User talk:ZimZalaBim/Archive 5

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.
← Archive 4 |
Archive 5
| Archive 6 →


Contents

Re: Brewers-Cubs series

Thanks for moving my info up the page. It seems obvious(!) that the W-L totals be posted for any series. If you really do need a citation it can be easily gotten from baseball-reference.com, in the head-to-head section. Admittedly, my inclusion of this statistic could be considered non-NPOV; I love dispelling the (generally percieved) myth among baseball cognoscenti that the Cubs are somehow "better" than the Brewers. One game? Oops! Not any longer.

A Wikipedia tyro, Jason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason S. Klepp (talk • contribs)

Hi. If a citation for this claim [1] can be easily found, then please find it and include it in the article. Thanks. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Dont Edit My Sites.

Dont edit my sites, the information you removed was necessary.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jruus24 (talk • contribs)

Regarding this content [2] at Barry Luokkala, it is mostly nonsense and non-encyclopedic. Please refer to WP:BIO for guidelines on articles about people. Finally, please refrain from adding obscenities to my talk page. Please be civil. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Help:editing

Calling my edits vandalism is libelous. Do not call anyone's edits vandalism again.See:Wikipedia:Resolving disputes& [3]--Chuck Marean 03:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Chuck. Please read the vandalism guidelines: an example of vandalism in the context of editing Wikipedia articles is "Removing all or significant parts of articles". That is what Omniplex saw when you made these edits: [4] and [5]. He then left standard warning messages on your talk page. This is standard practice.
Your reaction was to paste the same warning messages on Omniplex's talk page, which was an act of vandalism by you since it was "improper use of dispute tags" disruptive, and (IMO) made in bad faith. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey

I haven't seen you is quite some time. Congratulations on becoming a sysop, sorry I didn't get to support you. I hope to be one someday, but right now I have just 300 edits. I do have time on my side, so once I reach 1500-2000 edits, I'll shoot for a nom myself. P.S. How's Don? :) Mostly Rainy 16:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy editing! --MichaelZimmer (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Since you live in Brooklyn perhaps we can arrange to meet. -- Mostly Rainy 10:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Chuck Marean

I think that it may be up to another administrator to take action, such as a block. I have been loathe to bring further attention to this matter, as long as the actions that he takes affects only his own talk page. However, given his history, I don't think that it will be very long before he makes poor edits to another template, and I would rather that there was an easily-accessed warning history so that another administrator can take action. I think that you have been extremely patient with him (much more so than was possibly necessary, but understandable, given that we know we are ostensibly dealing with an adult), but this may not be an instance where you can make the call for a block. An independant decisionmaker may be needed.

Apropos of nothing, Go Irish. I'm Class of '94, Carroll Hall. --Avogadro 14:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't want to take direct action myself since I'm too involved, but looks like he was just blocked.
I'm also '94 - Fisher Hall! --MichaelZimmer (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Please take these questions to Checkuser, WP:RFCU. - CrazyRougeian talk/email 15:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
My apologies for having failed to reply sooner to your message apropos of Chuck; of course, I'm not certain that I ought to correspond with you, inasmuch as I'm a Fighting Irish hater (although I'm rather keen on Charlie Weis and Brady Quinn). In any event, if Chuck doesn't change his ways, he's going to be indefinitely blocked in view of the development of a community consensus that his participation is categorically disruptive. He has made a few quality mainspace edits, but their propitious qualities have certain paled in comparison to the deleterious consequences of many mainspace and project space edits. If he wants to use text from Wikipedia to practice typing, no one would object; similarly, no one would object were he to seek to improve some of the help pages designed for newbies, in order that they should be clearer. I can't say that any of his project space edits have been helpful, though, and the problem is exacerbated not only, as you observe, by his unwillingness to discuss civilly the relevant issues but also his habit of leaving confounding messages and edit summaries, from which one can generally ascertain absolutely nothing. I think it's clear that he misunderstands the project, and that's unfortunate because I think if he confined himself to mainspace he might well add to the project. As it is, though, the net effect of his editing is surely disruptive. I know that others are disinclined to block users who edit in good faith and with encyclopedic purpose—even where they ignore all cordial entreaties from other users, but I think such disinclination to be wrong-headed. If we had, for example, a user who couldn't communicate in English and repeatedly edited articles with the intention of improving the encyclopedia but with the effect of muddling text (and then refused any efforts to improve collaboration), we would be right to block the user (just as Wikipedia is not therapy, neither is it a site at which users should learn English/how to type/how properly to use the Internet where such learning affects the encyclopedia negatively). In sum, I'm not certain that there's anything more to be done with Chuck, and I think that he, rather regrettably, is digging his own grave. Joe 19:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I concur. (Go Irish!). --MichaelZimmer (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A bit too anal

these may be 'commercial' sites, but so are most authorized CA Govt. sites in that they offer trinkets etc.

these sites listed show history and proprietary pictures, they own, that a researcher would find very useful.

these are External links that serve a true purpose. You obviously haven't taken the time to visit them.

Two of those sits belong to family members who own Historic, registered, California sites!!!

the history they offer Such as the swiss hotel and Vella Cheese are CA history sites.

if wikipedia is to have some worth beyond personal tunnel vission, then it must rely on persons to contribute and link the many sites.

to just blindly discharge such it making some of us not interested and not feel the info. offered is of value for research.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Granucci (talk • contribs)

Care to remind me what you're referring to? If I've removed external links that I thought we commercial, chances are I thought their placement violated WP:EL. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I think you're talking about this edit to Sonoma, California: [6]. These links were to commercial websites. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

University Wisconsin-Milwaukee

The list you refer to is a "member institution list", as it states at the top of the page. All NCAA Division I school's full name's are there, including the University of North Carolina, Charlotte and University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. If you don't like the fact that many school's such as Charlotte, Chattanooga and Milwaukee choose to use a shorter name for their NCAA TEAMS (not institutions), I don't know what to tell you. It's pretty commonly accepted by everyone else that some university's with longer names (Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, Texas Tech, and particularly state U's like Wisconsin, North Carolina, Arkansas, Colorado, etc.) do this. Milwaukee has simply decided to do the same.

And I don't see how it's less informative. It's considered common knowledge what state a city the size of Milwaukee is in. Do you think that university's that use similar abbreviations such as UNC Charlotte (a smaller city than Milwaukee), or even an accepted abbreviation such as UAB, are also "less informative" than their full institution's name? CollegeSportsGuy 12:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that you're making statements like "Milwaukee has simply decided to do the same" and I haven't seen any evidence that they actually did make some kind of official decisions to change how they are referred to. And since many of the articles you have changed have nothing to do with NCAA atheletics, it seems odd to suddenly change "...received a degree from University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee" to "...from UW-Milwaukee" since it is most likely that the degree itself states the former. If you want to change it for articles referring to sports events, that might make sense. Otherwise it seems in appropriate. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
You say you "haven't seen any evidence that they actually did make some kind of official decisions to change how they are referred to". Did you do any sort of looking at all? They refer to themselves singularly as Milwaukee all over their official university athletics site. I can easily provide a cite from the Milwaukee's athletics site if you wish, one that is an official press release which also states the unnacceptable names and abbreviations for UWM (which includes "Wisconsin-Milwaukee").
I'm wondering... since this is an encyclopedia and therefore continuity is of utmost importance, if these updates are unnacceptable to you, do you intend to revise all references of institutions by their choosen brand TEAM names in Wikipedia articles? Such as (in order of most recently changed) UT-Chattanooga's change to simply Chattanooga, UNC Charlotte's Charlotte, University of Alabama at Birmingham's UAB? I'm curious as to why you have a problem with just this one university. (I also see you live in outstate Wisconsin)
As far as degrees go, UCLA's degree's don't say UCLA, but article's about schools that have long, often confusing or clumsy names ALWAYS refer to the INSTITUTION'S preferred abbreviation, which is in this case UW-Milwaukee. That can also be found on their official athletics site AND university site. CollegeSportsGuy 13:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I am most concerned that you seem to be automatically making this change in any article with any reference to UWM. See [7] and [8]. Your argument seems mostly based on their athletic web site and how they're referenced in NCAA tournaments, etc. But many of these articles have nothing to do with athletics, and it isn't obvious at all what "UW" refers to. The burden is on you to support making such a change, since I see no harm whatsoever in the current version of most of these articles to spell out the official name of the university. In short, why make the change at all? (We're not worried about # of characters here) --MichaelZimmer (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

