User talk:ZimZalaBim/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Mediaplex

Hello, why have you removed Mediaplex from the ad serving page? The listing is not self-promotional and merely states Mediaplex as an adserving vendor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.70.54.16 (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Only notable servers or companies should be listed, meaning, only those with articles. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

G-20

Please stop removing my edits. You did this [2] and then said this [3] about what I wrote. What you said about what I wrote was not true, which is typical of your statements on my talk page. In reality, what I wrote on the G-20 talk page was about a way to improve the article's content. --Chuck (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Chuck, nothing in this statement suggests you are trying to improve the article. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does, it states the article should tell whether or not they are going to abolish taxes, which is a big issue to conservatives. Again, please stop looking at my contributions to undo my edits. That is not helpful to the project.--Chuck (talk) 03:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: impatience is setting in. My response was this. I think the level 2 warning was too high a level. I think my comment was about improving the article. Please have a more positive attitude about my edits. I've read a lot more than when I first started. Keep in mind I'm not here as much as you are, and you might be smarter than me as well. They say "Patience is a virtue." If you're trigger happy, maybe you could write an article for something to do or use the buttons in your sandbox, maybe even without pressing "Save page".--Chuck (talk) 07:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yahoo! Briefcase closed 1 day earlier

At http://help.yahoo.com/l/uk/yahoo/briefcase/closing/eol08.html Yahoo! writes: "You have up until March 30, 2009 to download you files. AFTER this date, you will be unable to access your Yahoo! Briefcase account." But there was NO access to Yahoo! Briefcase already ON March 30, 2009. Yahoo! Briefcase simply closed one day ahead of schedule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Optfx (talk • contribs) 17:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not what you say is true, only verifiable criticism, cited from reliable sources belongs in the article. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Statements by Yahoo! are complete mess. "We will close Yahoo! Briefcase on Tuesday, March 30, 2009. After this date, you will be unable to access Yahoo! Briefcase or your files within the Yahoo! Briefcase account." http://help.yahoo.com/l/uk/yahoo/briefcase/closing/eol01.html That March 30, 2009 is not Tuesday can be easily verified in any calendar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.226.56.248 (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop edit warring. Your original research isn't sufficient for inclusion in this encyclopedia. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

March 30, 2009 was not Tuesday - that is not original research, but a simple fact.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Optfx (talk • contribs)

The fact they made an error in their help page is not in dispute. But, again, only verifiable criticism, cited from reliable sources is appropriate in these articles. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Just so you'll know, I've reported Optfx to the edit war board. Dayewalker (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I just reverted him again, if you didn't already notice. Now just bull-headed POV-pushing. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we've all tried to talk to him. That doesn't seem like it's working, so I just took it to the boards. Dayewalker (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

e3buy article

I would like to have an e3buy article up on this site and you deleted it. What part of the article was advertising? I only posted corporate information online. Why is this company able to have an article and we are not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.191.45.3 (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CORP and WP:WEB regarding the notability requirements for articles about companies. (Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFF). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

MOB

Article updated, if not suitable, specify what is promotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewik (talk • contribs) 01:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The article you keep trying to create makes no claim of notability of the company in question, nor does it include any citations from reliable sources. Since you are going around adding links to this article in every place possible, it appears your intention is promotion. Unless you can rectify any of these gaps, please cease. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The last update left minimum and objective information to the page. MOB.COM is registered since 1994, comes up on first page search results and is the most appropriate article for this keyword. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewik (talk • contribs) 01:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That's nice, but you'd still need to establish notability through reliable sources before an article about the site would be deemed appropriate. So, please cease your edit war. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no edit war. Do You seriously think that if someone searches for "MOB" they are looking for a page with links to "marching owl band" and "mobile regional airport" and not for information on MOB.COM with 30,000 members and growing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewik (talk • contribs) 02:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

ZimZalaBim, can You explain why You have this understanding that official sources posting information on behalf of MOB, a site with 15 years of history, 30000 members and over half a million visitors a month, to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOB is vandalism, while You reverting this page back to items stating "MOB may refer to" and "MOB as an initialism may refer to" that clearly are not direct matches to MOB and belong to MOB_(disambiguous), is not vandalism?

In addition, for no reason You reverted multiple typo corrections yesterday, so currently You are the one vandalizing articles here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewik (talk • contribs) 13:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As I, and others, have already told you, your edit warring is disruptive. Please read WP:CORP, WP:WEB, WP:CITE, WP:RS, and WP:SPAM to learn about the relevant policies you are violating. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

deleting references before and after an AfD

RE: [4]

Removing the list out of North_Korean_websites_banned_in_South_Korea guts the main point of the article. Please let the AfD run its course, and this list, along with the entire AfD, maybe deleted anyway. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Zim, would you consider closing the AfD, and me changing the article name to Censorship in South Korea, in line with the other censhorship pages, and then expanding this page to add new subsections (media, etc)? I can do all this.

On further reflection, I removed the links. Ikip (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to create Censorship in South Korea, and suggest redirecting North_Korean_websites_banned_in_South_Korea to it in the AfD. As the article currently stands, I feel the AfD should remain open. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

CIOZone

How come you delete my entry for CIOZone.com? It's a social networking site and should be on the Social Network Websites page. I wasn't trying to put out any spam, but rather just add them to the list. CIOZone.com goes beyond sites like LinkedIn, where it focuses on social networking for CIOs and top level IT executives. So I think that it's unfair that you deleted my entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlee ciozone (talk • contribs) 16:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that only notable websites (ie, with their own articles) belong on that page. And given your username, it appears you have a conflict of interest. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Conflict of Interest YouTube Strangelove edit

Consider the following,

I have just completed a academic book, to be published later this year, on the subject of YouTube (University fo Toronto Press).

My second edit of my change to the YouTube article "Scholarly Analysis" (April 10) does not make reference to the book, and removed my name from the text of the article.

The chapter edition is resonable (see YouTube discussion).

While I understand the need to avoid self promotion, what is odd in this instance is that your deletion of any reference to developing field of YouTube scholarship is certainly odd.

A too aggressive application of the policy here simply disables a scholar in the field in question (myself) from contributing to a Wiki article in his or hers field of expertise.

So I find myself in the unusual (?) position of trying to contribute otherwise quite factual material and add pedagogical value a Wiki article only to be deleted.

Your comment/edit claims that I am not a reliable source. I am a scholar of new media, a lecturer at the University of Ottawa, and have published academic books about the Internet since 1991. My identity (Michael Strangelove) on the Internet is easily verifiable, as is my employ at the Univeristy of Ottawa, via Google.

