Misplaced Pages

User talk:ZimZalaBim: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:42, 28 September 2006 editWerdnabot (talk | contribs)60,702 edits Automated archival of 2 sections with User:Werdnabot← Previous edit Revision as of 12:11, 28 September 2006 edit undoGwernol (talk | contribs)94,742 edits Request for Arbitration involving youNext edit →
Line 123: Line 123:
You inadvertantly ] of original research. Please see Misplaced Pages's ] policy. Comment on ''content'', not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to ] for disruption. Please ] and keep this in mind while editing. I appreciate your hard work. Thank you. <!-- Template:No personal attacks (npa2) --> --] 19:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC) You inadvertantly ] of original research. Please see Misplaced Pages's ] policy. Comment on ''content'', not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to ] for disruption. Please ] and keep this in mind while editing. I appreciate your hard work. Thank you. <!-- Template:No personal attacks (npa2) --> --] 19:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
:There was nothing inadvertant about it. Your diagram is original research, and such a claim does not constitute a ]. Please stop adding bad faith and incorrect warnings to other users talk pages, our you will be ] from editing. Thanks. --] (]) 19:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC) :There was nothing inadvertant about it. Your diagram is original research, and such a claim does not constitute a ]. Please stop adding bad faith and incorrect warnings to other users talk pages, our you will be ] from editing. Thanks. --] (]) 19:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

== Request for Arbitration involving you ==

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

Revision as of 12:11, 28 September 2006

Talk page for user ZimZalaBim
  • Please click here or use the + sign above (next to the "edit this page" button) to create a new section for your comment.
  • Please be civil. If you have a problem with any of my edits or reverts, please state the issue calmly and factually, and I will respond in kind.
  • Please sign & date all comments by adding ~~~~ at the end of the comment.
  • Unless you specify otherwise, I will reply to your comment here, so you might want to watch his page.
  • This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:ZimZalaBim/Archive 5.


Archive
Archives
  1. 2004
  2. 2005
  3. Jan 2006 – April 2006
  4. May 2006 – June 2006
  5. July 2006 – September 2006

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

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

Now what???

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

Thanks DESG

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

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

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

RichM2020

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

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

Re: Milwaukee/UWM

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

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

Thanks for your offer

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

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

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

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

Paul Edinger

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

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

Re: Paul Edinger

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

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

bkbkbkbk on College Point

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

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

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

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


Innerdep article for deletion

hi,

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

dfmrrd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.114.64.75 (talkcontribs) .

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

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

SchoolAtlas Deletion

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

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

Brett Favre

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

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

please watch your deletions

Thank you for experimenting with the page Ninja on Misplaced Pages. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Ghetteaux 19:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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

second warning

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

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

Personal attack warning

You inadvertantly accused me of original research. Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I appreciate your hard work. Thank you. --Ghetteaux 19:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Request for Arbitration involving you

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