User talk:Mr.Z-man/Archive 2

user Hetoum I incivility

user:Hetoum I second time uses incivil comments on page Church of Kish. He used anons to edit war on page and insulted two contributors [1], [2]--Dacy69 02:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Article Protection

Please can you justify how issues regarding the trademark is relavant to the Royal Bengal Airline article? You have put protection on the article for no reason and have not seen the reason why it was blanked out. Trademark issues are not conclusive of the company in question. Please could you very kindly review this again and cut this out? Thank you.

When protection is used in a content dispute, the page is always protected in the Wrong version for someone. The proper way to deal with this situation is to discuss on the article's talk page why you think the link should not be there instead of simply removing it when other users believe it is relevant. I have no opinion on the link myself. Also, all I did was block the anonymous user causing the disruption. I did not protect the page. Jossi did. You should contact him. While I doubt he will unprotect it, he may be willing to upgrade the protection to full protection (so no one can edit the article) if you can convince him that it really is a content dispute and not just you being disruptive (which is what it looks like). Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 15:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Political_positions_of_Fred_Thompson

With regards to the protection of that article I would like to explain that no vandalism took place. What happened as you noticed was a dispute over sources. One user kept sourcing to blogs and the other kept deleting it. I have the original sources from newspaper articles and I would like to add them to avoid a repeat of the dispute. I don't contribute here very often so I'm afraid that in 4 days I will forget about this and the dispute will continue. --BarryGoldwater 19:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Still, it was just protected today, so ask the protecting admin, Yamamoto Ichiro or bring it up on the article talk page so another user can review and add it. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

... for reverting vandalism on my talk page. - TwoOars 19:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeffree Star

Hi, Mr. Z-man. I don't understand why you protected Jeffree Star when you unsalted Jeffree Star (singer) and made it a redirect. Powers ^T 01:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did the wrong page, although now that the new article is created, is there any reason to protect the redirect? Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Powers ^T 17:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Kmsiever

With all do respect, I have to disagree with you assessment. All the edits made by myself are sourced and relevant and User:Kmsiever has deemed them otherwise without offering a reasonable explanation. Then reverts my edits, which are reasonable, without discussion. Yet, I open discussion and ask for input receiving none and get threatened with a block. Does this seem reasonable or just ?--207.6.12.137 01:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It still not vandalism, and calling him a troll doesn't usually help. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that I ever called that user, or any, a troll, please show me where. Iask again with respect, Does this seem reasonable or just ?--207.6.12.137 03:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears you called him a troll (or restored a removed comment where someone else called him a troll) in that edit I linked to above. Just because nobody responded to a request for input does not mean that everyone agreed with you. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Go right ahead

As long as you'll try to help clean up the inevitable mess that comes with this. If you, or someone you know could write a bot to clean up all the remaining /Comments pages that will remain after this it would be greatly appreciated. Anyways, you can go right ahead if you're ready. Oh, and you forgot to sign your comment there ;) --Psychless 23:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Pipes And Drums of Geneva

I do not understand why you deleted this page ?

It failed multiple speedy deletion criteria. It was an article about an organization that made no assertion of notability, it provided no context explaining what the group was, and its 2 sentences were directly copied from here, making it a copyright violation. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There was no copyright violation because I am the author of the page you mentionned. The article was just a beginning, I could have incorporate more in the future. And, finnally, if you look at the others pipe bands having put an article in wikipedia, the "notability" of several of them is very doubtfull. So if you want to continue to purge such articles you have some work ! Now I do not know if I should try again to make an article or not knowing you will delete it .. too bad.

The state of the other articles does not matter. There were almost 2 hours between creation and when I deleted it. That should be more than enough time to at least make some assertion of notability or provide some context explaining what the group is. You don't even have to prove notability to avoid speedy deletion, just say why it is notable. As for context, the article didn't even specify that it was in Geneva, Switzerland, just Geneva. If it really is notable, you can recreate it, there is no conspiracy by me or anyone to stop you. However, if you own the copyright, you may have a conflict of interest and I would still recommend not copying text directly, as the process to prove ownership is somewhat time-consuming, though you can specify on your website that the text is released under the GFDL, then you would not need to prove ownership. However, the article should strive to not fail these basic criteria from the very first edit or it can be deleted without warning. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The protection of Mystery (disambiguation)

While I agree with your assesment, the timing is a bit off. User:Eep², who constituted one side of the argument, is currently blocked. Taemyr 01:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Was he the only one arguing against everyone else, if he was, I will unlock it, if not, I'll have to review the talk page discussion some more. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It was him against everyone else. Though I am involved, so it might not be wise to take my word for it. Taemyr 22:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

User Talk Page protection

Can you please protect User talk:That Dude 07? He is abusing the unblock template to get unblocked. Momusufan 19:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Vorlin

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Vorlin. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 85.181.39.131 13:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I started a review for the following reasons:

• The PROD was contested by me. The AfD discussion then did not provide any new informations and was set in the holiday time where most of the editors of the small wikipedia ConLang-Community were possibly on holiday.
• Baza is featured in the Portal:Constructed languages. There are discussions of which languages are to be included into this portal. Vorlin was selected to be notable enough. The Portal is a featured Portal. I think an active portal, especially a featured one, can be trusted on the notability of its featured articles; if not, perhaps the Portal should be PRODded or the "Featured"-status contested as a locical consequence.
• Alternatives to deletion, like a mergeto:-Template to Engineered language or Philosophical language were not even considered; in the AfD-discussion, obviously no one was competent to provide any factual reason for/against deletion. Vorlin was presented as an "International Auxilary language", which it absolutely is not. As Vorlin is a ConLang, people surely were available in Portal talk:Constructed languages who could provide factual arguments for/against deletion. The reason for the PROD contest were not even provided in the AfD-discussion.