The conflict of interest, as you have applied it, would prevent all scholars from contributing to Wiki articles in their field.

I teach aspects of Wiki in my new media course and would benefit from a better understanding of how you apply the policy in this instance.

Could you please explain what part of the following is a policy violation:

Scholarly Analysis

YouTube has attracted a significant and growing body of academic research into its technological and social characteristics. By Spring 2009 there were hundreds of scholarly articles published about YouTube and two academic books devoted to the subject.

As a subject of scholarly analysis, YouTube provides substantial insight into the social practices of online amateur video production and viewing.

Best wishes,

Dr. Michael Strangelove Department of Communication University of Ottawa michael@strangelove.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstrangelove (talk • contribs)

Respectfully, please read our conflict of interest policy, which does not "prevent all scholars from contributing to Wiki articles in their field", but rather suggests that if a scholar wants to post their own material, it should be suggested on the talk page, not inserted by the author him/herself. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

deletion of my entry

Dear Sir/Maddam,

thank you for deleting my entry on Google. Nobody now will know about the privacy problems associated with Google. I cannot use Google Docs with any of my French colleague professors of physics.

"I fear that Wikipedia, by nature of its very design, tends to suffer from recentism. Articles should strive for temporal balance and provide only the most notable facts about their subjects."

The problem with Internet and Wikipedia is not this. The most important problem is with anonymous/pseudonymous contributors.

How do I know that you are not a Google employee? Who I am you can find on my internet page my internet page.

Cheers

Ad Lagendijk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adlag (talk • contribs) 20:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that verifies your concerns, and feel free make an appropriate mention of the issue. In the meantime, please assume good faith of other editors trying to ensure our guidelines are followed. -ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Your prior comment to unregistered user 71.75.159.94

Unregistered user 71.75.159.94 is doing it again. See Yale Law School and its talk page.PraeceptorIP (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Milwaukee County

I noticed you undid my edit of the page on Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. Political boundaries of counties and states DO extend across all of the great lakes. I am a student of geography If you look at any current political map (and even most road maps from AAA, Rand McNally, etc.), you will see this. The state and county governments and authorities need to have jurisdiction over their adjacent waters. You shouldn't make edits to other people's contributions like that unless you know the information for yourself. Just making a guess out of arrogance is counterproductive to the mission of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.45.242 (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and be civil. Can you provide a source that confirms your statement that the political boundary of the county extends across the lake and abuts those counties in Michigan? Thanks. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for brashness of my earlier post. It just gets frustrating when I see someone else undo my work ten minutes later without hesitation. The Constitution of the State of Wisconsin, Article II, §1, clearly defines the political boundaries of the state in detail. It also specifically addresses the maritime boundaries of Lake Michigan. Finally, RandMcNally.com provides free access to online maps that clearly show both county and state boundaries extending across the lake. 69.23.45.242 (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

why

Hello can you help me to understand why do you delete my article? I took off any brands and companies to not promote them! Smart Card Web Server it's just a standard technology...just to inform the users that it exists. Please explain what's wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fra131184 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read the various notices (and linked policies) left on your talk page, as well as our general notability policy. Further, per the warnings left on your talk page, your continued recreation of deleted content is very disruptive, and you should follow the deletion review processes provided to you. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

gezzmo

Why is this deleted, and flagged as advertising? The article was entirely relevant to the category, and in no sense more advertsing than any other listing on the same page, of other search companies. I would appreciate an explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Semio7 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read the various notices (and linked policies) left on your talk page, as well as our general notability policies for companies. Further, per the warnings left on your talk page, your continued recreation of deleted content is very disruptive, and you should follow the deletion review processes provided to you. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi ZimZalaBim. Per the stipulations at WP:CANVASSING, I've pinged your talk page to "appropriately canvass" you wrt the deletion discussion currently taking place at "WP:Articles for deletion/Home and family blog." (Note that I've also pinged the talkpages of all of your fellow participants at last years deletion discussion at "WP:Articles for deletion/List of blogs," to ensure that my notifications are to are small number of wiki-contributors that have been neutrally selected.) I hope you'll consider taking part in our discussion. Thanks. ↜Just me, here, now … 07:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sufficient information

In Censorship by Google, mind explaining me how "simple mention is sufficient"? If a simple mention is sufficient why to bother making full articles?ThePhenom9 (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not necessary to include large quotes from the citation. It is sufficient to state that Google refused to run the ads, and provide the citation with more detailed information.. See WP:UNDUE for more info. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD

I was asked to participate in the AfD of "Home and family blog". I looked up the relevant guidelines, and have posted them at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Home and family blog for your consideration. The Transhumanist 21:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Employer review website

Hi, Please stop vandalising my contributions.

I am not promoting anything. I am trying to provide information.

It's strange that you leave the information about a company called Linkedin - which is a pure advertisement (on the Social Network Service page). Why do you leave that there? Very strange.

I have tried to help Wikipedia and improve its articles. I will not bother to do this anymore - there is no point if the contributions are vandalised by someone who claims to be an administrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikeysparrow (talk • contribs) 10:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Your edit, which appears to be nearly the only thing you're contributing to this project, has a particular slant to promote a non-notable company. LinkedIn, however, satisfies our notability requirements. Please cease your increasingly disruptive edits. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, perhaps you're referring to this edit at social network service. All that other content was unsourced commentary. Come up with reliable sources to back up those claims, and we can reinsert it. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, you are acusing me of vandelism? These companies are the only two examples I know of that are employer review websites. If you know of others, please feel free to add them.

You are obviously removing my comments because you have issues. I will have to take this matter further with Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikeysparrow (talk • contribs) 16:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Please STOP the vandalism of my contributions right away. If you do not I will pursue this matter as official vandalism of my well intentioned contributions to Wikipedia. I also note that you accused me of vandalism for simply undoing your contributions - something which is specially considered NOT to be vandalism by Wikipedia.

