User talk:ZimZalaBim/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

NYU Law & Supreme Court

Which U.S. Supreme Court Justice graduated from NYU law school?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.59.182.251 (talk • contribs) .

Sorry, I misread your addition and reverted it in haste. Apologies. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Contributions to economic methodology

you have speedily deleted some worthwhile pages. Why should I contribute if you are going to delete them?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Acumensch (talk • contribs) .

The pages I happened to delete were completely empty, save for a red-linked category (Category:Contributors to Economic Methodology). I suggest that you create valid stubs if you do not have complete information for full biographic articles (and be sure to read the guidelines for biographic articles). If you want assistance creating good articles, perhaps this page will help. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Open Source Business Intelligence

I was very disappointed to see the Breadboard BI page removed from Wikipedia. I believe that your removal of this page was quite arbitrary, considering it was modeled after several similar pages by made by larger companies like Business Objects, Informatica, Oracle, etc. Further, it is unfortunate that you do not seem to recognize the innovative value of small companies building business intelligence solutions using open source tools. Accordingly, I encourage you to learn about open source business intelligence and the promise it holds for smaller organizations attempting to compete in the marketplace. The Breadboard BI page was one attempt to spread this message to those organizations.

Cheers,

Chris Lavigne— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris lavigne (talk • contribs)

I merely nominated the page for deletion [1], and the community consensus was to delete it - it was not "my" decision. The purpose of Wikipedia articles is not to "spread a message" - this is an encyclopedia. Please familiarize yourself with WP:CORP for guidelines regarding articles on businesses. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Creating a login

If I create a login, if someone else on this shared IP causes it to be blocked, won't I still be blocked from using wikipedia even with my login (from the shared IP)? Please respond on my talk page. Thanks 169.132.18.248 19:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Charlie Weis article

Once again 76.20.134.163 has reverted the Weis article after he had been warned, could you please block him? TND2006 17:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears this editor has received a new warning. Further reverting and non-compliance will likely result in a block. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Article Defacement: Zedo

---

I'm having trouble with a wikipedian with the name Fairk005. I noticed that you made a comment in his talk page reminding him of the Wikipedia neutrality policy, so I think this has probably been an issue in the past. This keeps defacing an article about a product called Zedo. I came across the defacement because the company I work for uses this product, and what Fairk005 is posting about the software and the company who publishes the software is wholly inacurate. The language used is loaded with negative bias. I let the company know, and they reverted the article, but Fairk005 went back and reverted to his version. He did not respond to the comments I left in the talk section, so I don't know if he's open to discussion on this issue. I reverted the article myself and just now left a message on his talk page, but I don't know whether that will be good enough. This matter may require intervention.

--DoGooderJohnnyD 16:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've left Fairk005 a warning and will monitor the situation. Thanks for your efforts on that article. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Please Quit Deleting My Blog Entry

Somebody keeps deleting my blog entry (the Marquette Warrior Blog) from the Marquette University entry.

While I have a lot of stuff about general national politics, I also run frequent articles about happenings at Marquette University, especially if anything newsworthy is happening. I broke the story (which went national) about the Dental School disciplining a student blogger for posts on his blog.

I've also added GOP3.COM, and very good student blog that constantly discusses events at Marquette.

Is Wikipedia somehow committed to the notion that only outlets that print stuff on dead tree get to have their links put on the page? That would be odd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.215.156.217 (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia is not a collection of links, and blogs are something that policy suggests should be avoided. Running "frequent articles about Marquette" doesn't satisfy policy's recommendation about including a link to a blog. If you wish to argue for their inclusion, bring it up on the article's talk page. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

zimzalabim

Hey, whats up! We need to hang out soon, it's been a while. How have you been? Jeez!! It seems like forever since we last hung out. Just wanted to check in on ya. Love ya <3.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeselin (talk • contribs) .

Help needed in blocking spam

Hi, I am trying to stop some user from this IP (59.144.1.150) who is often editing the corporate information or other articles which I have created or edited. I am not sure if this ip is one from my compotitor or so. But how do I stop this. As for us I know he is not removing spam likes, but removing some useful information and adding his like. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Codetiger (talk • contribs) .

This IP's last edit was Oct 3, so I'm not sure what your current dispute is. If you want to report vandalism, you can do so at WP:AIV, but simply "editing the corporate information or other articles which I have created or edited" is not necessarily vandalism. If you think s/he's removing "useful information," then perhaps leave a message on the talk page asking why? (also, please sign your comments by adding ~~~~ at the end) --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

From Escaper7

Thanks for the prompt action and advice. Escaper7 07:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Happy editing! --ZimZalaBim (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Warnings will probably not stop them, so you would be better off blocking this address from editing indefinitely.--209.56.64.1 17:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Mike McCullough

You deleted the Mike McCullough disambiguation page while I was working on Mike McCullough. Next time please look carefully - if the link is dark red rather than bright red it means someone is working on creating the page.--Hokeman 18:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Wasn't aware of that link-color distinction. Will take more notice in the future. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the darker red just means you've already visited a red-linked page. Can you point me to where this feature you describe is discussed? -ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Repeated non-NPOV edits from Fakir005 after your warning

I had to make another reversion due to a non-NPOV edit made by Fakir005. He modified a heading in the Ad Serving article to change the label on the list of ad servers to "List of Adwares". This implies that all the companies/software in the list are adware, which I'm sure you know is wholly different from an ad server. I complained about this sort of edit from this user once before and you gave him a warning on his talk page. I see that he had been warned once before that also.

I did some research and this user has an agenda. He's promoting his own pixel advertising service and denouncing other methods of ad serving as adware/spyware, etc. It's easy to find external postings from him because he always posts as Fakir005, and also uses this as his AOL E-mail address. I realize the reasons for his non-NPOV edits are inconsequential, but that's what I found.

--DoGooderJohnnyD 06:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've left another warning, and user will likely be blocked if action occurs again. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Bassphemy

Well my intention was not to write about myself, alone. You see, the beautiful city I live in, Bergen, has a large musical environment. There is an exceptional large amount of musicians and bands. And I thought I could write about it, and write about the individuals who create this city of music. Starting with the individuals. Then the bands then the whole thing. And I’m talking about all kinds of genres, rock, jazz, hip hop, metal, techno pop etc. So there is a lot to write about, and since Bergen is the second largest country in Norway I thought it was of some importance or significance. I tried to make the article as objective as possible.