All in all, this mode (Notability tag - contested! PROD - contested! OK, so I make an AfD in the holiday time - Joy, joy, it worked!) seems to me a case of bullying by the Proponent. If you want to know whether Vorlin is notable or original research, why don't you ask in the ConLang articles AND wait for the end of the summer holidays AND allow at least one month between contested tags before setting a new one? --85.181.39.131 13:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Haelstrom 01:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What was wrong with the prince's of the universe? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you just haven't seen my question yet.Haelstrom 13:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Your talk page is for other users to communicate with you, not for composing poetry. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Georgeadgdgdgdwngo

You are very lenient giving him only 48 hours block, it is a vandalism only account and he called me a "paedofile"[sic] and a fag, because I reverted his vandalism [3] Jackaranga 21:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't see the personal attacks. Extended block to indef. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of hangon

Yes, that was my bad. I didn't mean to take off the hangon from Media buster. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Humanoid animals

Well, I apologize for not giving my reasons of deleting the "Humanoid Animals" category. It's just that I believe that category is just useless by looking through it. "Danucciguzman 07:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)"

List of environment-theme lists of topics: S -- not yet deleted

You missed the page list of environment-theme lists of topics: S, when you deleted the others. -- Wavelength 14:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Teleputo

Looks like we protected this one at the same time. Please do set an expiry time when protecting talkpages of blocked users though- otherwise someone has to go through and clear out all the old protections periodically. I had to do about 100 last month (some of those talkpage had been protected over a year!) ... WjBscribe 04:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem - will do so in the future. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE)

Is that needed? There is no legit dispute IMO. They have been using "Bodies" as the them song ever since ECW started in June 2006. The IP's and the one user has not provide ANY evidence to suggest a change in them songs. TJ Spyke 03:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

A few registered users with a few anons versus a few registered users, both sides adding and reverting looks like an edit war to me. With the dispute going on I can't just unprotect it and semi protection is not to be used in an edit war so that anons automatically lose. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 15:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence Dimick page

I looked at this page of Lawrence Dimick, and I think it needs to get deleted. What do you think? I gave my reason though on the talk page. Thanks. HoneyBee 17:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, never mind. Maybe I can contribute something anyway.HoneyBee 18:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Mustard Seed School

I'd like to ask about your deletion of the Mustard Seed School article. Begun by children from a rival school, the article when it was brought to my attention was insulting, biased, and worst of all, illiterate. Rather than deleting the kids' work (they created pages for nearly every school in Hoboken, NJ) I did the wiki thing and improved it. Now you have deleted it as advertising, and as non-notable. I believe you are in error on both counts, but it's the last charge that I would like to take up with you in light of your authoring an article about your high school in Michigan. As it happens, Mustard Seed School is a model school, a leader in Christian urban education. People come from literally all over the world to visit Mustard Seed and learn from them. There is a nation-wide group of leaders in Christian urban education know as The Hoboken Group because the group gathered around Mustard Seed, the recognized leader. In fact, Mustard Seed **is** notable, at least as notable as your high school, but since the article is deleted, we'll never see it in wikipedia. Why not do the wiki thing and improve it? Please email me privately at margaret(at)mrlukens(dot)com. All the best, Margaret Mrlukens 01:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Fabrizio Miccoli

Could you please unblock this article? There is no longer a need to keep it blocked, as the move was finalized right today[4]. Thanks in advance. --Angelo 20:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Chris Edwards (Kasabian)

Re your note on user talk page at User talk:TcKnd that this was to be deleted...I am preparing for disambiguation on Chris Edwards to include an Oregon Representative, so wound up merging Chris Edwards (Kasabian) with its duplicate, Chris Edwards (musician) as part of that process, which will ultimately find the musician on the disamb page. Thus I corrected the links there so as to avoid double redirects, and you can take it from there later. I was working through the what links here, when I found your note on the talk page referenced. No such tag was evident there when I just did the merge. I left a note there at the talk page you noted too...don't know how you want to proceed with it. There's still not much to the musician's page, but perhaps he is notable. I worked it over just a little and moved on to my main goal. FYI. -Duff 05:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Cults.. cultural works mediation