This is the last time I will correspond with you. If you do not stop your vandalism I Ill take matters further with Wikipedia, and will have your administrator rights removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spikeysparrow (talk • contribs) 16:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I strongly urge you to remain civil in how you interact with other editors here.--ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Java APIs

Hi ZimZalaBim, I was wondering why their is so few API's on the above page. Their is a whole bundle missing really. scope_creep (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

External Links Removed

Dear ZimZalaBim, I placed several links today on several Wikipedia entries. However, the links I placed were to an authoritative site with licensed data that I cannot post on Wikipedia due to copyright restrictions. The links I placed were to pages very relevant to the entry on Wikipedia. For example I placed a link to page that lists all local offices of the Centers for Disease Control from the Pandemic page on Wikipedia. The site I linked to (BuzzFile) is completely free, has no advertising and all users have access to 16 million authoritative entries. There is no commercial gain in these links and they provided valuable and useful information to the user. Additionally I placed a link to All Museums in Manhattan from the Wikipedis Manhattan entry. Again, is this really spam? Would users who are visiting the Wikipedia Manhattan page not be interested in that? Again, there is no gain for anyone as the site is free and there are not even any advertisements. The very same types of links I posted are present on other pages and not being removed. And many to sites that have advertising. I will not post any more links, but can you kindly tell me what I did wrong? Will you please reconsider leaving the links? As indicated earlier I will not post any additional links regardless of your decision.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Akin67 (talk)akin6722:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Instant Messaging

During my edit I noticed that you changed the definition for the previous one. I was going to add the source but I didnt make it. Here is the source Instant Messaging. Definition and Overview. from International Engineering Consortium. Please explain why is not appriopriate. (Rsolero) 00:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There was nothing deficient with the current way the article is written, and the text you added is a copyright violation of the source you just provided. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for information. Still learning how to edit right. (Rsolero) 02:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I found something interesting today about IM article. IM as a component of Unified Communications is becoming a core part of UC products. Industry experts say that is the future of “presence” communication inside enterprises. Here is link: Instant messaging strategies: Usage policy and training are key from SearchUnifiedCommunications.com. I think it should be included in article’s section “Practical use in enterprise”. What is your suggestion? I don’t want to make mistake again. I would appriciate your comment on that. Rsolero (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Your link to Unified communications was restored properly. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Brett Favre

Is actually not officially retired. He never filled out the retirement forms and is currently a free agent. You preach how point of view should not be used on this page, yet him being retired is a POV. He is officially a free agent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piemaster7500 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Skype customer support

Any spcific reason for that revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skype&diff=next&oldid=284476224 ? You CAN submit a support request and that's answered by real human beings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.14.219 (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Tiger Woods GAR

Tiger Woods has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I thank you for your appreciation but Gece Gündüz has been mentioned as a notable show. So ıt wıll not be deleted. I thank you for your concentration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy Benoit (talk • contribs) 18:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Wiki page: E-commerce_payment_systems

Hi ZimZalaBim,

I am new to editing Wikipedia and have recently changed some content on E-commerce_payment_systems. I noticed that you were an admin that placed the 'cleanup' on the article. Theres a lot that needs doing to improve this article including the additions of numerous payment systems that I have highlighted in the paragraph that I entered. The article seems to be a bit of a mess and needs a thorough overhaul so that it is a true representation of the subject. Is it ok for me to do this? I don't want to tread on people's toes as it were?!

Thanks Chrisb87 (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. As this is a wiki, anyone can edit and you won't be "treading on people's toes". So go ahead. Just be sure to keep the five pillars of Wikipedia in mind as you edit, and, of course, follow the guidelines, especially the content standards. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Link removal

Hi I created a link from golf to the UK PGA academy and it was removed - Could you advise why, I added the link as I was searching for the academy on wiki and noticed the golf page had links to the U.S pga but not the UK.

Kind Regards

Mjr2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjr2009 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The link you added was to here, a golf resort and spa. That is WP:SPAM. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Censorship

Thanks, I will look for the sources. 189.146.1.19 (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Brett Farve

I am sorry if I hurt your feeling there is somethiing I would like to ask you but first. I am currently creating a new infobox for the NFL Draft and I am asking you for any ideas, suggestions, things I might be missing, and etc. please reply back to me ASAP. Infobox: Template:Infobox NFL Draft --Mr. Unknown (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hurt my feelings? Um, no. Just stop making changes to his status without a citation to support it. (I have nothing to offer regarding a draft infobox). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Chuck

If ever you tire of his distracting and disruptive editing, remember that were he not around we might miss gems of this sort: "I personally don’t understand how it (the space shuttle) or the moon defies gravity". (Probably best to remkvoe this after reading; it's not the most civil remark, but I trust it will go unnoticed by those who might be offended by it.) 68.248.227.87 (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of talk pages

As you have likely noticed, I am a new member and only joined in order to offer a topic for the "OpenSocial" page. My suggestion was offered as an "improvement" on that topic, as I believe the topic did not touch on privacy and the ability for a user to "opt-in/out" for sharing their contact information. However, it appears that I used an incorrect medium -- Please advise.

Bones0816 (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The comments on your talk page give you the necessary guidance. If you feel something needs to be added to the article that is missing, then state that directly. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

List of digital library projects

This is just a quick note that the a page you've commented on before List of digital library projects is undergoing discussion over a rewrite at Talk:List_of_digital_library_projects. The rewrite is at [5] Stuartyeates (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yale Law School

Please see discussion page for YLS. PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You'll notice I left a reply there hours ago. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Dennis Crouch

Hi, you wrote:

"if he removed the biography from his blog, we shouldn't dig it up from Internet Archive"

Well, I don't agree, it's still public and useful. Can you elaborate a little? Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP urges a presumption in favor of privacy, and if the subject consciously removed his bio from his blog, we should respect that implicit desire not to publish the information. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I won't revert. You have a point there. Meanwhile, if he really wanted to secure privacy, he could ask for his page not be archived... --Edcolins (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but very few people even know about the Internet Archive, let alone how to tweak their robots.txt file. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, you're right. You're damn right. Thanks for this obvious, but needed reminder. --Edcolins (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

CM

Chuck, apparently frustrated at having his removal of a P:CE item about North Korea's missile tests reverted (the item, he seems to think, glorifies militarism and promotes sadness), went from annoying and pointless insertion (a phrase a girlfriend once I ascribed to my lovemaking, I regret to say) to plain vandalism. I left him a note to the effect that if he persists in his obstruction, he will exhaust the community's patience, whatever may be his good faith. I'm of the view that that provides him sufficient notice that any further obvious vandalism will result in a block, and I write to note that I would endorse and support a block for any additional intentional disruption. (If your own patience has been sufficiently tried as to cause you to abandon the situation, I'd understand, but I figure that you, given your knowledge of the history, are as suited as anyone to block should the problem persist.) Cheers, Joe 06:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

McCain

You removed this report that says McCain is running for Senate. It is considered Top News by UPI. --Chuck Marean 18:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Good for UPI. But unlike that news wire, Wikipedia is not a news service, and the current events portal is meant for major news stories. I've left a more detailed comment on your talk page. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, here's another message on your talk page. I don't consider the items I picked to be unimportant.--Chuck Marean 18:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Current events