How long ago was that 7 years that you lived on campus? Because most students today use "Milwaukee" when referring to where they go to school, though I'm sure "UWM" is still a close second. As for polling 1,000 Milwaukeeans, I'm sure UWM is still first, as it was by far #1 with students up until fairly recently. You'll notice I didn't say Milwaukee residents, though, I said "area residents", i.e. the campus area. Cheers! CollegeSportsGuy 20:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Its been a few years. The point being, your anecdotal evidence is not a reliable source from which to make claims that "Milwaukee" has become the "most commonly referred to name" for the school. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Inky Dreadfuls Article Page

Someone at Metafilter made it last night based on my User Page as you pointed out -- can I delete this article or should I just let it get deleted in due time?--Inky Dreadfuls 18:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to Inky Dreadfuls. You cannot delete the article, only admins can. It is currently listed as a proposed deletion, which means it will be deleted in 5 days if no one objects. If you wanted to, you could try to convince the creator, User:Dtcdthingy to put it up for speedy deletion him/herself, using the Template:Db-author template. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Brewers/National League

I noticed you removed my edits if you feel it is unsource you can use the {citation needed}. I admit my addition comes accross as a bit editoralize however the section painted a very pro Selig arguement My addition about the Dbacks and Rays could have put in one league or a NL team could have been moved to the AL were just as possible as moving an AL team to the National League regardes Smith03 21:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding [9], you should avoid weasel words like "Others believe" or "Some believe." This is an encyclopedia, and we need to cite reliable sources rather than just opinions, no matter how valid they appear. I'll look at the section again and see if any NPOV needs to be cleaned out. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
When I first read the article I saw this "Many felt Milwaukee was the most logical choice to switch, as the city formerly was home to the National League Braves "
So my addition was the counter point to this, So my weasel words counter anothers weasel words "Many". regards Smith03 21:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The earlier use of "Many" should be interrogated as well. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
As someone not from Milwaukee ( and again anything like this would have to be sourced) but does not it seem odd that the team that got moved was the team owned by the commissoner of baseball. The commissioner who was an old MilwBraves fan and minority owner who wanted a NL team in 1969 but had to settle for AL team moving in 1970. That should at least be pointed out Smith03 22:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
An encyclopedia is not the forum to point out random oddities and coincidences. Find a reliable source that discusses this (surely it can be found in press surrounding this event), and then include it in the article. -MichaelZimmer (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
"encyclopedia is not the forum to point out random oddities and coincidences. " Then you have a lot of work a head of you with wikipedia. It is reasonable to point out that in this situtation that other choices besided moving an AL team was available to MLB it is also reasonable to point out the commission owned said team Smith03 22:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Fine, then phrase it in a way that makes a statement of encyclopedic fact, not weasily opinion & innuendo. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Your user name

I noticed you changed your user name to reflect your real name, I think that was a good move. MTZ 206 is more like a license plate names, now I can call you Michael. :) Mostly Rainy 11:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack. :) --MichaelZimmer (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Evan Foley

All right, I'll watch that next time. Thanks. — Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 22:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Lowercase_second_and_subsequent_words

also on the conversation on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ste4k#Headings

also the listing of the name of the book at the International Standard book number database: http://isbndb.com/d/book/social_justice_in_the_liberal_state.html and notice the capitalization.

Thanks Ste4k 22:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but books are an exemption to that standard naming convention. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Capitalization. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I did it on purpose the other way because of the earlier comment on my talk page. Ste4k 00:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
No prob. Its an easy fix. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

soft blocking

Hi again. I have a favour to ask of you. As a result of Tim Starling's recent work on MediaWiki Bug 550, it's now possible to soft block IP addresses.

Please could you look at the block log for eduproxy.bgfl.org, the proxy I edit through at work? It's currently on a six month block. The history shows that whenever it's not blocked it's the source of quite a lot of vandalism, so my suggestion is to put a permanent block on editing for non-logged in users for that address. I don't think it would be a good idea to block account creation, though. I think the same applies to upstream.bgfl.org. Thanks. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 23:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not recalling the first time we interacted. Regarding this soft block request, I'd suggest you make the request at WP:AN. I'm not yet fully converse with the blocking policies and procedures (still reading and watching), and I'm worried that I might not correctly perform the action you're suggesting. Perhaps a more experienced admin can take care of this. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
We first interacted when I nominated you for admin :) Fair comment about the soft block, though - no-one's got much experience on it, it was only put in a week ago. I'll ask at the noticeboard. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 13:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Geez, sorry. Too much going through my head lately... --MichaelZimmer (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

My Link

Why is my link keep being removed? www.dollhousecollectables.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.171.28 (talk • contribs)

Please review Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, especially item 4. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

please see

please see: Talk:Sculpture_of_Ancient_Greece#Redirect_to_Greek_Statue. Thanks. Ste4k 12:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Loyalty program cashback

I'm going to go through the articles and see if there's anything worth merging into the other. This thing looks mainly like a magnet for linkspam. I think a merge (with no links) and redirect is definitely the way to go. Fan-1967 13:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to delete all the external link spam, then realized the article itself was redundant, and likely created solely for the links. Thanks for checking it out. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Marean

Thanks for the heads-up about Chuck. Much appreciated. Gwernol 23:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverting my user page

Thanks for reverting the vandalism of my user page. Greatly appreciated, Gwernol 20:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Anders

Just so you know, I've blocked him indefinitely. DS 03:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - it escalated in a hurry. Figured I shouldn't block him myself. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The Drift (band)

I must have been checking it out when King of Hearts deleted it and then deleted it after him without seeing that it had been changed. It's gone and protected again. Thanks for seeing it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Just wondering if there was some other history or discussion I couldn't find. Happy editing! -MichaelZimmer (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the advice

I am sorry i was adding links. I will add contents here after. I am new to this site and was adding links. I hope i am doing the right thing by replying here. My sincere apologies and thanks for your message.

Best regards Rajeev from design2host.net (No thats not a link :) ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.88.149.53 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, feel free to use talk pages to communicate with users. Articles also have their own talk page (accessible by clicking on the "discussion" tab on the top of the screen) to discuss article-related issues. If you plan on being a contributor, please also consider creating an account. Happy editing! --MichaelZimmer (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I just read this.

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Ste4k#Proposed_Remedy

I'll take your suggestion and leave for two days. This made me very sad. Ste4k 15:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Request Filed

I have asked for abrbitration involving User:Nscheffey. See here. Please post any comments you desire to add. Ste4k 08:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"User contributions"

Using the + icon for the first time. Thank you so much!

I checked on the ""User contributions" on the left side of every user page..." and do not see it. Is this just for Administrators?--Who123 20:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind - I found it.--Who123 20:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a small note.