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that I had put a msg on the article's talk page about 2 weeks ago. Are you still dealing with this? (I've mostly been on wiki break.) Have you been in contact with the 2 parties? Take care HG | Talk 04:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been on sort of an off-and-on forced wikibreak as I don't have as much time to spend online as I would like. I will check in on the talk page though, it is a very slow discussion. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Section-specific templates

In accordance with David Levy's instructions, I have reverted your merge of section-specific templates. I am not opposed in principle, but I think the execution was poor. My reasons are as follows:

• it was no longer possible to unambiguously tag the intro section of an article with any of the tags -- the same location would be used for the entire article and the intro section. It is not unusual to tag an intro section POV even though the rest of the article is balanced;
• the merge was done inconsistently; all of the documentation and categories recommend using section remplates which were merely redirects;
• a template parameter such as {{{1|article}}} can be used to allow for parameterization such as {{POV|section}}, which would be in line with how other templates work, e.g., {{unreferenced}};
• the change seemed to be controversial,[5][6] suggesting it should have attained consensus first; and
• User:EurekaLott and others partially reverted you -- leaving some very inconsistent results.

Don't you think it would be better to make all those templates work with parameters like {{unreferenced}} does? BenB4 13:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No I don't think it would be better. It would also be very hard to do, as some have the first parameter as a link to a specific section on the talk page which would mean the name parameter would have to be named in many of them which would just be confusing. I think the best way to do it is to simplify things as much as possible. If the intro of an article is POV, put a POV tag on the top, then do what you are supposed to do and start a discussion about it. People will read the discussion and see that it only applies to the intro. At this point in time though, I really don't care and do not wish to spend the time trying to change people's minds. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello Mr.Z-man, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 68/12/0.
Also, please wish a Happy Birthday to Her Majesty the Queen. Vivat Regina!

Block of Fafarman

In connection with your block of Fafarman, would you consider having a look at User:67.110.32.82's edits - s/he is acting as Fafarman's meatpuppet per the request referenced on ANI. I was wondering if you thought a block of that account might be in order. In addition, I was wondering if you might consider semi-protecting the Cheri Yecke article - after all, Fafarman's blog may continue to attract meatpuppets (hard to tell how many people actually read his blog). Thanks. Guettarda 21:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about a block yet. They are edit warring but it does not look like they have gotten into serious disruption or personal attacks yet. You could try ANI for more opinions though. The article has since been semi protected though. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 14:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

???

How did you come up with your name, Mr. Z-man? Nice username, though! :-)--  PNiddy  Go!  0 01:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

My nickname in real life is Z-man, but that was already taken. Adding "Mr." seems a little more dignified though. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 14:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for blocking User:124.227.193.2. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 20:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Checking in

How are things with Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-03 Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture? Should the case be closed? Are you still active with this case? Thanks! Vassyana 05:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Saw this note via my watchlist. As you may have seen, I wrote not to long ago on the talk and mediation pages. I checked in the the parties. Looks like Jossi is bowing out of the conflict, per his response here. HG | Talk 01:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User:jjj222

I believe that user:pascack is back as another sockpuppet. A brand new user (jjj222) has made edits on a pascack pet project, discrediting Joe Girardi as a yankee. and 192.234.99.1 is not blocked, which is his ip. Mghabmw 17:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not make the change to the info box colors that he refers to. That change was made by Soxrockprojects who was attempting to split the colors between Cubs and Yankees, which I had no issue with. I even added a comment that Girardi still works for the YES Network. I did nothing out of line. Jjj222 17:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You also put cubs colors on top and were warned to stay away from the articles that put you in trouble, if you truly are Pascack. In that case, you're supposed to be blocked anyway!

(Sorry for arguing on your talk page) Mghabmw 17:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Just those 2 edits, especially because he didn't actually change the colors (Even I thought he did for a minute there) is not enough to block Jjj222 or extend Pascack's block. Nor is it enough to get a checkuser. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

all right. Mghabmw 19:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Metsfann34 I found this interesting though. Pascack was a notorious Mets fan. I know it's not hard evidence, but it does seem fishy that this user (jjj222) just came up while Pascack is blocked, his IP just got unblocked, the first thing he does is change Joe Girardi's team colors, and is now worried about Mets colors. Mghabmw 22:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to suspect User:Gmh224 for the same reasons. Brand new user taking on Pascack's pet projects. editing history Mghabmw 22:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Pascack

Why shorten User:Pascack block, he has been involved in the craziest sockpupperting edit warning I have ever seen in my two years in wikipedia. See the history of Reggie Jackson. I will extend the block to indef again, as seriously Pascack never had any useful edits and all he did was revert was and sockpupperty. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

2 other users on his talk page agreed that indef seemed too long. I was just trying to give him a second chance with a stern warning. Would you mind if I instead took a more conservative approach and gave a {{2nd chance}} (perhaps limiting it to a non-baseball article) and let another admin decide if he is serious? Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 15:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to chime in - I was also going to reduce the block, as I don't think indef is appropriate base on the user's short history. If he would agree to a 1RR probation, I think we should consider his request to return and take at good faith his statements. CitiCat ^♫ 04:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

William Bain

An editor has asked for a deletion review of William Bain. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talkshowbob (talk • contribs)