Concerning this message you left on my talk page:[6] stating you don't like my choice of news, that news was in a paper. You can put it back or not. You can also look for news yourself. --Chuck Marean 05:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Also, good news items do seem to be controversial, so if I find any I think I’ll discuss them on the day’s talk page if I remember to. “Current events” does seem to have been parroting junk found on the front page of various papers. Maybe I'll complain to the papers about them stressing the bad news. --Chuck Marean 06:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Good news is not controversial. What is controversial has been your attempts to censor certain news stored that you consider "bad news". --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Current events/2009 June 2

My Current events posts are current events. Obviously, you should not be calling them vandalism. my posts so far today are:

• Pakistan’s army is winning against the Taliban's army in Swat Valley.(The Manila Times)
• On the 30th anniversity of John Paul II's visit to Poland, the country prepares for the 20th anniversiy of the two-party electons of June 4, 1989.(NZ Herald)
• France asks the U.S. to use its spy satellites and listening posts to hunt for the lost Air France jet.(news.com.au)

Hopefully, you won't block me because working on Wikipedia is something to do--Chuck Marean 23:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Quoting Wikipedia:How the Current events page works, "Of primary importance are events." As has been pointed out to you before, the vast majority of what you've been posting are merely news items, often trivial, and not news events. Perhaps you've wondered why very few of your additions remain? Perhaps you've wondered why people keep reverting you? It's because you fail to understand what the current events portal is for. Once again, I ask you to stop and consider the fact that perhaps this encyclopedia project simply isn't the place for you. Respectfully, ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know, Marean's complaining about this at AN. //roux   23:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Red Link

Hi, you rescently reverted my post on List of social networking websites. You mentioned it was red linked. I am in the middle of creating a page for Kiwibox revolving around it's history and what it is. Can i still have Kiwibox placed on the list? Should i take the double bracket off?

Sorry for the questions I am new to this and trying to understand what should be done first.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kronikle88 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:WTAF. If the website is truly notable enough to have its own article, then it could be inserted into List of social networking websites. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for help.

I’m hoping you’ll monitor the current events portals. A dial-up bandit has been reverting perfectly good contributions of mine and perhaps of others as well. I’ve been trying to contribute the most peaceful, civilized news I can find and I think I should be allowed to participate in the current events project since it’s something I’m capable of doing well. As you know, all of my edits have been conscientious and I’ve been trying to word my edit summary’s well. --Chuck Marean 06:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. As I pointed out here, your "stalker" has only 2 edits, one of which was reverting your inclusion of a normal fluctuation in the crude oil prices, which isn't a notable news event to include in the current events portal. Are there other examples of IPs "stalking" you? From my perspective, many of the events you've been adding have merely been normal, everday news stories. And just because you happen to find them interesting doesn't mean they are suitable for inclusion on that page. Remember, this isn't Wikinews, so we don't try to cover all possible news events. It has already been pointed out to you how your edits have the tendency to be disruptive, so please stop and consider that if many of your inclusions are being reverted, perhaps that's because they are inappropriate. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Rajko Purovic deletions?

Why do you keep deleting my page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirko rajkovic (talk • contribs) 17:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

See the various notes placed on your talk page, especially regarding our notability requirements for articles about people. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy note

I've had a talk page exchange with an IP involving your edits to the David Letterman article. Talk:David_Letterman#Sarah_Palin. I don't want to be talking behind your back. The conversation is fairly self explanitory. Best regards.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yale Law School

Reverting those edits that deleted the recent former Justices (White, Stewart, etc.) was quite right. Whoever deleted them had no sense. PraeceptorIP (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

UnDeletion of ColorfulTabs

Dear Sir,

I created my first page ColorfulTabs following the guidelines of the site. However it was tagged for speedy deletion. Also your message said "Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as ColorfulTabs, to Wikipedia". I understand your concerns however ColorfulTabs is a very popular firefox addon and isn't different from other addons which have been inspired from the same concept and have found a place on Wikipedia like Chromatabs etc. Kindly guide me on how we can have a wiki page for ColorfulTabs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varun21 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Popularity doesn't equal notability. Please see the guidelines pointed out on your talk page regarding appropriate subjects of articles. If this Firefox Addon meets our notability guidelines, the article you created (twice) doesn't indicate such. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I could be wrong and this is most certainly a perception but after my article on ColorfulTabs was marked for deletion, I have studied the guidelines and policies at length. I know this argument does not fall under the guidelines for article deletion discussions however I have to express this. Of all the articles of Firefox addons, I find none (I went though them) which are notable per se. Notability is not objective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hiding/What_notability_is_not). Also I volunteered and tagged several articles for deletion which lacked notability (and got noticed for that). I hope there's no bias towards certain Firefox addons based on choice or just that an article author proactively contests deletion with arguments citing policies making him agressive. In other words... what makes any of the Firefox addons notable? Are we looking for inclusion in magazines, featuring on television, web awards etc.? Or do various Firefox addons merit a Wikipedia inclusion depending on certain criteria not open to the public? I have cited various third party verifiable references and I'm not affiliated with any of them. Have you certainly not been able to verify "the worthiness of notice" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article_content) through the various references cited? Kindly quote the invalid references so that I can quote others which have better chance of verification.

Regards, varun21 (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't like to get into wiki-lawyering battles over who can quote the most policy. Bottom line, follow the guidelines here. As it stands, the links you have provided on that article don't appear to be from reliable third parties (forums, reviews, and download pages from Mozilla,etc, aren't reliable sources). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As I see this is a conflict of "likings" than anything else. As such please proceed deleting that article. If you couldn't find a reference from BBC World and failed to view the archives, you did not make any effort towards alternatives to deletion. Since you are an admin here I find no reason why I should persist and reason. Of course I was enlightened and inspired to not contest deletion after reading http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2008/07/31/how_to_get_your_commercial/. Thanks for reviewing my article. In all good faith if ColorfulTabs in not worthy of notice, I'll ask the author to consider creating news and perhaps then come back some day with a list of verifiable coverage in media. But then "forums, reviews, and download pages from Mozilla,etc arn't reliable". Perhaps I'd request your seal then. Please don't bother replying, nothing personal, I'll just search a little more to find a link to close my Wikipedia account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varun21 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Clinton

She broke her elbow. I found it on Google News. If you want to write it better, fine. Otherwise, it looks to me like your trying to get me to revert the page, which seems uncivil to me. --Chuck Marean 17:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing uncivil about it, and I noted that you added it in good faith. Please see the note I just left you re: WP:NOTNEWS. I fear your edits are (again) becoming disruptive to the purpose of this encyclopedia project. Thank you. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a speech is news. It's a speech, and there are several other articles on Obama speeches. Further comments are on the deletion nomination page.--Chuck Marean 18:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Criticism of YouTube