Hi Michael, please try and follow the guidlines for my talk page in the future. You may not have noticed but the policy has changed there somewhat. Thanks. Ste4k 01:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I sent you a message. I understand you don't want users to "respond to other people's messages," but I didn't. I was responding to your comments. You say "This talk page is for messages to me," and I left a message to you. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Item four there reads: "Please create a new heading for new subjects". Hope this helps. Ste4k 00:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Irish Evil

That page was totally worthwhile. Don't delete it! Unprotect it please!! Snipergirl 13:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The page was a hoax, copying the content from evil and then simply inserted the word "Irish" at each occurrence. Recreation can be discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Chuck Marean

I wonder if you might look at two of Chuck's edits—this to Wikipedia:Basic navigation and this to Wikipedia:About—neither of which is disruptive in the fashion of some of his past edits but each of which isn't particularly good; I might have reverted the latter myself, but I don't want to seem to be as wikistalking or acting in bad faith. The edit to Basic navigation seems to impart useful information but ought, I think, to be styled differently, whilst that to About is unsubstantial and ought not to disconcert, although it seems to remove the sort of link we use on other similarly-styled pages. Each appears to be made with encyclopedic purpose, but neither concomitant edit summary is particularly clear (I find "Wikipedia also has its own article" distracting. There's already a non-distracting link in this article to the Wikipedia article, in "Wikipedia is a registered trademark...", for one), so I thought someone else ought to take a look. Thanks in advance... :) Joe 23:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw those. I did revert the About page change, and left Chuck a message on his talk page. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 02:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Your credibility

  • So remind me how this suddenly became an issue of my credibility? Further, this seems to be a common trend: once someone points out an error in your logic/argument, you change the subject to something else. Anyway, I wish you luck with the arbitration. Signing off now. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You asked me to remind you, but I don't recall you ever explaining to me how my argument was in error. Sorry about not seeing your reply until later, Will is trying to confuse my talk page now. The history list looks like the statements he made are in different sections. He is trying to tease me into starting an edit war on my talk page so he can include that as some sort of late fact into his RfC. About your credibility, whatever you have stated or done in the past certainly has a future. You endorsed that RfC and I stated quite plain, logically and reasonably why that would make any common person doubt you. About the arbitration, I appreciate your sentiment, but I haven't any clue about what luck has to do with the matter. Ste4k 00:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion with Will might better explain your involvment, if not, please let me know. Thanks. Ste4k 19:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that, but it is out of your hands.

If we had a dispute, then we come from two cultures. I thought we discussed and came to a mutual understanding. People don't have to see eye to eye to respect each other, and the world is not gray. In my world, that is where you came in. I don't even know you. Ste4k 13:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

RfC

You may wish to look at Ste4k's new Response to the RfC above Ste4k's endorsement of their response.--Who123 15:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Robbie Dale dj, TV presenter and Radio Station CEO.

Thank you Michael for the input,Im a learner on the web and Wikipedia I hope--Robbie Dale 22:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC) to get better or pack it in.R.

Don't pack it in, it just might take a bit of exploring to learn the ropes. Perhaps start here: Help:Contents. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k

Please see Ste4k's RfC, her main page, and her talk page. Her talk page appears deleted. Should it be restored? Thanks.--—Who123 02:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been away, but it appears this has been addressed. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

My user page?

Is there not a special exclusion on user pages as for interfearing? It's called a user page, not a bloody article for a reason.

--G-Spot 20:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gzlfb (talk • contribs)

User pages are meant to facilitate communication & other activities related to the Wikipedia project. Per the User page guidelines, "It is a mistake to think of it as a homepage: Wikipedia is not a free host [or] webspace provider". Further, "As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community. ...In some cases, material that does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed." Please remove the excessive list of external links, search queries, lists of search engines, etc. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm a web site owner, I know the difference, for instance I don't have a cgi-bin here. I put way more on a personal home page, somethings more informative than here, like what got deleted from the 2005 Vancouver Municipal Election Pages and other additions of mine. Home page, well in a home base or hq sense, maybe, it isn't a web site and I wouldn't have it that way, but all I have are resources and research tools in the scheme of things. Sure if some are getting adword bonuses or Google bribes here maybe it would offend, but come on, why fear Wikipedia Watch or Google Watch? There's even a Google Google Watch. Watching them, they seem to brush it off. Point is, it still isn't an entry or article. --G-Spot 13:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC) User:Gzlfb
I know nothing of the 2005 Vancouver Municipal Election pages, and little about the issues related to Wikipedia Watch or Google Watch. Is there something I can do to help? --MichaelZimmer (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Gzlfb Zimmer thinks he is the wiki God. He goes around summarily deleting things he doesn't like in his sole opinion. This is one of the biggest flaws in wiki - that anyone can go in and do this. I just found out he deleted a friend's page who was goint to participate in diving discussions. No rfc, no discussion, no warning, just a deletion. It's ridiculous. People like Zimmer are why so many professionals in the Internet world are afraid to get involved in the wiki project. I have a call in to [removed personal information] Mr. Zimmer's "research activity" and the need for increased supervision and instruction on professional ethics. ArteWorks Business Class 13:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Please provide an example of my "summarily deleting things" outside the deletion policy. If you are referring to the article User:Ronmaier, I merely asked you about it, and pointed out that it might be more appropriate in main-space and not user space. As it is, if you look at the deletion log, you'll notice that I was not the one who deleted it [10]. Calling someone in my academic department seems like an odd way way to resolve an issue you have with me here - perhaps you should try the dispute resolution avenues already in place here? --MichaelZimmer (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you referring to the dispute resolution procedures that you do not follow? Are those the ones you are talking about?ArteWorks Business Class 21:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you please provide an example? Regarding your edits on search engine optimization, you'll notice that I did revert your addition from a few months ago [11], and then we proceeded to discuss it on the talk page Talk:Search_engine_optimization#Confusing_phrase.2FPageRank. Nothing out of policy here. Then you recently added a lengthier mention on the same topic [12], which I did not revert so as to avoid an (seemingly inevitable) edit war. Instead, I left a message on both the article talk page [13] and your talk page [14]. Again, both within policy and procedures. You, however, decided to reply with personal attacks and threats of harrassment: [15] & [16]. So I find it odd that you would accuse me of not following Wikipedia's rules & guidelines. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal finance

Chuck's most recent edit seems to follow from a failure to appreciate what is meant, in the encyclopedic context, by personal finance—which surely isn't simply the fact of one's keeping his/her personal finances separate from those of his/her business, for reasons that are plain, not least that his formulation would lead to our having a one-sentence dicdef—but I'll not revert lest he should think me vindictively and capriciously reverting his edits. I'll leave the situation to your considered judgment (read: I'll let you deal with the attendant hassles)... Joe 21:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was gonna leave you a similar message, hoping you could step in to avoid a 2-sided edit war. I'll see if I can chat with him a little about this.... --MichaelZimmer (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, notwithstanding the considerable difficulties you encountered, you actually, over the course of the day, not only resolved some issues relative to Chuck's edits but, more importantly, improved the article quite a bit ([17]), for which you are to be commended—I'd give you a barnstar, but, well, I'm lazy/tired/generally a jerk. :) Joe 04:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
And thanks for your note at my talk (I'd not realized that you'd offered a similar explanation at Talk:Personal finance, but I suppose it can't hurt to emphasize the point). Joe 05:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Conklin, Rick

Thanks for taking care of that. Damn these feeble newbie fingers. --Avogadro 15:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice job

4 minutes on a random page. This site really is quick. :) --Yanah 13:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine. But please don't vandalize pages just to see how quickly they can be reverted. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Chuck Marean

