is my point. If I cannot tell from any third-party references, then it is not notable. Please come back after the flash animation has won critical acclaim, or even critical recognition. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zzuuzz/Archive_1&oldid=1186960938"