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Criticism of YouTube. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of YouTube. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

i miss you

my old mentor.i miss you...ive been inactive on wikipedia too. I MISS YOU!! Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 07:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello ZimZalaBim! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 688 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. John Langford (engineer) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Miss ya

Miss ya tons. You were definitely my fave. Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 01:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Suspension of admin privileges due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who have been inactive for one year, meaning administrators who have made neither any edits nor any logged actions in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. RL0919 (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:GAP fountain.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:GAP fountain.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Notice of change

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Diplomacy Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		I know you've left, but if you ever drop by, I'd like you to know: I stumbled upon certain archived discussions, and I've come to the conclusion that you have the patience of a saint and the stomach of a king. Wikipedia lost an awful lot when it lost you. Sophus Bie (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Neilburg Composite School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public school. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A Switch Box Tale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Danish. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Simi protection of Allen terry user page

Can you simi protect all my user things on my page... I can't do that and I just want it simi protected. Thanks User: Allen terry

Why? You seemed to have changed your username. What do you want protected, and why? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Taran Davies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Director. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Norbert balacinski

i think you need to not delete my pages pal, it was for an assignment thanks very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickjumeau210398 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited UTStarcom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mobile. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Page Deletion

Hello there. You recently deleted my Page because it was too promotional. It merely stated facts about a company, and was in no way promotional. At least I wasn't intending it to be. Anyway you guys have a great site and I didn't intend to spam it or anything like that. If there is any way I can list this company that makes it non-promotional - I will be more than happy to comply. Take care.

Andrew (MarketAmericaSM (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)MarketAmericaSM)

I'd suggest you start with the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for help regarding the appropriateness of creating articles about companies, as well as the relevant notability guidelines. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedies

The Philippe Robert-Jones has almost no content when you placed the speedy deletion tag, it did link to the article in two other WPs. Thought our standards can be different, it is very rare indeed that a person with an article in the frWP would not be considered notable here--and certainly it would at least have been worth checking.

David Mikics, at the time you put an A7 speedy tag on, had sufficient content to show that there was not merely an indication of significance, but that it fully met the requirements for actual notability under WP:PROF, because of the named professorship. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

And thus another editor reviewed and decided to remove the tags. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 05:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems like they pick out information pages on smaller companies and delete them because they don't think we're worthy! They've just deleted my information page about Dinner2go (a legit, independent company that's been running for 10 years), but they seem quite happy to have pages about Just Eat, Hungry House, Delivery.com because they're big conglomerates!

Why is it that they "deserve" to be on Wikipedia and we don't deserve a page on here?

My page had NO links... NO advertising... Just a bit of information about what we do and how we do it. I Think there's a clear bias here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sohail.rahim (talk • contribs) 15:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Why have you deleted my page (Dinner2go.co.uk)?

Hi.... Why did you delete my page? Other companies such as Just Eat, Hungry House, Delivery.com and various others have pages of information about themselves, but you chose to delete my page. Is it because we're a small, independent company, and you like to promote the bigger ones?

- I didn't put any links - I didn't put any adverts - I linked correctly to the city we're based in - I put information about how we work, without ANY LINKS to our website.

So where's the advertising in my page? Why are you guys so biased towards the bigger companies? Do you think they "deserve" to be on here, and we don't, because we're small and independent?

Why was my page removed? Is this some sort of dictatorship? Favouritism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sohail.rahim (talk • contribs) 15:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know

I have mentioned you at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians Ottawahitech (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I have removed your name from Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians since you appear to have returned to Wikipedia. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You have been mentioned again at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, ZimZalaBim. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your recent edit

Hell, thanks for your recent edit revert on Acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney article. Unfortunately, the users' works that you have reverted continues on persisting on adding unsubstantiated claims then deletes them on the basis of unreliable or being labeled as "blogs" despite them being clearly sourced and reliable to certain sections. I have created this thread and hoping what are your opinions on the issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acquisition_of_21st_Century_Fox_by_Disney#Several_so-called_special_contribution_users_who_erroneously_report_several_sources_%22blogs%22_or_%22unreliable%22_simply_to_get_around_the_notion_that_Disney_is_not_in_fact_a_monopoly

I'll look at it, sure. You could also post your concern to the WP:ANI. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature is causing Tidy bug affecting font tags wrapping links lint errors, and also uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors. The behavior of the Tidy bug has changed; starting in June 2018 the font color effect was removed.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:ZimZalaBim|<font color="black">Zim</font><font color="darkgreen">'''Zala'''</font><font color="black">Bim</font>]] <sup><font color="black">[[User talk:ZimZalaBim|talk]]</font></sup> : ZimZalaBim ^talk

If you do want the font color, to

[[User:ZimZalaBim|<span style="color:black">Zim</span><b style="color:darkgreen">Zala</b><span style="color:black">Bim</span>]] <sup style="color:black">[[User talk:ZimZalaBim|talk]]</sup> : ZimZalaBim ^talk

If you do not want the font color, to

[[User:ZimZalaBim|<span style="color:black">Zim</span><b style="color:darkgreen">Zala</b><span style="color:black">Bim</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:ZimZalaBim|talk]]</sup> : ZimZalaBim ^talk

In Wikipedia, links to the same page are replaced with bold black, so on this page, links to your talk page are all black with or without font override. Without the font override, your talk page link would have standard link colors, like those of my signature below.

—Anomalocaris (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've updated the code. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Franciscan Sisters of Christian Charity for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Franciscan Sisters of Christian Charity is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franciscan Sisters of Christian Charity until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 22:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Revert only when necessary

Please follow the Wikipedia principle Revert only when necessary. My edits were not disruptive and they were not vandalism. You may think that one vote does not define an elected official, but I do not see where in Wikipedia policy it suggests that information like votes on major legislation should not be included. To the contrary, many pages include exactly such information. Harry mattison (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It's abudantly clear that this is biased removal to make republicans look as good as possible despite their gross actions.Shadybabs (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The material in question was UNDUE and problematic per RECENT. Removal was the correct action. Springee (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Springee is correct. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Hope you're still around

You were a very good mentor to me and helpful. Hope you're ok wherever you are in life. Smuckers ^{It has to be good} 23:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Ghosts

ZimZalaBim Halo 33: Ghosts V: Together (2020) and Halo 34: Ghosts VI: Locusts (2020) are Ghost era not Trilogy era in Nine Inch Nails discography page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmm134 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits

What's an unconstructive edit? --ConfidentFungus (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

There are various forms of disruptive editing that should be avoided. We should also avoid adding trivia when possible. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Conifer Edits

I added a link to Conifer Colorado and you removed it. Many people looking to move to Conifer Colorado will most likely view Wikipedia to gain more info on this topic. The Evergreen Experience is a community website that is dedicated to living life in the Evergreen Colorado / Conifer Colorado area. (These two towns are right next to each other). The Evergreen Experience is the most comprehensive website about this area. It includes infor on lifestyle, real estate, restaurants, it also has an extensive business directory. That is why I feel it has value and is a worthwhile link to be added to Wikipedia. Please reconsider adding https://theevergreenexperience.com back to the Conifer Colorado page.