Thanks for the help with Chuck. I suspect he may be just a kid - his insistence that certain facts are "boring" and limited vocabulary is often a clear pointer to this. I hope that eventually he'll grow tried of what he's trying to do and leave good articles alone. Best, Gwernol 15:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to be patient with him for quite a while, but unfortunately I don't think he's a kid: Image:1 Picture Chuck Marean .jpg. You've been kind and direct as well, but if you review his (scattered) talk history, he simply doesn't seem to process the feedback he receives. Other than blocks, I don't know what else to do. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this is indeed a case where a RfC would be wholly appropriate, especially given that he has specifically requested for other editors' views on the practice of editing. This may provide a good opportunity for expressing what we think his possible strengths could be. I'm not sure what his field of expertise is (certainly not Wikipedia practices or Personal Finance, especially since edits to the latter seem to be pulled mainly from one suspect text), but this may be something that we ask of him. --Avogadro 17:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
yes, I have been considering putting together an RfC, but uncertain whether to focus on user behavior in general, or this particular content-dispute. I'm hesitant, however, given I expect Chuck to have some difficulty in understanding how such dispute resolution processes should even work. I'll try to get something pulled together. Thanks for the input. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Apologies for not having gotten back to you sooner; an RfC would seem appropriate, but perhaps we ought first to allow Avogadro's entirely patient appeal for a civil new beginning to run its course. To be entirely frank, I don't know precisely what Chuck hopes to accomplish here. Save for a few edits to Christianity-related articles, no substantive mainspace contribution of his has not been reverted. I imagine that he finds such reversion quite frustrating, and it is disappointing that—whether because of his failings or ours (or, most probably, some balance thereof)—that he hasn't come to appreciate better the principles underlying the project (although the recent talk page conversations re WP:5P seem rather auspicious).
Nevertheless, if he continues to make substandard edits in the face of entreaties that he stop (and further fails to add anything to the project), a community ban might be in order (toward which a consensus might be reached either at RfC or AN). I am most troubled by the fact that, his insistence on simplified language notwithstanding, he appears to grasp Wiki-related tasks quite quickly (despite being a new computer user, and one who, as he says, doesn't spend much time online, he seems readily to understand HTML and general Wiki syntax), which leads me to believe that there are certain areas, at least, in which he might contribute productively. I hope only that he'll focus his efforts in such areas, and I think that, should Avogadro's efforts toward a new beginning not succeeed, one will have no choice but to abandon all hope. Joe 22:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Email

Ignore the Wikipedia:Reference pages comment. I'm happier now. :) --Quiddity 01:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem - we all need to vent sometimes. :) --MichaelZimmer (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

recrest

I don't understand the the proper page for this so baer with me, the wikichat page was delated whall i was doing a "holdon" plase read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephK19 (talk • contribs)

Creating an article "for all wikipedian's who love to chat!" [sic] is not appropriate. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum or a social networking site. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

sory JosephK19 15:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

nedumkotta

Hello Michael,I have rewritten the atricle Nedumkotta after referring a few more sources and i have restructured the material and added passages after referring to them. A few sentences do appear as they have appeared in the source. Please suggest if this is not sufficient. activevoid 19:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Nearly every sentence or significant phrase from your "rewrite" was cut/pasted from [18]. Just changing the order of sentences or a word here or there isn't sufficient to avoid copyright violations. You can use this page as a reference, and cite any content taken from there, but the article itself must not be taken verbatim from that site, you must reformulate the concepts in your own words. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
ok, I will rewrite it..thanksactivevoid 20:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I have started the article again...Still writing!!! cheersactivevoid 07:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Spam link on "word search" article

Thanks for removing a spam link, but what about the other links there? I would appreciate your advice on this. I think that at least 3 of them are also dubious. Fwend 00:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I was just following the trail of one user, but I'll take a closer look at the rest in that article. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Off-wiki harrassment

You're welcome. I suspect he hasn't done what he claims to have done, though you never know. My guess is that your department is smart enough not to take these sorts of things seriously, but there is always the potential for damage. Off-wiki harassment of this sort is extremely serious. If it turns out he has contacted your department, let me know and I will ensure that appropriate measures are taken. Always good to see another New Yorker here on Wikipedia. Best, Gwernol 20:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I do apologize for making the erroneous assumption that you deleted the third party user page without researching the issue, and I recant all statements made contrary to that effect. ArteWorks Business Class 22:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Apology accepted. If you come across a deleted page in the future and want to accurately determine who deleted it, click the links embedded in the message that appears on the page stating "Please try the purge function, check the deletion log and/or the deletion discussion page..." --MichaelZimmer (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont get it

Why are some links to external sites excepted, but others are not. I have repeatedly tried to link to my site that offeres music venue information for Madison, WI. But you keep removing it. It isnt like I am making any money. How does that link differ from any of the other offsite links that self-promotes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.170.4.89 (talk • contribs)

Please read policy on external links at WP:EL. By embedding a link to your site within the article, it appears you are link spamming. If you feel your site is an acceptable link, add it to the "External links" section as described here [19]. Do not add it as an embedded link as you did here [20]. There is no guarantee, however, that other editors will retain your link. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

SEO Edits

Oh, that fellow and I are friendly, so he'll understand why I cut some of his stuff. Its a fine point to make, but belongs in a different article. After all, this is an article about SEO, not the Google Toolbar PageRank Indicator!

Let's keep on top of this article because it still needs tons of work. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 01:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and that's been the point I was making since June. Oh well. Happy editing! --MichaelZimmer (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Rename

As requested, I've renamed your account to User:ZimZalaBim. You will probably want to move your userpages to the new name. Warofdreams talk 02:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

i did not recreat that page

Artlondon 13:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you first created Martin John Callanan on 10:26, 8 August 2006, then it was speedy deleted. Then you created it again on 09:07, 10 August 2006 with nothing but the "hangon" tag. The article was previously deleted in accordance with the deletion policy (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin John Callanan), and should not be recreated without going through deletion review. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

intermedia

intermedia and electonic media are VERY closly related —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artlondon (talk • contribs)

They might be related in some ways, but intermedia is not necessarily electronic, and including a link to electronic media would be confusing and inappropriate. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

copyright

This user finds copyright paranoia disruptive. Artlondon 15:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted. But simply copying content from websites, as you did in Simon faithfull, is not acceptable. See WP:COPY. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
see my user page Artlondon 17:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
and what should I be looking for? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for following me around all the time, makes me feel safe and secure, and like i want to contribute information of worth to wikipedia. as i'm new, can you explain how i report someone to the wikipedia foundation. your help appreciated. Artlondon 18:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

it is not uncommon for more experienced editors, when discovering an error, to check a user's other entries to ensure the same mistakes aren't repeated. If you want to report or discuss other editor's behavior, one place is WP:ANI, but you also might want to familiarize yourself with the various dispute resolution mechanisms. cheers. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k

I noticed that you restored User:Ste4k's talk page. There were two recent topics on this user at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents that I think were in archives #126 and 127. These topics now appear gone.—Who123 19:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

All old discussions remain intact in Archives 121 and 124. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
My mistake. Sorry.—Who123 20:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Smile

Æon Insane Ward has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Æon Insane Ward 20:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, right back at ya :) --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Tamela Hinson

The article was removed for being an unremarkable event. I believe that embezzlement fo $31,000 from a youth charity group is a rather remarkable, if local event. Indeed, the individual does not have global significance, but to those involved in and around the group and area at the time of this event, it had a huge impact. $31k given by parents and supporters of the group is no small sum.

Please can this article be allowed. I have tried to give as much information as possible, and as much source links as I can.