But if I made a friend write about me and my band, would that be allowed? Or should I just forget the whole thing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bassphemy (talk • contribs) .

Please familiarize yourself with WP:BAND and WP:VANITY regarding the appropriateness of articles about bands or oneself. I suspect that neither you nor your band will satisfy the notability guidelines spelled out there. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

www.fierce*.com

After you blocked Dave Nelson (talk · contribs), user 66.7.4.166 (talk · contribs) took up the same type of spamming. The same IP had placed similar spam some time back. Sockpuppet. JonHarder 21:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've blocked the IP for a shorter period, and will request a checkuser and futher blocks if necessary. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Good work. Sorry I wasn't able to clean up this most recent spam. I was called away just as I got started. I have been tracing spam to these sites off and on today. Another user involved is Nathaneddy (talk · contribs). JonHarder 23:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll watch that one too. Good work. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

List of web directories

Do I presume you are Mtz206 as his page redirects here? If so, then just letting you know that I think we should revisit the delete List_of_web_directories page as the Category:Web_directories performs the same function (links to wikipedia pages describing web directories). (If you're not Mtz206 you may be interested anyway :-) --AGoon 12:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of web directories? I wasn't involved in that AfD debate, but feel free to nominate again if you feel it is redundant to the Category. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User-generated content

Dear ZimZalaBam In what way is eBay not content? what is the text and pictures people upload to it if not content? I'm afraid I disagree with your amendment to this article. Kind reagrds Arkangel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aarkangel (talk • contribs) .

Ebay is an online auction site where users sell things. Yes, some users upload photos, but ebay is not generally considered a space where users are "generating media content" in the way user-generated content envisions, ie, "content that is produced by users of websites as opposed to traditional media producers such as broadcasters and production companies." --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

All eBay users upload text and almost all photographs. That is users of a website generating media content for consumption by other users. Who says UGC doesn't cover this kind of production? What is your source? By limiting the definition in this way you narrow the thinking.

Although we disagree on this point, thanks for your help improving the article and lay-out.Aarkangel 13:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I quoted the definition provided in the article, which positions UGC against "traditional media producers such as broadcasters and production companies." The item information on ebay is not a replacement of content that would have otherwise been produced by traditional media. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The definition says nothing about replacing content produced by traditional media, only that UGC is created by users rather than professional producers. In the case of eBay, like Friends Reunited, it is new content that would not otherwise be produced.

You are evidently an experienced user of Wikipedia. How do such disagreements usually get resolved? How does Wikipedia protect itself from being dominated by a relatively few 'super-users'? Aarkangel 16:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

First, this discussion should move to the article's talk page so other editors can chime in. I'll move it there. Second, there are dispute resolution processes in place if you wish to use them. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. As you can tell, I'm a relatively new user and haven't yet come across a substantial divergence of view on a detailed matter like this. You've probably long since forgotten how it takes a bit of time to come up to speed on all the refinements of Wikipedia editing - your help in this regard is much appreciated.Aarkangel 16:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok now that is called trolling

And you are called a jerk. I know this is a bit uncivil, but lets really break it down. I'M TRYING TO LEAVE YOUR STUPID ASS PROJECT. I don't want to be a part of it anymore, you guys scared me away. Are you happy? I tried to come in and my first article got deleted and people started trolling the hell out of me. I then post a message to indicate that I am leaving, and what do you do? You troll me.

LEAVE ME ALONE! DO NOT POST TO MY TALK PAGE AGAIN! I AM LEAVING YOUR STUPID PROJECT! I AM TIRED OF ALL OF THIS TROLLING! If you leave me alone, I won't be back. If you bother me again, I'm going to take this to whatever sort of courts you have here as I do not appreciate trolling and I absolutely guarentee it is NOT allowed on Wikipedia. BubbaJubba 14:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Parkerh

Once again the above user is entering spam links for google hits, despite previous warning from yourself and others. He/she has no other contributions to Wikipedia on their list. Perhaps the time has come for deleting this user page entirely and blocking the IP? Richard Harvey 16:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any recent contributions [2]. Which are you referring to? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The last two were on Oct 12th, but have been edited off the pages, similar types of inputs to previous spam links. Richard Harvey 20:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Tom Denton

Please do not remove non-nonsense text from the discussed articles while the vote is going. May be useful for research. If an article is not overly hyped or patent nonsense, one has to assume a good faith of a newcomer contributor. `'mikkanarxi 17:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to this edit [3]? Sorry, but I feel my revert was entirely valid, especially since the out-of-policy information was added after the AfD was started. Just becuase an article is up for AfD doesn't mean that anything can be added/nothing can be reverted. Normal WP policies still applies, IMO. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you care to read and understand my explanation? Let me spell them bulletwise/policywise

1. Even if the info is unreferenced, the text is written by a newcomer. A minimal application of policy "dont bite newcomers" suggests that placing the {{fact}} would be OK for a day or two.
2. The policy "assume good faith" is perfectly applicable here as well; no reason is seen that the contributor would lie.
3. It doesn't look like the contributor wanted to over-hype this Denton: e.g., software was not mentioned. This makes me think that the contributor was not Denton himself (who placed his soft into zillion download websites), hence it is not a vanity page.
4. I specifically wrote "may be useful for research". Deletionists don't need extra clues. Inclusionists would benefit from extra clues to do some google search, because the name "Tom Denton" alone gives millions of hits, and every single additional clue would narrow down google search for verification of the article. But of course, deletionists hardly need this. It is much easier just to write "non-verifiable" and done with.

`'mikkanarxi 00:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

SLS Health

SLS is using this article for self-promotion.

They instantly delete the following:

References to evidence based treatment that relies on the NY State Office of Mental Health as authority. There is no basis to delete these entries.