Hi - please see our policy on appropriate external links. Generally, linking to promotional sites is frowned upon. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Your reverting on City Shrouded in Shadow is very disruptive

Please refer to the article's talk page, or the discussion on User_talk:Muffin_of_the_English. Thank you. R koiwai (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no intention to engage further with the edits on that article. I hope the discussion on the talk page is fruitful. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi - just informing you, there's a discussion going on at ANI about this. I mentioned you there because you made one of the reverts, but I just realised that you hadn't been notified properly, so I'm just here to do that. I'm not sure there's much more to be said, just letting you know. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 16:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it. More trouble that it's probably worth, but I'll go check it out. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Harrisburg University of Science and Technology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Facial recognition (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Boet Fighter

Hello ZimZalaBim. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Boet Fighter, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 cannot be applied to software. Also claims review in (potentially) reliable source. Thank you. SoWhy 10:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Ant-Man edit

What about that info was OR or my POV? All of that was true--except maybe a couple of things I needed to fix, but still. Most of that was literally stated in the movie and the article. Mk8mlyb (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Re your edit: first, no other cast listing goes into arbitrary plot details; second, describing Ant-Man's role as the the "lynchpin of the entire plot" and your selective mention of what you think are important plot notes is your point-of-view. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary? Those are important! The other listings have plot details too! As for the second, I was going to fix those. Mk8mlyb (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Please find a outside source that note's how Ant-Man was the "lynchpin of the entire plot", and then feel free to use that language. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I think Ant-Man's article on TV Tropes calls him that, but I don't know if TV Tropes is a reliable source. In many ways, they're a lot like Wikipedia. Would you call Wikipedia a reliable source? Mk8mlyb (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

No, TV Trops is not considered a reliable source. See WP:RSP. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but I tried to fix the edit and people still don't like it. What am I doing wrong? We have to say something there, because Ant-Man is one of the most important characters in Endgame--almost on par with the original six, in fact. Speaking of which, aren't the main characters of Endgame the original six Avengers? Mk8mlyb (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

As I've suggested, you need to find an outside source that indicates the importance of Ant-Man. You can bring it up on the article's talk page to see additional help. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Uh...the movie itself? Ant-Man serves as more of a plot character than a fleshed-out character with his own story arc, which means he helps drive the plot as much, if not more, than the main heroes. But still, who's the main protagonist of Endgame? In fact, who's the main protagonist of the Infinity Saga as a whole? That might be good to know. Mk8mlyb (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Citation to confirm the quote on en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoDaddy

Thanks for your guidance on the [[7]] Not really notable and need a citation to confirm the quote and that it was covered by media or something (TW)

Please note the url where it was published on their website There are many other sites which have published the same, was not if i could mark them here. Looking forward for your advice on this please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technets (talk • contribs) 10:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

We really don't need to repeat their marketing rhetoric in the article. I added a brief mention of the new logo, citing an external source. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the update--Technets (talk) 10:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Mike Broihier article

I have reverted it back to your edit and warned the user concerned that if he doesn't go to the talk page and discuss his changes he runs the risk of a block/ban. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:9183:49A1:90EB:29FD (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. Can you explain what part of the added information you have a problem with and I will remove it during future edits? As far as I can tell I followed the rules by using easily verified, open-source information to fill in education, military history, and some information on politics. I'm of course open to the collaboration process but threatening to ban me seems a little extreme when I am trying to follow the rules.LuChristoph (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)LuChristoph

The core rule you have to follow right now is to discuss. Your edits have been challenged under the rules and a consensus is now required. That is established on the talk page and until we have that consensus adding material to the article could be seen as in bad faith and promotional. Adding it without consensus can be seen as edit warring. You're new - okay - but you were ignoring good advice before I even came in and that's not a good idea. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:9183:49A1:90EB:29FD (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Jim Jordan-Jarrod Uthoff connection in Jordan’s bio

I don’t agree having a notable relative is inappropriate to include, but I started a discussion on Jordan’s talk page if you’d like to weigh in Rikster2 (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

about recent edit

hello sir ..recently i have edit one page namely construction aggregate...

i have have added one link...i dont provide that link for promoting my content....that is not my content....i like that article thats why i have mention that link...please restore it.. thank you sir..have a good day.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssorthiya58 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see our guidelines on appropriate external links. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Your revert

Could you explain your revert please? Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Because this edit was imprecise, borderline inaccurate. How does one measure the "largest" company in the world? The number of employees? Revenues? Profits? Market capitalization? Etc... --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Coast Guard films

Thank you for reverting my inappropriate additions of Category:Films about the United States Coast Guard to various articles. I was trying to expand that category (which I created) using https://www.history.uscg.mil/Frequently-Asked-Questions/ as a guideline, but I realize many of my additions were excessive. Gildir (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

No problem. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Stoker, Funny Games (2007) and Se7en.

They are not horror films.81.101.15.25 (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion, but since the articles have included those tags for a while, you should discuss on their talk pages first. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I just have.81.101.15.25 (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

So then stop being disruptive and wait for the discussion to unfold before removing categories and templates. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

OK. But please tell me what else I have to do?81.101.15.25 (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Wait for consensus that your opinion is shared by other editors. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Reverted unnecessarily

Hello ZimZalaBim, I have made the perfect changes and provided exact information, which was required on Wikipedia. I entered the exact names. But still, you removed my changes. Please check out this link once again and tell me the exact reason. 22:14, 1st September 2020 (UTC)

The names are not confirmed in the sources provided in the article. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hyphens

Please be aware of Wikipedia's Manual of Style for hyphens, which says "Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb (a newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary) ...". In particular, on Wonderbra. Chris the speller ^yack 15:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Noted. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

GIPHY

What have I done? Why am I not constructive? I said I agree wIth all carol said word per word. Have I not the right to agree?--78.193.35.108 (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I undid my edit, as it was in error. Apologies. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

deletion of Pam Bondi material

I did support my additions with citations. You should read the citations before claiming that the statements are unsupported. If you demand that every single statement and every clause have a citation associated with it, so be it. Your own deletions in the past on this article were themselves highly suspect, so it appears to me that it is you who is trying to shape this article to fit a non-neutral point of view.