You could have at least cleaned it up a bit. "... has not played Monopoly in years ..." Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• See Talk:William_Bain--KenWalker | Talk 06:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

new parameter on Template:Infobox Christian denomination

I added the "imagewidth" parameter to {{Infobox Christian denomination}} davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Page move protection

Hey, I was trying to figure out where the actual page went to, all the ones I could find were cut and pasted. Now I see you have found the right one. The talk page that should be associated with it is at Talk:Hermetic Order the Golden Dawn (A+O) in case you'd like to put them back together. Thanks for helping! GlassFET 22:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I couldn't quite figure out where the talk page went. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Muller history merge

Thanks! (rather amusing that the reason it was moved in the first place got speedied 3x in 24 hours...) --SarekOfVulcan 17:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry!

I had put a sock puppeteer template on your userpage by accident! Sorry, man! When I saw the block log you had blocked a puppeteer but I thought it was the other way around, any way srry about that. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 00:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Libel

Would edit be considered libel? -WarthogDemon 04:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it would... it's been removed, and the editor warned. My bad, the edit was confirmed on Dennis Rader, so I think the edit might be in good faith.--DarkFalls ^talk 04:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

In terms of the person, no, he was the BTK Killer. As far as the company goes though, it may not belong in the article. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Deyitest (talk · contribs)

Just any FYI, this user is back with Detinspection (talk · contribs) and China Det Inspection (talk · contribs). I blocked the first one for spamming and the second for sockpuppetting, but then I vaguely remembered that I had since this before. Do you recall if Deyitest (talk · contribs) was the first account or another sockpuppet account? -- Gogo Dodo 08:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know it was the first. I noticed it when I saw about 8 articles with similar names listed in CAT:CSD. I saw that they were all by the same account and the blatant ad on the userpage made it all too clear. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Your protection of List of British flags

I am disappointed that you have felt it necessary to protect the article. The Northern Irish flag dispute is ongoing (see talk:Northern Ireland) but will hopefully be resolved soon in which case I hope you will deprotect it? In the mean time could you please make clear on the article and/or talk page that it has been protected? I cannot see one. Thank you. Biofoundationsoflanguage 10:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added a protection template to the article. I protected it as there was a pretty clear revert war. If it is resolved before the expiration, feel free to request unprotection on WP:RFPP as I will be totally unavailable between Aug. 8-12. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the unblock, I couldn't unblock myself before because someone had protected my user talk page. Jobe6 03:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for creating me an account. Now I do not need to be in chaos and being disabled from editing.--Slayerdylan 06:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

thompsonfilm

what is the exact reason that the article 'thompsonfilm' was deleted?

please explain, as it was said that the article was deleted because; article about a company that does not assert significance.

significance to what???

please tell me how i can change the page so that it is 'legal'

thanks

Thompsonfilm was deleted because it met speedy deletion criteria WP:CSD#A7. It did not say why the company is notable or significant. All it said was that it was a film studio started last year (by an apparantly non-notable person) that made one non-notable film. To avoid speedy deletion, you need to say why it is important and to avoid an eventual deletion, you need to prove the notability with reliable sources. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 14:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Editprotected

Why post another one when my first one is being ignored? I didn't ask anyone to read my mind. KP Botany 19:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If it is being ignored then there likely is not consensus for the requested change. Admins will only make changes to protected pages if there is consensus or it is uncontroversial (typos, formatting errors, etc.). They are not proxy edit warriors. Also, you have the tag at the top of the page, try creating a new section with what you want done and put the tag on the top of that section. Again, be specific and point to consensus. I don't know if you've tried this yet, but dispute resolution may be a good idea at this point. I would suggest going straight to WP:MEDCOM but they often reject cases that have not tried the Mediation Cabal first (a WP:RFC may help too). I have not been following this dispute so I really don't know what would be best. Mr.Z-man 19:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In reply to the comment I removed [7], I never said it was your fault. You commented on my talk page, I replied to you; the advice I gave could be just as valid to anyone discussing the article. If consensus cannot be reached, that is not your fault. Mr.Z-man 20:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and consensus will never be reached with a group of people edit warring about a different topic and completely ignoring it. Is this the standard on Wikipedia, I can say anything I want in an article, randomly tie it to an unrelated source, and as long as no one removes it, it's fine? You don't really care what the article says, and you haven't read anything I've written, but by stepping in as you did, you made certain that no one who would actually read what I wrote, bothers to get involved. Sometimes people should at least bother to know what is going on before slapping people down with generic advice as if they're morons--the standard on Wikipedia. KP Botany 20:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Why my article was deleted?

hi,Mr.Z-man Why my article was deleted? Plz.. give me reply

It was deleted per WP:CSD#G11, it was blatant advertising. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Weaponhouse

Thank you for your intervention in this matter. I considered restoring the article myself, but the last time I did that I got jumped on for having a COI. I have spent some time recently clearing out the CSD backlogs and have become frustrated by the number of admins who seem not to understand the speedy criteria. It is gratifying to know that I am not alone in my interpretation of the criteria. Dsmdgold 23:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Eli Whitney