Statements that the book by SLS owner, Joseph Santoro, which is the treatment protocol at SLS, is not based on scientific evidence and hence is not evidence based treatment. If there are scientific studies, SLS should cite them. If there are not, they should stop deleting my comments. The same is true of Target Behavior Tracking.

In addition, they delete references, from reliable sources, that they treated a serial killer while he was killing. These are documented facts.

In short, SLS wants to use this article to reporduce their promotional materials without having them tested by facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DorothyD (talk • contribs) .

You might be right in the edits you want included (I haven't assessed the content that's being disputed), but the fact remains that you shouldn't engage in edit wars. Please use the available dispute resolution processes. (Also, please sign your comments on talk pages with 4 tildes (~~~~). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like SLS Health has been deleted, however there is still a link left from the former name of the facility, Supervised Lifestyles - what is the procedure for this one to be removed as well as the vandalism continues? Rrgg 20:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see an article on Supervised Lifestyles. Is there a different page you're referring to? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 10:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverted Edits at more.ua

Hello!

Please, explane why you deleted the gouverment site more.ua from the page of Ukraine?

I think it's very irritating habbit!

Please, explane more detailed!

Thank you! General Director, Andrey Trofimenko —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.202.127.151 (talk • contribs) .

The link I removed from Ukraine was spam, neither a government site, nor the site you mention above: [4]. It seems other links you've attempted to add in the meantime have also been reverted as spam. Please familiarize yourself with WP's spam policies. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 10:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Dan Milward on e-Commerce lite - double standards?

I cannot add e-Commerce lite wikipedia and nor can I add it to this software list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_commerce#Software

Apprently it is because I am promoting software. If that is true then I should do the right thing and delete all of the following from the above page to ensure that Wikipedia is not exercising double standards.

ATG Cubecart e-Commerce lite ECommerce Shopping Cart eMeta Corporation Ingenta NetSuite Inc. osCommerce Shop-Script Zen Cart Microsoft Commerce Server

Danmilward 23:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no opinion on, nor have I looked at, your attempt to create the article e-Commerce lite. All I know is that it was deleted, and you should not continue adding links to a non-existent article to Wikipedia. If you have questions about the appropriateness of articles about software, perhaps you should read WP:N and perhaps also WP:SPAM. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, reading your message again, please do not delete articles to make a point - that is considered vandalism. If you feel certain articles read like advertisements, feel free to tag them as such, or take other measures as appropriate. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE read talk pages first before deleting stuff

I always read talk pages before deleting stuff, especially other editors' pictures. If you had to bothered to read Talk:YouTube first (see section 38), you would have realized that the problem is that YouTube deliberately selected a building surrounded by trees (obviously for privacy since they were sick and tired of tourists like me driving past the loft in downtown San Mateo). That picture is as good as it's going to get unless someone well-connected inside the FAA can get clearance to fly a helicopter at low altitude through the congested airspace just west of SFO (which is practically impossible). And in case you were wondering, that is an EquityOffice office complex in a planned development which means there is no curb parking. Either you have a permit to park in the garage or you don't. The point is to drive away unwanted tourists, transients, and the like. Please reply at Talk:YouTube. --Coolcaesar 05:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I've replied at Talk:YouTube#Location_in_San_Mateo.3F. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

User:216.127.205.194

User:216.127.205.194 re-added his nonsense edits to Carlos Camacho following your recent revert. I have reverted his most recent edits to the article. --TommyBoy 23:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Waikiki2006

Please do not block people you are having disputes with. JoshuaZ 19:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to unblock or bring up at WP:ANI, but I first reported this user's activity at WP:AN/3RR and other users have intervened. So I presumed it would be ok for me to block as a follow up. (Plus, its hard to even say there is a true "dispute" since the user has been completely uncommunicative and unwavering in his/her actions.) --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to sign on Waik's talk page. sorry 'bout that. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I've reduced the block to 24 hours since the previous was only 12. If he continues let me or another uninvolved admin know and the block will be lengthended. As for it being ok for you to block it would be one thing were it hard to find another admin but in this case in the middle of the day (US time) and with the previous blocking admin clearly editing it would take two seconds to get the block. Even if the editor is not being cooperative now, having an impartial party telling them to quit is more likely to bring them to discussion than the person they are edit warring with. JoshuaZ 19:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

got it. thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, Joshua was right. He actually hadn't violated 3RR on the last change; I checked. So a ban based on edit warring is more appropriate than a ban based on 3RR. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

guess i'm feeling trigger happy today. thanks for the audits & clarification. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Just had this user blocked

User:Smelly begger, who I reported via WP:AIV. I talked to blocking admin about it, but he/she's afk, perhaps left for the night. I'm reading contribution history, and the closer I look, the more obvious it becomes that he wasn't directly involved in vandalism, but actually reverting it. He was just grossly and stupidly incivil, and doing stupid things like adding tags to image name. Perhaps he should only have gotten 24 hours; or at least told he could sign up under a different username. It's rare I think a troll might have some point, but this time he might. I wouldn't have a problem, but he's complaining about rule violations on our part, and he might have a point. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I only see 1 or 2 (arguably) constructive edits, and multiple extremely uncivil and disruptive edits. Seems the block was warranted, and I'm not in the habit of undoing other admin's blocks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

OK; yeah, if you look at the edit summaries, they were crap, but, if you can believe it, the content changes were some of the time good. For example, he was reverting vandalism on another guy's page. But yeah, it's your call, and it's a fair one. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Admin: Jeapordy Training Grounds

I noticed that in cleaning up the edits by the now blocked Fakir005, you also found and edited out other questionable additions to ad serving related articles. That's my industry, which is how I ran across Fakir005's edits. It made me think that this sort of threaded cleanup is probably pretty common, where an admin winds up weaving through related articles on a particular subject/industry when arbitrating disputes. You fix a defacement, then notice on another article that another user made a non-neutral comment, etc.

It made me curious. Do you find yourself learning a lot about subjects which you previously had little knowledge of simply through this process?