And I notice that earlier this year you deleted many of the same citations, which I added back to the article. At the time, you claimed that there were too many citations included to back up the statements of fact! Now you're sending me private messages declaring that the statements of fact are not backed up at all by citations and that therefore I am inserting non-neutral point of view. This is just the most obvious talking out of both sides of your mouth. The statements are backed up by news articles. They are neutral. The information is relevant for assessing the credibility of Bondi's claim to be an arbiter of political fraud. It is you who has tried to manipulate this article for your own purposes by selectively deleting material backed by credible citations. If you wish to delete factual material because it is non-neutral, especially material that was accepted on the article for a long time before you went to work deleting it, then you need to persuade others on the article talk page and reach consensus first.

And where do you get off insisting that Bondi's paid work as a lobbyist for Qatar "does not define her professional identity"? That's her current job. That's where she's getting her money from. Why are you trying to defend her from the "charge" that she holds the job she sought? Talk about someone with a POV that he's pushing, that describes your activity on this page to a T.

You seem heavily invested in getting your way in this article. Perhaps let consensus unfold. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

So making ex cathedra pronouncements,and repeatedly deleting other people's edits while offering false rationales or none at all is...what?...dispassionate? A mark of your superiority? Why don't you just leave material in place unless there's a legitimate need to remove it?

David Ray Griffin

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:David Ray Griffin § Description and interests. Thank you. Roy McCoy (talk) 03:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Robin Williams edit

Hello ZimZalaBim (from Murpholo): I am a member of NAMI, and the consensus of mental health advocacy organizations is that suicide is NOT a crime, rather a result of an undertreated medical condition, hence people do NOT "commit" suicide, they "die by" suicide. Please accept my edits - they are certainly NOT vandalism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murpholo (talk • contribs) 00:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm guessing you are referring to this edit that I reverted. While I understand your position, please notice the note embedded in the text where you changed the article: <!-- The Talk page has agreed to use "committed suicide", not "died from suicide" or "died by suicide" or any other form. -->. This phrasing aligns with the consensus reached at that article. You can take it up on it's talk page if you'd like. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Roberta McCain § Wife/widow

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Roberta McCain § Wife/widow. Elizium23 (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Roberta McCain; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Content disputes are not exempt from 3RR as you have seen. Please discuss as I have directed you to the talk page. Elizium23 (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23: um, what? I reverted two of the IP's disruptive edits prior to their eventual block. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

ZimZalaBim, I don't see them as disruptive, I see it as a content dispute. The disruptive bit was the vast number of reverts in an edit-war, not the content of the edits. Until we achieve consensus at the talk page, the content is not settled. Elizium23 (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23: It is just curious that I stumble upon an on-going multi-day edit war with an IP, with other editors reverting the IP multiple times due to lack of census, yet I'm the one you chose to warn after simply trying to prevent the IP from further disruptive insertions. I event noted "build consensus first" in my edit summary at the same time you were inviting me to join the conversation. But whatever. IP is blocked after I reported. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I chose to warn a number of involved editors, and actually held off those warnings in favor of inviting them to the talk page first. So it's nothing personal. But I don't see how you could "prevent the IP from further disruptive insertions" unless you are a blocking admin. In fact, when someone reverts a vandal, they can edit-war that much faster. I actually favor letting off the gas pedal for a while because if vandalism (or whatever) is allowed to stand, it gives time for an investigation and summoning an admin. Elizium23 (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

English grammar

Hi ZimZalaBim, Could you please show me the rule by which free commercial pages are not allowed on Wikipedia? Thanks, --net (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

While Wikipedia doesn't have hard and fast rules, and as other editors on that page noted, I suggest we should avoid listing arbitrary, non-authoritative sites in an article such as this. Feel free to discuss. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

But what is a authoritative website and what is a commercial website? When I open the still linked English Grammar, the first I get is a advertising popup for online English courses that cost at least £79 each month. Why is this allowed, but other websites with much more free quality content are not? It doesn't avoid spam by banning good and related websites. --net (talk) 08:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

No point discussing here, I'm just one editor. Go to the talk page and see if there is consensus. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

And FWIW, the two links currently there are from very notable organizations: University College London and the British Council. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The British Council is a cultural institute and has no special authority in grammar. --net (talk) 05:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, feel free to take it up at Talk:English grammar.--ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Bralettes Became the New Normal

Victoria’s Secret declared that “No Padding Is Sexy Now!” in a campaign touting its line of bralettes.

The bralette trend started with indie brands and percolated up, over the course of many years, to the major lingerie companies, a movement that makes sense when you consider how the garment is made.

Bralettes are easy to construct—they’re easy to pattern, easy to design, easy to make—and underwire bras are such highly technical garments—they require specialized training, they’re very expensive to pattern grade, they require specialized machinery to sew.

Bralettes are an easy access point for a lot of new and young designers either who don’t have the technical background or expertise to make underwires, or who have it and maybe don’t have the time to spend sewing and pattern grading all the sizes that would require.

Let's not include an extended quote from ad campaign and industry commenter. we can mention and cite increased popularity elsewhere.

I will paraphrase the industry commenter quote? What about the ad campaign? What is meant by "cite increased popularity elsewhere"? Please advise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karachi Kings Dr (talk • contribs) 20:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to just copy text from advertisements and there is already mention of the increased popularity. I also included the citation that you cut/paste from. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Undo action on the edits made by me

I am just like you who wants to improve and make Wikipedia more accurate. The changes i make to Wikipedia pages are not for any affliate money or for any search rank increase as you mentioned. I donot own any websites and i see it as more accurate from the previous sources. So pls help me in improving Wikipedia.

