User talk:DanielZimmerman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For previous discussions, please see my archive page.

[edit] Regarding your comment on ask123's ask123 (talk) talk page

Perhaps if you correctly interpreted what I wrote on the Bobby Jindal talk page, you would have realized that I am saying that it is, in my opinion, OKAY for you to edit the article so long as you provide credible sources and abide by other Wikipedia policies. So far, you have, and, thus, I see NO problem with your edits. Perhaps if you were less aggressive, you would be more popular and, ultimately, successful in your ventures. ask123 (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you did say that IF I post in a manner consistant with Wikipedia policy that I should be able to continue to edit the article. Of course, everyone has to follow the rules and guidelines of editing pages on wikipedia so restating that seems to be a little redundant. However, the tone of your post, including "One thing to point out is that his interests are clearly not with providing any useful information on Bobby Jindal." and "But, be advised, Mr. Zimmerman, you may not turn this article into a negative campaign ad or use any part of this article to that end.", is what prompted me to leave a message on your talk page. I see no aggression in my post to you. Just a suggestion and a request. DanielZimmerman (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RPP Bobby Jindal

Oh sorry, I missed that thread. Hope I didn't seem too rude for not replying! It's twice I've done that this week. Pages are only protected in rare cases, and when the page is receiving uncontrollably heavy amounts of vandalism. The page isn't receiving heavy bouts of vandalism, and the vandalism is being reverted quickly, so protection isn't an option at the moment. Two instances of vandalism since the last request isn't justification. Hope this helps. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, you've won me over. :) I've changed my mind and protected it for a week. That'll give the article some breathing space. It got me thinking that many admins would protect a page with less disruption and maybe I'm too lenient at times (it's not been the first time). Sorry for the hassle! Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)