BTW, I was particularly amused by the name Fakir005 chose for his sock puppet :-)

Thanks for doing what you do. --DoGooderJohnnyD 05:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, when disruptive behavior is found, its common to examine the user's other edits to see if the pattern has been repeated, and sure, you can discover and learn new things when you come upon articles you wouldn't otherwise have visited. Perhaps a positive side-effect of cleaning up after vandals. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

blocked User:Bimzalazim

Hi.

The User Bimzalazim sent me an email requesting to be unblocked. The email is pasted here User talk:Bimzalazim#email to User:ish ishwar from User:Bimzalazim.

I usually dont get involved in these things. But, since it was requested of me, I ask you: Why was Bimzalazim blocked? It seems that you think this user is the same as User:Fakir005?

Thanks – ishwar  (speak) 14:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I, and others, have also received e-mails from this user (I posted notice of it at AN/I, which is now archived). Fakir005's only edits and intents on WP was to improperly edit the Zedo, ad serving and related pages. After Fakir005 was blocked for disruption (not by me), s/he made threats of switching IPs to continue these efforts [5]. Shortly thereafter, ad serving was again vandalized in similar fashion by Bimzalazim [6]. The content & tone of this vandalism was similar to Fakir, it was the vandals first and only edit, and the username was obviously chosen as a derivative of my username. All these factors led me to the conclusion that Bimzalazim was a sock of Fakir attempting to continue the vandalism. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

And I'm not clear as to why you restored this libelous comment: [7]. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I guess that I am more lenient than you. I would have waited for more than one edit to reach a conclusion about the supposed identity. It may be obvious to many, but I generally give people the benefit of the doubt. I am not convinced that anyone necessarily needs to reverse your block, I was just wondering about your thoughts. I restored Bimzalazim's comment because that helps inform someone not acquainted with the situation (like me) about interactions between Bimzalazim and Wikipedia users. It is in the page history, but I find that a bit troublesome to have to go through the effort and search for it (as I wrote above, I am not really so interested in these things). peace – ishwar  (speak) 18:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello

What "spam" are you referring to? I simply added a resourceful link, how do you consider that spam?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Compman12 (talk • contribs) .

As others have tried to explain on your talk page [8], the external link policy provides guidelines for what kind (and what amount) of links are considered helpful, and which are not. "Resourcefulness" is not a sufficient criteria to for a link to be added. The vast majority of your previous contributions were spam, and your additions to AdSense [9] and Rubik's cube [10] added little to the articles. Feel free to propose them on the relevant talk pages if you wish. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Fakir005's Legal Threats

I have unprotected User talk:Fakir005 so that he may publicly withdraw his legal threats. I will revert and reprotect it if he misuses it. ➥the Epopt 21:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. thanks for the update. ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Chuck Marean/first article

I've been dying to ask him that, but hadn't wanted to stir up those particular waters again. I'll be very interested in his reply. I agree with your implication that this would not make an encyclopedic article... Best, Gwernol 02:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I hesitated when I clicked "save page"... While likely a violation of WP:NOT, its pretty harmless (but for his presence leading to the occasional meddling in other project pages). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

ASIAN WISCONZINE

RE: ASIAN WISCONZINE

how was it presented like an ad? --ALDEN PASCUAL

It read as if it was cut/pasted from a marketing brochure. The language and tone was promotional, not encyclopedic. (Also, please sign your posts with 4 tildes like this ~~~~, which will automatically insert your username and the time/date) --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

is it getting deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alden pascual (talk • contribs) .

Again, it has been nominated for deletion, and the discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Asian_Wisconzine. Debates typically remain open for 5 days. (and, again, please sign your posts with ~~~~.) --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I will delete it per your request here [11]. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

could you please delete the discussion page for asian wisconzine? i just don't want people that know us to have access to this and have knowledge of what happened here. -alden pascual

The article's talk page has already been deleted. If you're referring to the AfD discussion, that must remain for archiving the debate. And its nothing to be ashamed of - many articles are deleted everyday in accordance to our deletion policy. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The Christian Journal and JPMinistries.

The reason why it only has 1 source is because I'm the one who made and runs the christian journal. Thank you and bless you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sir james paul (talk • contribs) .

Yes, and personal homepages (which is essentially what this is [12]) are generally not notable to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. Please see WP:WEB and even WP:SPAM for guidance. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The Christian Journal is not a home page. It is a ministry that is meant to help people live a more godly life. If you would of went to the Christian Journal home page(I put a link to it below) and if you do you will realize it is not a home page. thank you for giving up time to read this. [13] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sir james paul (talk • contribs) .

The site is hosted on Geocities and fails WP:WEB. It might be a great site, but it doesn't meet the guidelines to be included in an encyclopedia. Please note that Wikipedia is not a collection of weblinks or a space for advertising (or evangelism). Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I am wondering if you can go to my website [14] and leave some feedback on my email. also tellyour friends about it.

How can you say the christian journal is non notable. I find that very offensive because it is not true. It is a christian website and I made a link to it on a christian page. My web page is good and notable—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sir james paul (talk • contribs) .

Its nothing personal, and not a larger commentary on the site. It just doesn't fit the notability guidelines we have spelled out for websites to be included in our encyclopedia. You can read them at WP:WEB. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

On wikipedia you have a lot of articles that are not notable and you do not delete them. Are you saying that a ministry is not a notable thing? It kind of seems like that. My website is a lot more notable than many other things on wikipedia. Let me re make the article. Go check out my site and then tell me if its notable or not. Thank you for giving me your time and god bless you and let you live a rich and full life. [15] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sir james paul (talk • contribs) .

If I, or other editors, see articles that fail to satisfy the notability guidelines, then the proper action is to either try to edit the article to make the proper claim of notability, or to submit the article to the appropriate deletion process. Thousands of articles get added everyday that fail to be notable, and the vast majority of them are addressed in such a fashion. And, yes, some squeak through. If you see any that don't seem to be notable, feel free to add the {{notability}} tag to them to draw attention to your concern.