I'm watching it but I am not always on. Take it easy. -- Y not? 00:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem was not just that the vandalism was old (over 24h) but then more vandalism was added and then someone added a tag to dispute the factual accuracy. Apparantly they did not believe that Eli Whitney was a lifeguard and the 52nd president, but did not think to change the obvious errors Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 05:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw. That was unfortunate. It's par for the course. :) -- Y not? 05:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:editprotect/holmes.sherlock

I want my page to be protected.Holmes.sherlock 10:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Request

Can you please take another look at the situation involving Jeeny based upon some additional information I have brought forward? I have posted at the appropriate ANI section. I'm really concerned about that situation, though I don't blame you at all because of the "quiet" nature of the trolling. Many thanks, The Behnam 05:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Her total lack of good faith in response to the block sure doesn't help. "The block was very hasty, so I KNOW it was not researched" - as a matter of fact, this is one of the tougher blocks I've had to issue. I studied this one for a while, trying to decide what to do. I hate blocking good contributors. "racists, teenagers and POV pushers" - I'm going to hope that none of that was specifically targeted at me. "It was just tonight. I was making "useful contributions" you just don't check that, though" - I did check that. That is why the block wasn't longer and why I didn't just use a basic template message as the block reason. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 05:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, she is obviously quite angry. I'm just hoping that the trolling that helped provoke her outburst won't be let off the hook. It isn't right to allow pro-Nazi (or otherwise) editors to intimidate some editors into leaving, while provoking others into getting themselves blocked. But thanks anyway for your work. Regards, The Behnam 06:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

A copy of an email which I sent to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org requesting that the duration of the 6 month block which "Georgewilliamherbert" imposed on my account be reduced:

I am User:24.168.46.238 who was recently blocked from Wikipedia for six months by a Wikipedia administrator named "Georgewilliamherbert".

Since my user talk page was protected by "Mr.Z-man" only 4 minutes after the block was issued by "Georgewilliamherbert", I was denied the opportunity to post an unblock request. I'd like to request that I be give the opportunity to do so now:

I know that I was wrong for threatening legal action against "CyberGhostface", but I had asked him to stop bothering me by posting repeated warnings on my user talk page for minor violations of Wikipedia's rules, and he refused. I believe that he had a vendetta against me, as he seemed to be tracking my every edit, just waiting for me to do something in violation of Wikipedia' s rules so he could post another warning on my user talk page, which he knew would aggravate me and cause me to lose my temper. "CyberGhostface" had previously gotten me blocked for personal attacks, and I was stupid enough to fall for his ploy to get me blocked again. I lost my cool, and posted things on my user talk page that I shouldn't have. I know that there was no excuse for my behavior, and for that, I am very sorry.

I'd like to respectfully ask that you shorten the duration of by block, as I feel that six months is far too harsh of a punishment. I was initially issued a 48 hour block by one administrator, but 7 hours later (without me making any additional offensive edits or postings on Wikipedia), it was arbitrarily extended to 6 months by another administrator.

I promise that once my editing priviliges are reinstated, I will no longer engage in the kind of conduct (personal attacks, threats of legal action) that got me blocked. After reinstatement, I intend on creating an account on Wikipedia, and I will make constructive additions to the project. I invite you to check up on me periodically to see that I am keeping my word to you!

I also promise to you that will have no further contact with "CyberGhostface", and since I have no intention of violation Wikipedia's rules in the future, he has no valid reason whatsoever to contact me or to post warnings on my user talk page.

I feel that a reduction in the duration of my block is warranted, considering the questionable circumstances of how my block was arbitrarily increased from 48 hours to 4320 hours.

Again, please accept my sincere apology for my past behavior on Wikipedia, and thank you for your consideration!

Note: I am using a friend's computer (IP Address: 64.38.198.61) simply to post this notice on the user talk page of the administrator who increased my block from 48 hours to 6 months. I am not a "sockpuppet", and I have no intention of using my friend's computer again.

64.38.198.61 14:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to note, the statements made by 24.168.46.238 are false. Specifically, the claim 'I was initially issued a 48 hour block by one administrator, but 7 hours later (without me making any additional offensive edits or postings on Wikipedia), it was arbitrarily extended to 6 months by another administrator.'