User:Dave0111 13:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or news items. While Tamela hinson's (the proper name of the article would be Tamela Hinson) story might be remarkable in your local community, her story does not fulfill the guidelines for inclusion in this encyclopedia. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I see. Is there anyway that rewriting the article, perhaps to focus more on the event rather than on the individual, make it an acceptable article? User:Dave0111 13:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
If you write it focusing on the event, unless it received significant national attention, I suspect it would also be subject to deletion. Local news stories generally aren't encyclopedic. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Very well. Thank you for taking the time to respond to me. If nothing else, at least I've managed to learn and understand the Wiki system in case I even have the need to add further articles :) User:Dave0111 13:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. More help for newcomers can be found at WP:WELCOME. Happy editing! --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Spam

I am adding links that are in context with the subject at hand. They have content on the subject from a different point of view. Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddr (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of external links. Please see the external link policy. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting my opinion on that link. Cheers! Chris53516 20:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Elvis Westman (character and stage performer with The Aquabats)

Howdy,

I want to add a small article on one of the characters (an ally of) The Aquabats. Mr. Fabulous (a.k.a. Elvis Westman, not Alan Rubin) has occasionally been seen on stage with The Aquabats since the band started around 10 years ago. He is the brother-in-law of the lead singer The MC Bat Commander (a.k.a. Christian Jacobs). This is an article on the actual person, not a goof.

What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Struhs (talk • contribs)

Neither of the two articles you've created for Elivs Westman satisfy the guidelines for biographies of living people outlined in WP:BIO, and make no serious claim of notability (being "known for having coined the term "aftermarket funbags"" notwithstanding). I don't suggest re-creating the article unless it can pass WP:BIO. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
That makes enough sense. There does seem to be a bit of grey area in these things where, for one reason or another, a character or minor member of the group will end up with an article. My personal feeling is that the guy who came up with "aftermarket funbags" will eventually be a cultural keystone, but it appears only time can prove me right. He also does a great comic stand-up, so maybe he'll be noteworthy for that sometime soon. The Elvis (not Presley) fan base is growing, and as long as factory original funbags keep getting upgraded, and as long as The Aquabats continue to take the stage, Mr. Fabulous (not the one who is Alan Rubin) will be a part of entertainment and pop culture history. Peace.

how

How do you get new pikchers on wikis,uplode them and anything ells you can think of (i cant find how to any where)?JosephK19 07:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Images and Wikipedia:Uploading images should provide the information you seek. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Nicki Rose

Greetings, I invite you to do a Google search on Nicki Rose, as the top four responses directly relate to him. I feel compelled to tell you that Nicki is a slowly-developing underground legend in the making (ala Daniel Johnston, Jandek, and Wesley Willis to name but a few similar artists that Wikipedia has entries for). The influence and power of Nicki Rose's video is being felt in isolated pockets around the country. Don't miss the chance to profile someone whose history needs to be documented. I feel this entry will also help to establish some kind of personal contact with the man who for the past 15 years has been an elusive mystery. Thank you. Scotchy 07:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Scott Oullette

Well, the first Google hit, www.nickirose.com, presumably this person's official website, is no longer a valid webpage. And the fact that "The real Nicki Rose has never been located" brings into doubt his very existence. If you want to dispute the deletion, visit Wikipedia:Deletion review, but keep in mind the guidelines for biographical articles. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 11:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k

Please take a look at User talk:Ste4k now. I do not think they should be allowed to continue in their behavior by using their talk page to attack other users.—Who123 12:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I will not take action since I am involved. Post to WP:ANI. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back message

Glad to have you back. Gwernol 16:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ebay

I received the following response from eBay in response to my inquiriy about homeschooling, "Since eBay strives to be a level-playing field, all Teacher's Edition textbooks will be covered under this policy. Unfortunately, home schooling Teacher’s Editions are not exempt from this policy. " Rearden9 16:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see the need to highlight homeschooling text books, since "Teachers editions" seems inclusive of whether said books are used in a school or home. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it includes all teachers edition texts, but the overall affect is much larger than just that book. It makes the sale of all homeschool curriculum much more difficult and I think that is a notable distinction. Rearden9 16:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Good point. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


Bob McIlvaine

Hi, I noticed you tagged this article as a speedy A7. While I'm not convinced this article will stay, I think in this case this is an inappopriate channel. There is an assertion of notability, in fact it says "he is most notable...". Now, of course, I am convinced, as you are, that this assertion of notability does not have much merit, but the assertion is not prima facie false, and thus this needs to be debated at AfD. Please feel free to nominate this article as AfD if you think it still should be deleted, please see Template:AfD in 3 steps. Any questions or comments, feel free to respond here. Thanks! --- Deville (Talk) 13:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Right - missed that "claim" of notability. Will proceed with AfD. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


edit war

I was not edit waring, i am adding info. And the only way to do that is by re-adding the other removed info. I have been building on the article for several day, as you know. As for consencus, you know that we are talking in the talk page, so please stop accusing me. --Striver 15:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"And the only way to do that is by re-adding the other removed info." No, that is not true. You can just click "edit" and add what you want without reverting other good faith deletions. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Tamela Hinson

ZimZalaBim,

Could you please let me know where this article is located that talks about this. or email it to me [removed email]

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.117.175 (talk • contribs)

The article was (incorrectly named) here Tamela hinson, and was deleted. I've e-mailed you the original content. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

ISBN

Ok, were do i get the ISBN? --Striver 13:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Any publishers page for the book should have it, as does Amazon and B&N. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
And you might look at Wikipedia's entry ISBN :) --Tbeatty 04:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


Forgotten sig. on striver's usertalk

Ha ha. Thanks! Very fast! My cat sat on my computer and now i can only make the tilde sign by copying and pasting so sometimes i forget - thanks for noticing! Mujinga 23:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


re NPA

Read the comment dude. No personal attacks present, just a bit of sympathy for poor old Striver, on his/her own user page. Mujinga 23:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Further, "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks" - you may not know it but im using a famous english quotation - http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/116900.html Mujinga 23:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Familiar phrase or not, I don't think referring to other editors as "bastards" falls under "civil language." Cheers. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
OK and i will assume good faith on your part, so thanks for taking an interest! Mujinga 00:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
In what way could I be acting in bad faith? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


Complete(?) List of 9/11 conspiracy AfDs

Given the sheer number of recent 9/11 conspiracy AfDs, I thought it would be useful to create a list. See User:GabrielF/911TMCruft. Thought you might be interested. Please feel free to add anything I might have missed.

GabrielF 01:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

What personal atack?

Pray Sir, do tell, to what persoanl attack to you refer? --Pussy Galore 19:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This one: [21] If you were trying to make a point regarding "flawed logic," perhaps an example that is not a personal attack would be more prudent. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
So labelling people as sock puppets without any basis whatsoever isn't a personal attack? My oh my, I learn something new every day. --Pussy Galore 19:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I haven't given any opinion one way or another whether labeling someone as a sockpuppet is a personal attack. That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about your edit. And even if an earlier comment was a personal attack on you, that does not justify a personal attack in return. Please keep that in mind in the future. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


milwaukee student population

i changed this line, because someone had edited my previous statement which was based on an accurate estimate, as referenced in the milwaukee page discussion board. i accumulated all of the student population estimates from all of the institutions of higher education in milwaukee and provided a sum which was actually 15,000 lower than the actual figure. someone edited the page to suggest that this number might somehow be inflated by the inclusion of part-time and distance-learning students, specifically in reference to matc, so i excluded the very large student population of matc and recalculated the estimate and the number was at about 70,000. this is where these numbers are coming from. by stating that the number is actually "much lower" than 100,000, you are discounting the still very large student population in milwaukee. in fact, the city of madison, often referred to as having a huge student population, does not have as many full-time students as milwaukee does. if you want a more accurate count, i can research the numbers of full time students from matc, but this will only increase the estimate of 70,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximilian77 (talk • contribs)