Regarding JP Ministries, this is a low-content site on your personal webspace that fails to meet the notability guidelines as spelled out in our policy regarding articles on websites. This doesn't mean that "ministrity is not a notable thing." Just that the site doesn't meet our guidelines (collectively authored) to be included here. Please note that Wikipedia is not free webspace for you to advertise your sites. This is an encyclopedia. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that both the christian journal and JPMinistries deserve a spot on wikipedia. These two websites have info that could be used on an article. A good example of this is the saint of the month. This is a tool that could be used as a link on the bottom of the article that is a list of saints. Another reason is that my website helps people. People should learn about a wide range of christian realated things and my website is a christian website. I will be macking these pages again but this time please wait at least a week before you delete it. Thank you and bless you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sir james paul (talk • contribs) .

Sir, have you read the WP:WEB guidelines that I've pointed out to you numerous times? Please do not recreate these pages. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I went over the guidlines and my article was fine. It is a notable thing to write about and I think it is a total lie to say that it is. Please give me a more detailed reason why. I understand it is your job to make sure that the articles on wikipedia meet the guidelines and that most of the time you are right but in this case it is not. Thank you and god bless.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sir james paul (talk • contribs) .

Per WP:WEB, the site [16] would have to satisfy one of the following criteria:

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
   • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.except for the following:
     • Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.(Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.)
     • Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
2. The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.
3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

As far as I can tell, your personal ministry site fails to fulfill any of these criteria. It is not notable for inclusion in this encyclopedia. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

is JPMinistries up to your standards now

I am wondering If JPMinistries is up to your standards now.Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sir james paul (talk • contribs) . --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

They are not "my" standards but those of the community. I've asked other editors to help review your contributions. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

JPMinistries article

Can you please tell me what I have to do on the JPMinistries page to bring it up to wikipedia's standards.--Sir james paul 21:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The site does not appear to satisfy the notability requirements at WP:WEB. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

JPMinistries

It would make both of our lives easyer if you would leave me alone and let me write this page.--Sir james paul 21:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, not trying to pester you, just trying to ensure that this encyclopedia is the best it can be and meets the various rules & guidelines the community has established. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is my site not notable--Sir james paul 02:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review for CARM

I would like to ask for you do cosider deleting the article about CARM because it is non notable and is advertising a website. thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sir james paul (talk • contribs) .

I will look at it, but please don't start suggesting multiple articles for deletion just becuase some of your entries were deleted. That is considered disruptive. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

At first glance, CARM appears to be notable, with over 80,000 Google hits [17] --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to ask what you mean when you say notable. Do you mean that it is visited a lot--Sir james paul 02:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, please see the guidelines at WP:WEB. This has been pointed out to you numerous times here and on your own talk page (which you deleted). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This page is advertising CARM by offering a positive view of the website. Advertising on wikipedia, wich this is doing, makes this article fall short of the wikipedia's standards. By the way I'm not doing this because my pages were dealted I actually think you should of because it did not meet wikipedia's standards.--Sir james paul 02:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If you feel a page sounds like advertising, be bold and make edits to correct it, or add the {{advertising}} tag to alert other editors of this problem. However, I really suggest you spend more time learning about Wikipedia. Perhaps start with the tutorial. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Following up, this doesn't seem too much like an advertisement since there is a significant section devoted to criticisms. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

My article is gone

I wrote an article on the rule of the society of saint john and now its gone. What happened to it.--Sir james paul 14:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What was the name of the article? If you go to the empty page, there should be a link to a "deletion log" which might tell you if/why is was deleted. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It is called the Rule of the Society of Saint John the Evangelist--Sir james paul 15:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears the article name was The Rule of the Society of Saint John the Evangelist, and if you look at its deletion log here, you'll see it was speedy deleted by User:NawlinWiki. You might also want to consider reading Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The article fit all of wikipedia's standards. I also was not done. I was going to go back and make it better. Is there a way for me to get it back.--169.244.143.119 16:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

First, if you are User:Sir james paul, please login. Second, you might want to contact the admin who removed the article (noted above), and read the Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? also linked above. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you send him a message not to delete the rule of the society of saint john the evangelist again. The article was fine--Sir james paul 16:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No, you should contact the deleting admin yourself. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there away for you to make sure this dude does not delete my article when I make it again. He is really bothering me and I'm wondering if you can say if he does this again he will be blocked. He is keeping me from being a productive member of wikipedia.Thank you and bless you.--Sir james paul 20:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should discuss with him on his talk page. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Is he even an wikipedia editor because he threatened to block me. Again I would like to ask you to consider blocking him. thank you--Sir james paul 20:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

fakir005 Needs ZimZalabim attention

I don't know if this is the way to do it. But ZimZalaBim is creating fear in my mind. Like he says edit fearlessly. Yet he issued a threat to me that if I keep Calling Zedo an Adware I'll get blocked. that is a dispute that should not be dealt with threats. That makes me desperate and do stupid things. But the problem will not go away. I've added the following on my Users Talk to resolve the zedo and ad serving matter.

I was not accusing anybody of anything. I don't know who is who at Wikipedia So I asked. I've gone over my talk page over and over Again and I find a message not only from DoGooderJohnnyD but ZimZalaBim asking me to stop accusing Zedo of being an Adware or I'll be blocked. I offered to resolve the point in private if somebody would email me. But no body emailed. Search Engines are crying Foul. "powered by Zedo" is listed on the search engines (these are the keywords) as shameless Trojan Horses. Yet somebody is shamelessly promoting Wikipedia-Zedo as an Ad server. Obviously There is an Editor from Zedo. 'Is there any?' How are we go to resolve the matter? Could you look at Yahoo search Engine Listings Keywords "Zedo -trojan horses -819 listings", "removing zedo 23-400 listings", "Zedo- cookie -14,500 listings", Zedo Cookie - Adware - 1210 listings", "zedo - Adware- 16,400 listings", "Zedo popups - 3,400 listings" Zedo Pop Ups 3,400 listings", Zedo-Virus 27000 listings". All of these keyword listings relate to Yahoo search Engine. Yet Wikipedia continues to promote Zedo as an Ad server - "wikipedia - zedo 1910 listings". How do I resolve the matter? Please email fakir005@aim.com to reply. Thanx.
--fakir005 14:42 13 November, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fakir005 (talk • contribs) .