24.168.46.238 got the 24 hour block at 16:01, 16 August 2007 [8]. At 16:41, 16 August 2007, he threatened 'I will, however, be in contact with a private investigator in order to find the true identity and location of CyberGhostface' [9]. Edward321 14:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Just so you are aware, the "minor violations of Wikipedia's rules" include blanking the page of User:Spirot, an editor who had left, with "Good riddance!" Nor did I have any ploy to get him banned. I could care less about this editor. I actually told him that once he stopped vandalizing Wikipedia, I would leave him alone. Before making any further judgements, I strongly suggest you look at this editor's contributions.--CyberGhostface 16:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked at his contributions, and up until his interaction with you, CyberGhostface, he seemed to be making positive edits and contributions to wikipedia. Now let's be honest here... aren't you gloating just a little bit now that 24.168.46.238 has been blocked? If you didn't "have any ploy to get him banned" as you claim, then you wouldn't have continued to antagonize an obviously irate editor. I would advise that in the future, you exercise a little better judgement in dealing with editors who you are having problems and/or an edit war with ...that's Mr. Sockpuppet to you! 09:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Tempalte:Infobox NFLactive

I see you were the one to lock the template. The wrong version has been locked and it currently contains some additions that are hottly disputed not only in content but in presentation. I have posted this under an edit protected tag on the article talk page, but another user did not feel this was apporpriate and suggested that I contact you directly. I can either point you to the specific examples of a) what needs to be removed and b) where it is being addressed. Alternatively, i can just explain it to you here. I've marked this for watching so just let me know. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  20:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Indirect DRV of an AFD close of yours

Indirectly, an AFD closure of yours is being reviewed currently at DRV. You closed the AFD on The Duttons as "No Consensous". The article has now been speedy deleted. It is this speedy deletion that is actually under review. The deleting admin, as part of his arguments justifying the speedy, is challenging your AFD close as invalid. I felt that you might want to come defend your closure descision. - TexasAndroid 11:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for your flawless move of the Al Rashid-article! Finally, I found the talk-page again ;-) Regards, Huldra 16:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Z-man

I am writing this letter in regards to the deletion of Discount Tire's wikipedia article today, August 22nd. I would like to know how you came to the decision of deleting this article. There wasn't to much detail given except for blatant advertising. I, of course, want to meet Wikipedia's standards and I just want to know what sections of the article were more of an advertisement then factual information. If you can provide the answer to this question it would be very much appreciated. The last thing I want to do is make the same mistakes when I decide to post a new article for Discount Tire. Thank you very much!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jlsathomas 15:20, 22 August 2007

I didn't delete the article. It is still at Discount Tire Company. I did however, revert to the last version that did not contain excess advertisement. Unfortunately, that version was a very early stub. The "Company milestones" section just consisted of "The company got this big" and "The company expanded into this market". That's fine, but is the company's history totally perfect? It is possible to have a bad milestone. Try using the company's website as a source less often. The second "Don't know much about tires" ad campaign does not seem special. Either say why it is relevant or don't include it. The controversy was sort of buried in "Accolades, Accomplishments, and Controversy" and a lot of that section seems to be just like the "Milestones" section, too much praise. Same with the last 2 sections about sponsorships/charity. Read over WP:NPOV and WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer. This was the last version before it was "stubified." You may also want to talk to User:CZmarlin who tagged it for deletion. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Justin Smith (predator)

Suggest WP:CBLANK. Dbromage [Talk] 04:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone else deleted it before I had time. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

about 3RR

user:Vonones who is in a pure anti-turkic personality attack many "turkic history" pages of wikipedia, (see the Huns page), he is an armenian user and hate all the turkish people(he always edit with no written source). he uses 3RR rule throug to his nationalist and racist ideals. how can i stop him? thanks.--hakozen 03:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

im Turkish, and Huns were one of the biggest Turkic empires, i was educated about them in elemantry school becouse im Turkish, but a vandalist called Vonones (who is in a big campaing) edits what i did (you may see it in my history) he is probably have a problem about turkish users (i dont care about your nationality) but afterwards you gave me a ban(that cant unerstand why, cos i only want to defend myself) thats what i can say. --hakozen 16:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am MrZ-man on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/MrZ-man. Thanks. --Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 15:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Reporting

I'd like to report David Shankbone for WP:STALK after he disregarded my request on his talk page. THF 19:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's exactly what I did, and nothing is happening. Even before your comment on VP, I had raised it on his talk page, and then on ANI. THF 19:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

User

Might want to see the latest edits: [10] --Vonones 19:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The guy's been disruptively vandalizing virtually every Armenian-related article. Might be helpful to check out his recent taunting of other users: [11].--Marshal Bagramyan 23:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

hi - Not sure but I guess I address this query to you - Why on earth was the Rhodesrunprofile image removed? The image definitely belongs to Rhodes Run, was created by Rhodes Run, and appears on the Adventure Racing site as it is placed there, from the Rhodes Run home page, by the Rhodes Run event operators. In addition, why was there no response (or verification made) to the points I placed in response to the initial query as to ownership on the image? Gold Pen 05:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Image

hi - Not sure but I guess I address this query to you - Why on earth was the Rhodesrunprofile image removed? The image definitely belongs to Rhodes Run, was created by Rhodes Run, and appears on the Adventure Racing site as it is placed there, from the Rhodes Run home page, by the Rhodes Run event operators. In addition, why was there no response (or verification made) to the points I placed in response to the initial query as to ownership on the image before the image was removed? Gold Pen 05:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Apologies for the duplicate posting Gold Pen 05:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mr.Z-man"