Information presented in the article should be cited from reliable sources, and original research should be avoided. I'd suggest posting links to the sources of the numbers to support your calculations. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
well, i did cite references by stating that this information was provided by each of the institutions' official websites. in the discussion page, if you will notice, i list each school with each student population estimate provided from each of the school sites. how would you suggest making a citation of a summation that is based on several different site references collectively?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximilian77 (talk • contribs)
Presently, there are no citations to verify the numbers you list on the talk page are accurate. One option would be to create a footnote with links to the sources of the data, and explaining your calculation. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

okay, i will work on that and put it together for you. i'm sorry for the lack of signatures, as well. i've only been a wiki-editor for a couple of months. --Maximilian77 23:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No prob, but it's not "for me," but rather to comply with WP:RULES. Happy editing! --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


Moscoto

dont mess with my stuff, you dont know what you are talking about you spelled it "Moscoto" - fool - just leave it alone —Preceding unsigned comment added by GodGnipael (talk • contribs)

thanks for the correction. GodG —Preceding unsigned comment added by GodGnipael (talk • contribs)
(edit conflict) Your edit [22] does not follow the manual of style for how to correctly create wikilinks; and there is not reason not to have a link to Muscat. Perhaps you would like to explain why you think your edit is improving the article on its talk page: Talk:Moscato. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

For starters, you are using a double negative "and there is not reason not to have a link". Am I dealing with a native english speaker? If you are, please finish high school before editing other people's work.—Preceding unsigned comment added by GodGnipael (talk • contribs)

For starters, you never provided a 2nd item after your "for starters" introduction. Secondly, please be aware of WP's policy against personal attacks. Comment on the content, not the editor. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You need to be more careful correcting other people's work when your attempted corrections contain major mistakes. Also, you can not assume that all users are native english speakers or for that matter high school graduates. GogG

I didn't catch the spelling error in the original page the first time I reverted your incorrect edit. I would suggest, however, that that you review the manual of style and editing guidelines. If you see a page with a mispelled word, plese just click the "edit" tab, and correct the mispelled word, and then click save page (after leaving an edit summary, of course). Your edit here [23] was erroneous for the various reasons already noted. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


Lets just leave it at that, for I am GodGnipael.

Milwaukee

Thanks for the heads up. That was getting ridiculous. --Fang Aili talk 00:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep. And thanks for brining a new voice of reason to the discussion. Happy editing! --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

TWO RIVERS, WISCONSIN

I am a longtime resident of this city. I assure you, the edits are far from trivial, and will be enjoyed by anyone who currently lives, or has lived in Two Rivers.

9/13/06 - 2:51 CST - WALRUS

While I feel your edits are in good faith, please keep in mind that what we are creating here is an encyclopedia, not a travel guide or website for strolls down memory lane. Also, all content must adhere to the neutral point of view policy. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Understood! - 9/13/06 3:35 CST - WALRUS

The edits I made yesterday (which you changed from "News & Notes" to "Trivia" have disappeared. What happened to them? I'll see if I can put them back in. 9/14/06 8:21 AM CST - WALRUS

If you look at the page history [24], you'll see that another editor (MrBula (talk · contribs)) removed them and left an edit summary explanation [25]. Additionally, Royalbroil (talk · contribs) left you a nice message on your talk page about how you might improve the article in accordance to WP policies & guidelines for appropriate content. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the message. Thank you. I put the "trivia" back. But it has disappeared again. Why would it be removed? That is important information about the great city of Two Rivers. As to the blog link, that is not mine. That blog is a series of stories and articles relating to Washington High School, which was Two Rivers' high school for over 80 years. The school has since been demolished - about three years ago. But that school was an institution in the town forever. Most of the city's current residents graduated from that high school. Other than that blog, there is virtually nothing on the internet about that school. So why would that link be removed? It's certainly not an advertising link. The message left by Royalbroil (talk · contribs) suggested an article about the high school. That's exactly what that blog is. 9/14/06 8:56 AM - WALRUS

The consensus appears to be that your trivia additions are not appropriate for the article. Please do not re-insert them, but try to build consensus for their inclusion on the talk page. Regarding the blog, it does appear to be "your" site since the blog owner's name is TWORIVERSWALRUS. But regardless of that, links to blogs are not acceptable in accordance to the external link policy. Please feel free to add appropriate content, not links. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The consensus? From who? There is virtually nothing of interest on the Two Rivers web page. I've lived in Two Rivers for many, many years. Yet there is no mention of the high school that stood for 80+ years. A town notable (former actress and wife of Charlton Heston) isn't deemed worthy of mentioning? Why not remove the tidbit about the wrestler who lived there then? Two Rivers has a wealth of tradition. There is great history in the city. Yet mentioning some of these facts isn't worthy? Who decides this? Other Wikipedia pages list information like that. And what's up with removing the name of the current City Manager? The neighboring city of Manitowoc lists their mayor. But Two Rivers can't? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manitowoc Manitowoc mentions TV and radio stations. But Two Rivers can't? Manitowoc provides school information. But Two Rivers can't? Manitowoc provides points of interest. But Two Rivers can't? Manitowoc has links to their city. But Two Rivers can't? I know I'm new here. But I'm only trying to provide factual information about Two Rivers. Yet I'm being prevented from doing so. Why? The entry on this great city is sparse and boring. Many a year I have called Two Rivers home. Why can't I talk about it? 9/14/04 9:48 AM - WALRUS

Three different editors have expressed opinions on the topic, either through edits on the page or on your talk page. You should discuss this at Talk:Two Rivers, Wisconsin, not here.--ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I see you put most of the information back. Thank you. Although I'm dismayed that another user could simply go in and take it right back out again. 9/14/04 10:15 AM - WALRUS

That is the nature of a wiki. Feel free to discuss with other editors at the talk page: Talk:Two Rivers, Wisconsin. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Cuomo post -- both negative & positive comments must be allowed

You have been deleting all items critical of Cuomo, including an editorial in the NY Times and an investigative report in the Village Voice. You also removed a link to a heavily documented investigative article I wrote.

All three articles relate to Cuomo's sleazy record as Secretary of HUD. It is no coincidence that this was the topic of each of the three articles.

What was the reason for you removing those references?

You have inserted instead pro-Cuomo statements by Cuomo's election supporters. You are in effect promoting one side of a political campaign where there is strong disagreement.

The right thing to do is to let all comments remain, both favorable and critical. Do you have a problem with that?

LK—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lkomisar (talk • contribs) .

I have a problem with the generally unsourced point of view statements within your edit. Please feel free to add content in accordance with Wikipedia policies, especially concerning maintaining a neutral point of view. This is an encyclopedia, not a campgain website. thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Media Ecology & Media Studies

Thanks for the heads-up - will do. PaulLev 17:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Paul Levinson

Thanks - didn't know that - I'll refrain from future edits (my edits were purely informative) - PL —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulLev (talk • contribs)

Thanks - will do. PaulLev 02:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok - I think I finally got it. From now on, any edits I might want to make to the Paul Levinson artice, however minor or neutral, I'll place on the article's talk page, so you or another editor can make them (or not). I'm just usually so busy with all kinds of writing that my instinct is just to use the swiftest method, which is making the edit directly. But I do understand Wiki's logic, and will go with it. Thanks for your help with this.PaulLev 16:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! PaulLev 00:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a minor request/suggestion for The Plot To Save Socrates - there is a review link in the first paragraph which doesn't seem to do anything. I assume it was the writer (of that article)'s intention to link it to the review which appears as an external link at the end of the article? Anyway, since I'm the author of this novel, I thought it best to ask you (or anyone) to fix the link, in accordance with WP:Auto - thanks PaulLev 18:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


Opinions and fairness

What is fair for one should be fair for all. The link in question is a commercial site created solely for revenue purposes. If its allowed to remain then comparable links should have the right as well. This spam issue should be a zero tolerance policy. What is ones opinion over anothers should be avoided as illustrated by your term "appropriate". I am willing to discuss this further and bring to a higher authority on Wiki to resolve. DESG —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Desg (talk • contribs) .