I've replied on your talk page. Also, the best way to sign your posts is to have the system do it automatically by inserting ~~~~. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If an administator at wikipedia tells you stop doing something then stop. He has the write to block you. All he is doing is making sure that wikipedia is the best it can be. Just listen to him and everthing will be fine. --Sir james paul 20:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, while Administrators do have that ability (to block), they aren't infallible, and they must not abuse that power. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it ok for me to write an article on JPMinistries.

I am wondering if you will let me write an article on JPMinistries. You have many other pages with the same purpose on wikipedia but you will not let me write an article on JPMinistries. I think that is very unfair. JPMinistries is very notable because its an christian organization.--Sir james paul 20:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not sufficient grounds for notability. Also, if this is an organisation that you run, it would be inappropriate for you to write an article about it. Also, haven't you already tried writing an article about this? If so, please see WP:UNDEL. --Yamla 21:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

JPMinistries is a very important christian organization and it deserves a spot on wikipedia. If you don'T t believe its a good website to have on wikipedia go to my website.[18]. Once you look at the webpage we will both see eye to eye on this issue.Plus if I write this it will not be about my self.Thank you and god bless. PS. I'm very sorry for trying to delete an article to get revenge on someone. It was not a christlike thing to and I hope you and that person will find it in their heart to forgive me.--Sir james paul 21:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

once again, please read the criteria outlined at WP:WEB regarding the appropriateness of articles about websites. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It is my job as a wikipedian to make sure we have high quality links and articles. I believe that all christian organizations, not just the big ones should have a spot on wikipedia. So if you don't let me write about this then you keep me from doing my job well. Like I said before and will say again, go to my website here [http:www.geocities.com/amherst3793/JPMinistries.html] and you will see that it deserves a spot on wikipedia.--Sir james paul 21:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC) I am not trying to be difficult. I am just trying to fight for the rights of wikipedia users. I want wikipedia to be the best it can be and very resourceful. Thanks--Sir james paul 21:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Your "job as a wikipedian" is to try to adhere to the five pillars that define Wikipedia's character, especially not being disruptive to make a point. Again, perhaps you should start at the Introduction to learn more about being a constructive contributor to this encyclopedia project. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the last time I'll be writting to you today. When we talk in the future about this lets try to actually get something done. We need to work this out soon because it is keeping us both from doing our best as wikipedians. Something will have to give. Things can't keep on going like this. I will try to write to you in the morning. I take it personal when you say that I am being diruptive and you tell me to read something on how wikipedian. Thank you and god bless. Lets try to get somewhere with this.--Sir james paul 01:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sir, the articles you have been attempting to create do not meet the guidelines for inclusion. I don't know what else I can say or do to convince you. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have decided not to keep on fighting to keep this article because someday I want to be an administrater.Its a lost cause. Bless you.--Sir james paul 01:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Page Deletion

Hi, can you please tell me why Solitum was deleted? I was not experimenting - I've created articles and contributed before, and I can't find anything that was wrong with that page.Sonic

Your article noted that the term "could" be used in Latin, and then you provided a link to your (so far non-existent) website. Wikipedia is not a respository of links. Please don't recreate it. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

adsense trojan article

Hello Sir, I have no interest in links of sites. I added the Trojan abuse Column from the site techshout.com which broke the story about Google ad sense Trojan. The information provided was taken from that site, hence I linked to it. The link to eweek was also added by me but as the information was originally from techshout site and as even the eweek article had taken content from the original site. I thought we should honor the original source rather then the one which has just commented on the original source's finding.

Please advise.

Thanking you Zack

P.S Please have a look at the google link http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-25,GGLG:en&q=adsense+trojan they have all taken content from the original source (techshout). Zack1234 13:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC).

It appears that User:Netsnipe felt that a citation to the eweek article reporting on the issue was more appropriate than a link to the originating blog post [19]. I agree since the eweek article has updated analysis of the issue, including comments from Google, CA and McAfee. Perhaps discuss with him/her or on the article's talk page? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Sir, Thank you for replying. I have studied all posts on the issue available on the internet. But the original article had the most detailed explanation in this matter. It also showed example picture of this Trojan running which the eweek article didn’t have. Due to the fact it broke the story and as it contained the most detailed information on the Trojans activity, i thought it deserved to be in the reference than the eweek article which had derived the content from the original source and added quotes.

Please advice.

Warm Regards Zack

Zack1234 14:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to revert it back and provide an explanation on the article's talk page. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Sir, I have edited the reference link. Sorry for calling you an administrator in the articles talk page but thats what it showed in your about me page. Thank you for your assitance.

Should i rephrase the explanation on the the talk page? Please advise.

Regards, Zack

Zack1234 16:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Its fine the way it is with my comment. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Harlow Rugby Club

Hi,

I am writing in reference to you warning about my use of the word 'idiot' to a vandal who has deleted all photos and want to delete the entire entry for the recent Harlow RUFC article. I apologise for calling him an idiot but I am very frustrated why somebody would want to do this. Can you look at the Harlow Rugby Club entry and revert it back to how it was for me please? I am not an experienced Wiki author and do not have a clue how to do it. Could you also warn off the person responsible for trying to delete a perfectly correct entry.

Regards, Mark UrquartXV 15:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I will not revert Fang Aili's edits. Continue discussion with her or follow instructions on the {prod} tag on the article. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Just seen your second message. Can you advise how to attach copyright tags - those pictures were taken by members of HRFC! They are off of the Harlow Club site! The webmaster of that site is called Dave Sharpe. What do I need to do to add tags???UrquartXV 15:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

See the links to Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags already provided on your talk page. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the backup, ZimZalaBim. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. Happy editing! --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it seems like...

YOU HATE ME & MY EDITS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Ælfwine^{A bit o' wine?} 20:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't. And please don't shout. Your attempts to (re)create Sears American Dream Campaign are against Wikipedia rules and guidelines, as I've tried to explin at the Help Desk and on your talk page. We cannot accept copyright protected material, nor do we allow articles that are merely external links to other websites. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the Problem with you?