The Rhodes Run website is still copyrighted and I did not see any assertion that you or anyone else editing Wikipedia owned the copyright. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Aaah - that part I understand, what I dont understand is why the image was removed prior to this chat; as clearly whoever put in the protest had no understanding of how that Adventure Racing website works, ie that Rhodes Run is one of the 'operators'; anyway would really appreciate your guidance as how to correctly phrase it to get the image back up; would it be simpler to show that Rhodes Run website owns the copyright instead of me ? Also, I hope it's ok to respond here Gold Pen 19:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I do appreciate that the checks & balances protect me, and any material I submit and of course protecting the integrity of Wikipedia Gold Pen 19:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, so what I understood was: that the Rhodes Run website was the creator of the image. No one here is purporting to work for Rhodes Run or otherwise own the copyright. Therefore, Rhodes Run (or whoever runs their website or whoever created the image for them) owns the copyright. If you own the copyright or would like to contact the copyright owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. If you own the copyright, you would have to release the image under the GFDL, into public domain, or under certain Creative Commons licenses. You should also indicate on the website that the image is released and/or follow the directions here See the assorted image copyright tags for a list of tags you can use to indicate the license on the image page, except for the non-free image tags as that image will likely not be considered fair use. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay...

I sent in a report to ANI yesterday which you dealt with concerning this user, User talk:81.0.68.145. You gave him a final warning for his off-topic use of discussion pages. He has made one (two if you count him removing his own signiture to stay "invisible"...) more off-topic addition to article discussion pages since the warning [12]. - Just thought I'd tell you. Scarian^Talk 21:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That was to an article, not a talk page (so he was right to remove his sig). While it was unsourced, it does appear to be constructive. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Damnit sorry. I was jumping the gun there and wasn't concentrating. Sorry for the false alarm. Scarian^Talk 21:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Why?

why did you delete my Demonica Tales page, its not like i was using the page to make money, i just wanted people and my friends to be able to see it.

It was not deleted as an advertisement, it was deleted per WP:CSD#A7, it made no assertion of notability. Articles on Wikipedia must meet certain notability standards to get an article. An article about a "small RPG game made by a teenage team." Also, if it is your game, you have a conflict of interest and should not be writing about it here. Finally, you should not post your email address online, especially on a high-traffic site like Wikipedia, you are likely to get spam if you do that. Mr.Z-man 13:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Germaine Guerin

Mr. Z-Man. I feel that it is wrong that you deleted my posting on Germaine Guerin as blatant advertising. I find it notable, as do articles by Voque magazine, that Germaine Guerin is one of the most important and forgotten handbag designers of our time. 69.180.80.159 13:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

While she may be famous (I didn't say she was not notable), the article just poured on the praise - every sentence sounds like it was trying to promote her in a magazine. An article may be written about her, but it needs to be more neutral and needs to be fully sourced. If you rewrite the article, which you may do, try using complete sentences, instead of ones with understood subjects, which makes the article sound more like a promotional blurb than an encyclopedia article. Mr.Z-man 13:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you be so kind...

If you think it is appropriate, would you delete Talk:Norfolk punch the page only contains my single comment supporting deletion of the article itself. I would do it myself but am not trusted with the keys to the broom closet. Thanks for your service!! User:Pedant 18:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done. In the future, you can also tag pages like that with {{db-talk}}. Mr.Z-man 20:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, for the deletion and for the advice! User:Pedant 22:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocking and Fixing Moved AfD

Thanks for that. I had no idea how to even go about sorting out the mess he caused. Thanks for fixing everything so fast. --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, if I had an "admin specialty", it would be fixing pagemove problems. Mr.Z-man 02:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPLICE

I just edit conflicted with you at WP:SPLICE over the lastest request. For the record, my response was going to be:

Some of these pages can be deleted but I'm not sure a history merge is needed. ZipCode may spread his contribs all over the place if he wants - seems to me all edits by other editors are in the same place - we just have some pointless redirects.

Aside from a messy contrib history I don't see what the merge gained us - wouldn't it have been easier just to nominate the surplus redirects for deletion? WjBscribe 04:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, some of them did have some edits in them though, I was kind of on the fence about merging oneof them that didn't have much. I'm not even all that convinced about the notability of the subject. I still think its best to have as much of the history together though. As you probably noticed, I did delete all but one of the redirects per WP:CSD#R3, the other one people might actually use. Mr.Z-man 04:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Now the pages are merged it hard for me to prove my point- but I saw no edits on other pages that needed attribution. The talkpage history [13] definitely didn't need a merge though. WjBscribe 04:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Arktrooper66

has obviously been an utterly worthless "editor", and in any normal enterprise he would of course be irreversibly thrown out. Further, his plea for his block to be lifted is vacuous. But the trouble with permablocking him in WP is that he's likely just to sprout a new username. For this reason (and not because of any sympathy), I'd be inclined to shorten his block to a week or so this time around (his first time). -- Hoary 04:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, he has not made a single positive contribution, I'm just surprised he was never blocked earlier, he started vandalizing in June. His is an obvious vandalism only account (with pagemove vandalism to make it worse) and he was blocked with account creation disabled. That will provide some layer of protection. However, if he really wants to vandalize, he will find a way, indef blocked or not. Mr.Z-man 05:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

protection september 11

Hi, thanks, sorry for my contribution in what turned into edit warring. I would welcome any contribution you can make to the talk page, regarding the disputes of:

• use of the word "terrorist" in the narrative, at odds with WP:Words to avoid#Extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter.
• the attributing of statements of guilt to sources, instead of to wikipedia.
• including of The Terror Timeline in the "See also" section.