I was referring to this edit [26]. Sorry, I should've provided a specific diff. Also, please sign your posts with 4 tildes (~~~~) in order to automatically provide your name & the date/time. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Upon further review, this edit does seem to be close to violating POINT [27]. Another editor reverted your removal of the link indicating that it does satisfy the requirements in WP:EL [28]. If you disagree, you should discuss on talk page, and not simply delete again. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Just so you know, his first act after the expiry of the block was to have another go at the external links. I have left him another warning on his talk page. --Spartaz 22:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that too. Thanks for the heads up, and for leaving the "friendly advice" at his talk page. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we have a solution to this issue here? Do we leave a link with obvious advertising which clearly violates policy or do we remove it. I have tried before but was punished by you guys... Doesn't seem fair to remove my link solely based on the fact it is my link. Interpretation of policy regarding posting your own link advises against doing so to avoid controversy eg... politics and religion. My informative link doesn't do that. I am also willing to not post it again if the other violating link is removed just to show I'm reasonable. As it stands I feel very unfairly treated. Do we need to go any further with this? Desg 04:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I urge continued discussion on the relevant article's talk page. Otherwise, there are dispute resolution routes you can take. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Jakub Kusmieruk

the page on jakub kusmieruk was posted because he is 7'4 and would make the wiki tall list. i measured him myself. if this does not belong on wikipedia, sorry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CoachMac (talk • contribs) .

Nothing in the article indicated that he was notable for his height, and any such claim would require verification from reliable sources. Unfortunately, your claim to have measured himself would probably not be sufficient (see WP:NOR). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
As a high school coach, I hope I can be considered a neutral observer. However, I understand if not. Jakub will go up there again I'm sure when he gets to college and he's even taller (7'4 at 16 years old is pretty remarkable, but I understand if it can't be on wikipedia).CoachMac 12:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)CoachMac
Is there a local newspaper article about the player that could be cited? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
http://coachthorpe.typepad.com/the_pro_training_center/2006/07/big_kuba.html is a blog from an NBA trainer who worked with Jakub this summer, and an article from last year (on the web): http://maryland.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=489312 ... not sure if it's enough but it's what i could find. --CoachMac 17:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)CoachMac
no thoughts on this?CoachMac 12:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Blogs generally aren't used as reliable sources, but perhaps these two sources would suffice. If you choose to re-create the article, be sure to WP:CITE these sources, and maintain our neutral point of view and other policies. Happy editing!. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


Re:Chuck Marean's categories

Thanks for the heads-up. I just noticed that, too. He also created Category:!Art and culture. I suspect he's creating these so that categories he deems vital show up at the top of the the Special:Categories list. It's not a great idea, if you ask me. - EurekaLott 18:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, he also seems to have listed the existing Category:!!! albums for speedy renaming, perhaps not understanding that there is an article called !!! (album) to which it relates. A mess.... --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
At the bottom of every article is a link to Special:Categories called "Categories:" which people click to get to the categories. The links which I put there are the contents topics of the Categorical index. They should be there instead of a link to Albums, because the ! mark is at the top of the list wher the Contents section is supposed to be. I'm wondering why someone would delete the Contents in favor of a link to Albums. There was really no good reason for it that I can think of. --Chuck Marean 23:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I will reply on your talk page, since a larger discussion is already present there. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I rather wonder whether a community ban might be in order. I've raised with Chuck several times that, should he continue to disrupt the project, the patience of other editors might be exhausted; such patience surely is, or should be, waning. I don't doubt that Chuck acts in good faith, but one's being pertinacious in spite of the cordial entreaties of many other users, where such obstinacy affects the project deleteriously has the same effect on the project as one's being intentionally disruptive. I think, indeed, what troubles me most is not that his edits are almost categorically disruptive/unproductive, but that, in view of his unwillingess to consider the views of other editors and, worse, his seeming inability to communicate, at times, to other editors that which he believes to be right, any future edits will almost surely be disruptive. He has made, to my knowledge, three or four substantive constructive mainspace edits (to, IIRC, Bible-related articles), and I regret to observe that the net effect on the project of his editing here has been negative. Any thoughts? Joe 20:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
He's filed for some community assistance here, but I'm not sure it'll do any good. Alas, a ban might be the only resort, as I agree that the net effect of his actions has been negative (both directly on the project, and the time of other editors to clean up after him). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
What I don't understand, is the wild disparity between his talkpage comments, and the writing style used at User:Chuck Marean/first article. The latter is almost dadaist poetry(!), and seems to be a mix of allusions to wiki-processes, and daily household maintanence lists. I'm rapidly reconsidering previous assumptions (of mere stubborness), and thinking a psych-major may be better able to explain where our communication difficulties with him are arising. --Quiddity 18:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I assumed that he was using greeking in order to learn how to format an article (presumably preparing to create a new article or make major edits to an existing article). I don't know the source of the communication difficulties (and had, at one point, postulated an organic source of the problem) which led to my asking some specific questions, which never got answered in a satisfying manner.--Avogadro 19:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, it seems quite clear that after a few weeks of silence, he's back to the "same old same old" of seeing something he'd like to improve, figuring out the code/structure, and then forging ahead no holds barred, regardless of community feedback. I'll assume good faith until I'm blue in the face, but many of us are spending (semi-precious) time reverting and doing damage control. I doubt a long-term block would have any effect, which leaves few alternatives.... --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

special:categories

Re: "You'll notice that the text at Special:Categories now makes it explicit that this is an alphabetical list of categories.", (if you did that change) could you also remove the link to Category Tree browser, as the page is deprecated (and non-uptodate). Thanks :) --Quiddity 18:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. [29] --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

RichM2020

Any chance of indef blocking RichM2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). The contribs look like vandalism only. alphaChimp(talk) 15:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I just tend to be a little trigger-shy, but perhaps an indef is appropriate. Feel free to change it. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Nah, that's fine. I respect your judgment. alphaChimp(talk) 15:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


Re: Milwaukee/UWM

Seriously, what is your deal? You seem hell bent on deleting anything I post that points out that there's disenfranchisement anywhere in Milwaukee no matter how much these facts are common knowledge. I've deducted from your other happenings at wikipedia that you're neither a Milwaukee resident nor a student/faculty/administration member at UWM, so for you to come and act like a dictator on those articles over people who are legit members of those communities is purely arrogant and assertive of your class privlege (and in many cases, your race privelege as well). And this whole "but it doesn't follow wikipeida's guildines" is nothing more than a piss poor excuse for you to do just that. Do you even know the meaning of the word "guideline?" It is not a synonym for "law" or even "rule." A guideline is just what the word implies... a GUIDE. Guidelines are not meant to be held to the same rigid standard as rules (in fact, it would be ridiculous to think they could in an environment like wikipedia). The reason for wikipedia is so that it can be more inclusive than traditional encyclopeidas while still being a reliable source of information. If people want all of their info to be backed up by a "realiable" source, they'd go to Encarta. They come to wiki because they want information that other sources can't (or in a lot of cases, won't) publish. If you could get off your high horse for a minute and recognize that, we'd all be better off. Illwauk 16:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please maintain some civility and refrain from personal attacks.
One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is to maintain a neutral point of view, which means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible. Your edit at UWM [30] was making serious claims about disenfranchisement and lack of diversity, without any sources or citations to back them up. There is a no original research policy for just such circumstances, as it wouldn't make for a very reliable encyclopedia if anyone can just make any claim without some verifiable evidence (ie, POV-pushing). If these facts are "common knowledge" then there must be some reliable sources commenting on them: newspaper articles, perhaps? Please try to work within the frameworks of this community. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Now what???