What are you trying to do to me, make me feel bad?? Let me alone to edit what I will.--Ælfwine^{A bit o' wine?} 20:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to help you become a constructive member of this community. Edits like this [20] are disruptive. Again, I hope you take the time to read and consider the information pointed out to you. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for all the help ... I could do with something more user-friendly ... Hmmm ... In short, I read all that you gave me ... it made NO sense. Thanks, for the effort though, Bye! Ælfwine 21:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to help you understand the policies and guidelines (I know they can be weighty at times). Which one's are you struggling with? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It's my pleasure to report that Aelfwine joined the Adopt-a-User program and got adopted by an extremely helpful and patient person. The adopter is advising him on choosing a topic for an article that won't get deleted, and helping him write a good article on that topic.

He's a good-y, but I think he might be on the young side. I was really shocked at all that happened, and that it had happened in such a short span of time. I thought you were very patient and appropriate. Time will tell, but I think he'll be alright.

If you ever need a pick-me-up, there is a funny on my user page when you scroll down a bit. Be prepared to spit out your milk though! NinaEliza 04:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

steve.museum

ZimZalaBim, the steve.museum page is the first page I have ever made so please be patient and do not delete based on the fact that it has been deleted in the past. I originally posted only a rough draft. I didn't understand... I'm catching on now. --Sils660

steve.museum

we need to do a deletion review on the recent speedy of steve museum. the content is clearly notable in the field of museum studies, museum informatics and museology. we should invite people who actually are familiar with steve.museum to comment. it has made quite a splash in those fields. --Buridan 12:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

the versions I deleted or put up for speedy deletion were little more than an external link, clearly a candidate for speedy deletion. I've suggested he put it up for review, but seems content to simply re-create. feel free to put it up for review yourself, as I know little of the topic. cheers. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there a esperanza on regular wikipedia.

Dear ZimZalaBim,Does Esperanza exist on regular wikipedia because I am a member of it on simple english wikipedia and if its on regular wikipedia I want to sign up to be a member. Its a great project.Thanks and god bless--Sir james paul 22:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep: Wikipedia:Esperanza. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

spam?

I havent spammed on here yet, and I never will, so please stop telling me I am doing so. Your definition of "spam" is WAY out of proportion. If you think I am trying to advertise or put wasteful information on articles, you are wrong.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Compman12 (talk • contribs) .

I refer you to the various warnings and policy links you've received on your talk page. Edits such as this [21] are considered spam. Please consider adding content rather than repeatedly adding these links to articles. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Deconstruction-and-religion

I initiated a page called "weak theology" and inquiries for "deconstruction-and-religion" are re-directed there. Upon more reflection, it seems to me the roles should be reversed as weak theology is a genre of deconstruction-and-religion. Could you do this for me or let me know how to do this? I will then re-order the page to reflect the change. Hay4 17:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Link

I am not trying to be rude or pester you but how have my links failed to meet the guidelines of wikipedia. Please answer me on my talk page. Thanks.--Sir james paul 12:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not add links so I could join Esperanza, that would be stupid of me. The links I added did have some new things on them. I checked the links to make sure it had some new stuff. Have a nice week.--Sir james paul 17:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment regarding user you have previously blocked

Some time ago, you had blocked User:Ghetteaux for talk page issues. I noticed that you seem to have returned from your userpage-announced wikibreak and thought you might like to keep an eye on his recent behavior. He re-added a Venn diagram to Ninja [22] and History of the ninja [23] that I know was wholly rejected by consensus some time ago. Also, he has made some fairly bizarre edits and messages [24][25], including rewriting your old block message on his Talk.[26] I am not certain his behavior necessitates administrative action at this time, but figured it wouldn't hurt to give you a heads-up. Serpent's Choice 12:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I reverted his modification of the old block message. (I'm only partially here from my wikibreak....seriously....) ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

dude chill out

this is not spam. it is relevant content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xmlguru (talk • contribs) 17:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Your vote on wikiquote simple english

When it comes to using sysop tools I am not clueless because I have a site that is on wikipedia that tells me how to use them. I understand being a sysop does not make you better than everyone else. Will you please reconsider your vote. Also I have time to practice using my tules before I will have to use them for real. I will practice protecting pages by protecting, then unprotecting my user page. I will delete, and then undelete my talk page. I will make a account, then block it. I will make a edit on my user page and then revert it. Please reconsider. Have a nice week and god bless.--Sir james paul 14:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It is an understanding of policy that is vital to being a good admin, not proficiency with the particular tools. You clearly lack that understanding at this point in your tenure across various wiki projects. Also, some consider it awkward/rude to go around trying to get people to change their votes. You might want to reconsider that tactic. Finally, you archived your talk page without addressing my concern regarding the possibility you are using multiple accounts [27]. Do you have a response to that concern? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• • I have not used sockpuppets here or at wikipedia simple english. I used one at wikiquote, RedSoxMan. Have a nice week and god bless.--Sir james paul 14:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I am ready to be a sysop. --Sir james paul 16:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

IP 64.35.192.215

This IP has been making a lot of vandalism. He has been blocked two times in the past and he still will not stop.Maybe we should give him a longer block next time, maybe until the school year for them is done? Have a nice week and god bless.--Sir james paul 17:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The place to post concerns about vandalism for administrator attention is here: WP:AIV. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your concerns

This was probably a accident. I may have misread it or something like that. --Sir james paul 23:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please take more care when reverting other editor's edits. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Lets talk about this at the chat room of [[28]] . I think that we have a fair amount to talk about. I will open up the room.--Sir james paul 23:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No thanks, I prefer to keep discussions open and archived at WP. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Timmo H.