Thanks for considering. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I wanted to make the may it sound strange proposal to remove the Muslim and Osama references from the page. The official story does not connect Osama to the 11 September attack. Rex Tomb, chief of investigative publicity for the FBI explains, The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.. I'm not a Muslim but I find the words Muslim extremist extremely inappropriate in contrast with the facts. I don't want the page unlocked or anything. It just cant make false accusations. There are millions and millions of Muslims on the world, I figure we should at least see some evidence before we slander them as terrorists? Thanks for your time anyway, drop me a line.(Gaby de wilde 20:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

good call

hey good call, i forgot about that. i've done only one "move" before, and i forgot that i'd need calvary holiness church to be calvary holiness church (disambiguation). i'd love it if you'd help out! can you fix it? Aepoutre 17:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I've already moved the history originally from Calvary Holiness Church to the article about the Philadelphia one if that is what you mean. If it stays as it is right now, it should all be fixed. With just the 2 articles, you should not need a Calvary Holiness Church (disambiguation) page. Mr.Z-man 17:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

okay. i put the request in. should i remove it? Aepoutre 17:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. Mr.Z-man 17:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, and for fixing it. I appreciate it. I didn't even realise it had an effect on the history, but that makes sense. Thanks again. Aepoutre 17:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Crygar: Endangered Species Poaching

Dear Poaching Entity,

I read that article entitled "Crygar," and thought it was an informative description of a nearly-extinct animal. To be sure, only one is known to be roaming, and scientists have determined that she is sterile. Thus, indeed, this animal, a delight to some, an annoyance to some more, will go the way of the beloved dodo bird. What futher tragedies await us in the animal kingdom?

The paragraph itself is a masterful homage to Lewis Carroll. Where is the sense of (literary) history and humor? Shall we delete "Snark" (as in "The Hunting of the Snark") as well?

BTW, "incoherent," as in "the text is unsalvageably incoherent" would seem to suggest that the text is disjointed or confused. Were you possibly reading from right to left? Was a cryger sitting in front of your computer screen, obscuring the text with its abundant fur?

Signed,

H. I. Dudgeon

Wikipedia is not the place to make up species. And yes it was quite confusing. Mr.Z-man 20:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello

You protected Ethnic minorities in Azerbaijan in June, its now September. When will it be unprotected?Hajji Piruz 23:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It is now unprotected, though I am a bit dismayed by what appears to be a total lack of talk page discussion. Mr.Z-man 23:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Gaby de wilde

If I were you, I would just leave them alone for now. (That's what I'm trying to do now anyway.) WP:RBI and WP:DFT come to mind. If they want to contribute constructively after the block expires they are more than welcome to do so. If they would rather not contribute, I don't think I'd be bothered and if they plan to contribute non-constructively, then a longer term solution might be needed, but that can be dealt with as it unfolds. Mr.Z-man 04:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... you have a point. I will bet you that he'll do the exact same thing when he comes back, though. But I'll shut up and ignore him. Stupid twinkle putting everything on my watchlist ;) Gscshoyru 04:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ordu

I noticed you protected the page of Ordu. Seems Oguzes problems is the blog. If you unblock it, I will rewrite it with a wealth of published book sources and clean the article up. THe sooner, the better no?Hetoum I 03:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go with no, I think consensus would be better than letting one user unilaterally "fix" the article. Mr.Z-man 03:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hetoum, you just see the blog problem now? Put your new "wealth of sources" on Ordu talk. If we reach a consensus, we'll bother Mr. Z again and I'll back you up. --Oguz1 14:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I just did not think anyone would be enough of a pest to vandalize Armenian genocide out of every article. See talk of ordu, a wealth of published sources was presented.Hetoum I 05:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Liz Cohen article

Mr.Z-man, do you have the ability to show what the article about "Liz Cohen" said, before it was deleted (for a second time)? I am curious if this is about the performance artist Liz Cohen or the autism author Liz Cohen (BBB AUTISM GUIDES: Strategies for Parents by Parents). --Form990 13:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. Mr.Z-man 19:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedily deleted already?

Cool I understand how wikipedia works now. It makes sense as people need to back up the article otherwise random nuts can just write rubbish for fun :) "Arf1" xx

The article about the band itself barely proves notability. Andrew Déian made no assertion of notability. Being in a notbale band is not necessartily an asserion of notability, as notability is not inherited. (wow, I really overused "notability" back there) The articles about the other 2 band members also have the same problem. I've deleted Harmony Walliams for the same reason and nominated John Hassall (musician) for deletion using the articles for deletion process as it is more developed than the other 2 articles. You can comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Hassall (musician). Mr.Z-man 04:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)