Linking to your own website is allowed (I checked the rules) if done with a relative and non abusive way. I removed all sponsor ads on the site and wish to share my information with the stained glass community. Is this the building of consensus? I have complied with all of the rules and wish to add my valuable resource to the listing. What do I need to do now? Please let me know what other rules are involved here. I don't wish to get anyone angry and remove my post being so. I'd rather avoid that situation altogether.

Thanks DESG

First, while the page you linked to does not have ads, the main page (which is one link away) appears to be primarily a commercial site. Second, to repeat myself, discuss the possible inclusion of the link on the article's talk page to try to arrive an consensus. (This has been suggested numerous times). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

All set... I created a talk page. Lets talk... some more :) article's talk page Desg 01:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Good, but just so you know, you should've started a discussion when it was first suggested to you 7 hours ago, before your block. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Spamming continues unabatted [[31]]. He just won't stop. RogerJ 11:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I have left a long message on the article talk page about this. Both users appear at fault to a greater or lesser degree and need to discuss and agree changes. I feel that the other two external sites are as bad as Desg's with regard to adverts and either they all go or he should be allowed his site. Frankly I don't care which but I would like Desg and RogerJ to stop fighting over it. --Spartaz 12:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi - I agree. I haven't even looked at the other sites since I don't care and don't have expertise to give an opinion. I just know Desg asked for consensus on his link, and none has appeared yet. I think this page could definitely use a 3O, and perhaps these two should take a break from it for a while. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Turns out RogerJ is concerned about the content of Desg's site rather than the adverts. Not sure he should consider it spam in that case. Thanks for the support - I have now removed all the external links. A previous request for a 3rd opinion appears to be outstanding. Lets see if they behave now. --Spartaz 13:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer

Thanks for your offer of more information, I appreciate it. I'll be communicating with the other user first, and get that part straightened out, then I may need to talk with you afterward. I've looked this over, and I get what's going on... not my first rodeo, you might say.

I really appreciate your offer of help, but at this point the less input from you the easier my job will be. I've read the history of everyone involved and a scrambled talk archive is no big deal, I've read the comments from before they were archived.

How this happened, it was an accidental bite to a well-intentioned newer user who was a little too bold. It's no big deal and nothing anyone needs stress over. Just a misunderstanding. Thanks for your note, I'll talk with you in a few days. User:Pedant 06:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 11:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Paul Edinger

If this has anything to do with the Paul Edinger page, it is completely true, as facts that are verifyable were used. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grizzlygriz (talk • contribs) .

Please review our neutral point of view policy. Statements like "Paul Edinger is a mediocre kicker, at best" or "an almost equally bad kicker" or "sent him packing after the dismal showing, but was amazingly picked up by the Minnesota Vikings" are not neutral, and are unacceptable for an encyclopedia article. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 11:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
While I apologize for what I put on the other pages, you were wrong to delete the stuff about Paul Edinger. Other than the opinion about the Arena Football League, which was based on fact, the rest was absolutely true. Go ahead and verify his stats. they were COMPLETELY accurate, as well as who he has played for and who he was replaced with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grizzlygriz (talk • contribs) .
Content must be cited from reliable sources. Your contributions weren't, and were couched in your opinions of him. Feel free to make constructive contributions. And please sign your posts with 4 tildes (~~~~). Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Paul Edinger

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/5203

Those are his stats. This IS a reliable site. I admit, sure there were opinions in there, but those could have been omitted from the text left of strictly stats.Grizzlygriz 12:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Mike

bkbkbkbk on College Point

yo no offenCe but stop Changin stuff in College Point so muCh. where do u live? probably dont know nuttin in College Point. im Crip and u think dat u noe soo muCh bout College point so how bout movin there rite now? while im ritin dis I C all these Crips out ma door. i noe that dere R slobs around here 2. earlier dis summer ma best frend got shot by a slob. im jus tellin da truth bout CP Cuz i want ppl 2 noe dat dis aint a family friendly plaCe. almost evryday i hear gunshots. so jus stop sCrewin round wit CP all rite? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bkbkbkbk (talk • contribs) .

that all might be true, but this is an encyclopedia, and our content must be verifiable, preferably from reliable sources, and we can't allow original research. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I am certain that the information that Bkbkbkbk is entering is false. I lived in College Point for 20 years. My parents, aunt & uncle and best friend still live there so I travel, shop and spend time there often. College Point is not a hub for urban decay in New York as he makes it out to be. While the neighborhood has vastly diversified to be more multi-cutural, the statistics I linked to in the College Point discussion page show historically that crime in that precinct (the 109th) is low, especially compared to other "bad neighborhoods" around NYC. - Dialt0ne 04:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Bkbkbkbk also seems to be suffering from some kind of identity crisis, since he claims to be a Blood here [32], yet identifies himself as a Crip above. Must be a difficult internal struggle. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


Innerdep article for deletion

hi,

I am the author of innerdep article. I have edited now to comply with Wiki rules. Please let me know if this is ok.

dfmrrd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.114.64.75 (talk • contribs) .

I still don't see how Innerdep is either a notable website or content for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Please see WP:WEB, WP:NOT, and perhaps even WP:NFT for guidance. As it is, the deletion of the article is up for community discussion here. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Innerdep is not yet notable website. I did not know that a website has to be popular to have a place in Wikipedia. This site is more of a research project, not some fancy blog site. If the wikipedia community decides to delete this entry, then it is ok with me. Thanks. -- dfmrrd

Hi, I am the author of Innerdep. You can delete this article. I really do not want to "Pollute" Wikipedia. I will re-enter this article when Innerdep becomes a notable website. Thanks --dfmrrd Dfmrrd 12:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been deleted. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

SchoolAtlas Deletion

Thank you for your specific comment regarding the VAIN policy. I really do stand behind this as a valuable and a knowledge-based resource that should be added to wiki, but I respect the process.... just trying to at least edit. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Schoolat (talk • contribs) .

Feel free to participate in the descussion regarding its propsed deletion here. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Brett Favre

Favre is considered to be a drama queen by anyone who knows anything about football. Ask any football guy and they will tell you Favre is a good qb, but he IS a drama queen. All i said is he is "considered to be one of the biggest drama queens." You obviously don't know about football, being behind your computer screen 24/7. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bluef15004 (talk • contribs) .

First, (presumably) you added it under an IP [33], for which I warned you such contributions weren't helpful. Then you add it again under this login [34]. Please stop, and familiarize yourself with some of the guiding principles of this encyclopedia, such as content needing to be verifiable from reliable sources, as well as issues about adding disparaging remarks to articles about living people. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

please watch your deletions

Thank you for experimenting with the page Ninja on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it 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. --Ghetteaux 19:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As I noted on your talk page, my edit was a good faith deletion of your venn diagram, which adds little to this encyclopedia article. Please do not refer to this deletion of material as vandalism, becuase it is not. thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
key word -- "adds little." please see Wikignome. your deletions are Wikitroll material. Thanks. --Ghetteaux 19:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Please don't accuse me of being a troll. Perhaps, instead, you would like to provide justification for why your original research venn diagram about our knowledge of ninja's [35] actually improves that article? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

second warning

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Ninja. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Ghetteaux 19:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, don't warn me for good faith edits that are not vandalism. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack warning

You inadvertantly accused me of original research. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; 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. I appreciate your hard work. Thank you. --Ghetteaux 19:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There was nothing inadvertant about it. Your diagram is original research, and such a claim does not constitute a personal attack. Please stop adding bad faith and incorrect warnings to other users talk pages, our you will be blocked from editing. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration involving you

Hi, you should be aware that an IP user has requested Arbitration against me Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Gwernol. You are also named as an "abusive" admin in this case. Please take a look at the evidence presented and make a statement if you wish to. Thanks, Gwernol 12:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've responded. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)