This is probably a stupid question. You are an admin; if you agree with me that this article merits deletion, whu do you not just delete it?--Anthony.bradbury 00:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't look at it that closely, was just cleaning up a bit. And I'm trying to keep from getting too involved in deletion issues since I can't really spare the time/energy for that set of admin duties right now. Happy editing! --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

just checked the history. There was some kind of odd edit conflict, as I was just replacing Sir Paul's tag that the creator removed, and didn't notice you also came in and placed a db-bio tag. ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Keeping my cool

How am I suppose to keep my cool when someone attacks someone who is important to me? Also can you please stop leaving me messages, tracking me down on other projects, threatening my with blocks and stuff like that. I do not want to lose my cool with you. All you have to do is point that out, without saying if I countinue I will be blocked. --Sir james paul 01:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You have shown great interest and enthusiasm across wikipedia projects, but also some gaps in your knowledge and application of policies. I've been trying to politely help you along. If your goal is to become an admin, you'll need to learn to keep cool even when someone is making edits that you find personally problematic. And the message I left was a standard warning regarding personal attacks ({{npa}}). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

American Christmas traditions

What do you mean by don't blank articles? I have known that policy since I have been here. I fight vandalism, I don't cause it. --Sir james paul 20:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You deleted valid content from American Christmas traditions here: [29], without any explanation. Perhaps you don't like the fact that Christmas was associated with paganism, I don't know, but the removal of that content was wrong. Ergo, I left you a warning. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion help

many thanks for helping me delete this duplicate article--Halaqah 21:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

you're welcome. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sir James's reverts

I will stop reverting talk pages if I think it is vandalism. Also it would be very poor of you to block me. I am taking care. The more reverts you make the more mistakes you make.--Sir james paul 03:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the quantity of warnings you've received in the last day or so regarding your over-aggressive reverting, it doesn't appear you are "taking care." Please try to do so. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

For clearing off my UserTalk page, it's much appreciated. I don't like being called ham ;) Cheers. Canadian-Bacon 05:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

East taphouse Communism party

You have orreder the cuting ogf my contrirbutions that is imformation on the East taphouse Communism party. this is unjust because this is a newly form party and is the oley in south west England and South west has a great history of this regilo so this contribubutions of my if overlook would be great shame on your part.

Thankyou for your Time

yours Damian jasper

     pary leader and Ceo of East taphouse Communism party

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jasper5411 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

The articles you (re)created do not satisfy notability or other related guidelines. Please stop. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Exemplary Character
		Today, I was faintly curious by the whole crisis that arose with a certain editor and their actions on Wikipedia and Wikiquote. I was really impressed by your display of civility and cool even though some actions by that user were questionable. Your actions were really an exemplary demonstration of role modeling on Wikipedia. Awesome work! -- 23:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Your Comments

You know every time I make a mistake you do not have to tell me. It is a waste of space on my user talk page. --Sir james paul 16:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not a waste of space when there appears to be a pattern of hasty reverting. As a member of Esperanze, Concordia and assorted other "happy editor" clubs, you should be welcoming of constructive criticism of your work, no? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been more careful. I did not make any mistakes yesterday. --Sir james paul 16:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Fabulous. Perhaps, then, my interventions have helped. Happy editing! --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have been careful. Don't tell me that I have not been careful, I have, instead just let me know my mistakes.--Sir james paul 02:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Redzee

Please stop removing relevant facts that I have added about redzee. The public needs to know the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.193.96.82 (talk • contribs).

I am concerned that you are pushing a POV without proper sources. I've asked for outside editors to intervene. Meanwhile, please adhere to the three revert rule. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Why sebastian large article has been removed

I would like to know why sebastian large article has been removed. As administrator would it be possible to reinstall or undelete the sebastian large article. thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.47.160.153 (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

As you can see from the deletion log, Sebastian large (the proper title of such an article would actually be Sebastian Large) was deleted (not by me) with the following explanation "WP:CSD criterion A7 (individual with no assertion of notability), also likely WP:VSCA)". You can click those articles to learn more, and, if you so desire, request a deletion review. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for telling me when I made mistakes, it really helped me become more careful. About me removing all blogs, myspace links, geocities links, and youtube links, even if they are valid and have a lot of helpful info in it we have other links. Also do you mind looking at my cases and tell me how you think I am doing on them, please give me some feedback. I would also like to thank you for reverting vandalism on my talk page. Have a nice week and god bless.--Sir james paul 11:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Jawbone reinstatement

If you have a chance, could you take a look at the Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 18 discussion on reinstating Jawbone (a podcaster). Interested in your view, whichever way it falls. PaulLev 05:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I gave my opinion there. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Smile

Sir james paul 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. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I am happy to give you this barnstar for being civil and also helping me out a lot. THANKS Sir james paul 01:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"Bound For Glory" citation

I found a citation discussing Montour School District's involvement in the "Bound for Glory" television series. The link to the citation is ESPN Original Entertainment. Thank you for your time. Bibaranti 00:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I added it. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Please

Was that a joke when you said people being offended by being blessed? Lol. What am I suppose to do curse them? I did not know that wikipedia was so Pc. Wikipedia as a organization may be Pc but I refuse to step down to that level. --§Sir James Paul<<--wikiholic§ 06:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not a joke. I've found through experience that it is often best to leave references to religion out of casual conversation with strangers to avoid offense. Your notion that the alternative is to curse someone is absurdest logic, and this has nothing to do with being politically correct, but about just common sense when communicating within a global and diverse community. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 06:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions about difficult users

Hi:

About a month back, i had one of my user pages RVVed by Sir James Paul in a way which seemed pretty cleary inappropriate. i posted a msg to his user page about this problem and it was pretty promptly deleted, apparently by someone other than him. i just reposted my complaint. i scanned his user page and while there were a number of compliments for Sir James Paul's work in it, it was also clear that there were a number of reverts which he made that others, including you, thought were inappropriate.

I'm pretty new to Wikipedia editing, part of me doubts Sir James Paul will either respond to my complaint or ever return to my pages. But since you have been aware of his efforts i was wondering if you could tell me what you think. And what recourse i have, inside the wiki community norms.

thx for you time and attention to this increasingly important project

Paxuscalta 23:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that Sir james reverted it becuase he saw an edit by an IP [30]. He has had a long learning curve regarding properly fighting vandalism, but it seems his efforts have been better lately (I haven't been paying too much attention though, since I'm trying to stay off WP for a bit). Since you were able to re-insert the wanted edit without further interference, I'd consider the matter dropped. However, if you do want him to address that revert directly, I'd suggest placing a new message on his main page page, not re-inserting it into his archived discussions. Let me know if I can help with anything else. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

AMA

I frogot all about it to tell the truth.Sir James Paul 04:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)