Thank you Sopjia James Sophia416james (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi. You replaced numerous valid and longstanding sources at Facebook and replaced them all with links to Mortal Magazine. Even if your intent was not to spam, the edits remain disruptive. I suggest you read some of the policies posted to your talk page. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Editor

Hello. You and several others have warned Zoe1013 numerous times about their disruptive behavior on Wikipedia. They were even blocked from editing for 72 hours previously. They have not learned anything from their block. When do we say enough is enough? -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 06:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I see now that they have been blocked indefinitely :) -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 05:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Recent undoing of edits to Larry Page's Wikipedia page

Hi ZimZalaBim,

I appreciate you attempting to improve the quality of Wikipedia. However, your blanket reversal when undoing my recent changes to Larry Page's page does not strike me as a collaborative effort with helpful feedback. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nealsid (talk • contribs) 22:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your edit: "white" is not a nationality; we don't need to list other co-creators in the opening section (readers can follow links or citations); insertion of "graciously" is original research and puffery; a paragraph was added without a source; "which was interpreted as Larry Page having blossomed into a CEO to lead Google through the next decade" is also original research and puffery; other edits unnecessary/unhelpful. If you want to build consensus on your changes, the Talk page is there. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

ZimZalaBim- Keeper of Wiki's Neutrality Seal

Most Distinguished Editor for Neutrality

It is thought amongst most academics that Wikipedia is illegitimate and biased. I tested this by putting a biased one-sided contribution to Chase Bank. ZimZalaBim quickly found it and omitted it from Wikipedia. ZimZalaBim deserves this award because of this person's great contributions to Wikipedia and to the world for keeping online educational sources unbiased and neutral. (The awarder Pasquotank has eight degrees and has written over 70 books and academic articles). Pasquotank (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The Child (Star Wars) edit

I'm sorry I didn't know that pop culture references or personal opinions were not allowed. I was not trying to vandalize. I am terribly sorry. I was just trying to leave a my mark on a favorite character's wikipedia page. I thought it would be nice. All my wikipedia edits have been removed. I only edited today. I never edit. Sorry

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Tender Rig Edit edit

I would like to understand what is the issue with my contribution to tender rig. I posted some content on another specialized website (PetroWiki) which is most profesional oriented & wanted to share it with a greater audience now since this is public knowledge and can bring value to people interested in the subject since the current definition is too poor and inacurate. I didnt know that there was a copywrite on my content ( Petrowiki put a copywrite on the content i posted) when i share the information to wikipedia. Being informed of the such, i completely re-wrote the tender rig content to still keep it accurate. But for some reasons, you keep rejecting it, saying that i m disrupting wikipedia whereas i just seek to share knowledge with the rest of the world, on a subject i think i have enough expertise to provide an un-biaise view and fair assessement. Please let me know what are the issues instead of deleting my content and accusing me of disruption whereas my attempt is guenuine to share knowledge.

You need to ensure you are not including original research or content from other copyright-protected sources. Content added needs to be supported by reliable sources and avoid any inappropriate external links. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Narrprof Contributions

Dear ZimZalaBim,

I am responding to your message and deletion of numerous contributions of mine. I am a professor and acknowledged authority on narrative and management. My contributions include factual information about topics such as how films can be used in teaching management, which is something I know from years of experience as an instructor. I have no conflict of interest relationship with the movies, individuals, or organizations I write about. I do not receive any compensation of any kind from any of the subjects I write about. I write a blog in which I explore these topics in detail. My blog posts are the references that underlie the factual information I provide, and which the reader can consult if (s)he wishes. Other people have cited my posts as references for their contributions. My posts often come up on Google searches. I am providing valuable information to users of wikipedia and I would ask you to restore my contributions in their entirety.

Sincerely yours,

Narrprof (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Narrprof

Self-published blog posts are generally not acceptable as reliable sources, and pushing your own work does not align well with our conflict of interest policy. If others use your material, and that use is a reliable source then cite them. In general, one's belief in their personal authority isn't itself sufficient. Further, the fact a film has/can be used in a classroom isn't necessarily of encyclopedic value, unless there is a notable example that is verifiable. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear ZimZalaBim,

My blog posts are drafts of material that eventually is published in peer-reviewed journal articles or books. In posting on Wikipedia, my intention is not to go over well-trodden ground, but to add fresh perspectives and topics, such as interpretations of a film, structural analysis (patterns in common with other films or archetypal stories), or ways a film can be used in teaching. For example, my contribution for the 1996 film City Hall discussed the key concept of menschkeit and referenced both my blog and my peer-reviewed book Governing Fables. The argument for referencing the blog is that it's similar to the book and is available to the reader for free (as opposed to the book which is expensive to buy with free access limited to people who have access through university libraries). My recent post about the film The Big Short, which you deleted, was of exactly the same nature. It discussed how the movie can be used in the classroom, by me or by other instructors, and referenced both my blog post about it and my discussion about it in my peer-reviewed book Negotiating Business Narratives.

I will also mention the contribution to the article on Phi Beta Kappa that you deleted. I described a contemporary way to wear a key (rather than on an anachronistic watch fob). I think that is a valid contribution that is of interest to members of the organization. (I see from Google analytics that that post is frequently visited.) Including the essence of the idea on the Wikipedia page and then adding the blog post as a reference gives Wikipedia readers who are interested in the idea more information about how they can do likewise.

Sincerely yours,

Narrprof (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Narrprof

Again, at Wikipedia, we need reliable sources from third parties that would indicate there is some notability about the use of these films in the classroom. Certainly, nearly any topic could be used in a classroom. What makes this worth mentioning in an encyclopedia? Further, your admission that the links you inserted were your blog posts and "drafts of material" doesn't support your case for including them. If you really think these are important additions to the articles, I'd suggest you bring them up on the respective talk pages since you still would have a likely conflict of interest posting links to content you have written. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding the PBK edit, again, summarizing your own opinion and then linking to your own blog as a citation is not proper sourcing. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Subjective Undo Claims of Not "bi[o]graphic importance"

You continue to undo edits that highlight unique stances by United States Representatives to overturn the 2020 Presidential Election that is over historical note. This is a noteworthy fact worthy of historical record. Your reasoning of "this isn't of bi[o]graphic importance" is subjective whereas the edit is fact without conjecture.

Attempts to overturn the 2020 Election Results of 4 "swing" states has a dedicated Wikipedia page "Texas v. Pennsylvania" and is noted on pages of those involved in the lawsuit, just as the edits your are undoing.

References

Please see WP:RECENT, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOTNEWS. Yes, they signed a brief. Yes, it'll probably be rejected by SCOTUS. While it likely is worth menetioning in an article about the overall reaction to the election, it doesnt need a paragraph in each representatives biography. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

You Reverted my edits while i removed non-reliable resources

Hi Zim Zala Bim, You just reverted my edits two times from Nitya Mehra. I am not opposing for first one. For second revert: i removed non-reliable reference. Do you think https://www.bollywoodlife.com/ and in.reuters.com are reliable resources. DFXYME (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Why did everything I did get undone with no explanation?

Hello, I do not understand why my contributions were undone with practically no debate, no explanation, and a false characterization as vandalism. People who search on google are being led to mass psychogenic illness when they are searching for "mass formation psychosis", and while I'm not trying to "spread" this idea, I am trying to undo what appears to be misinformation. I had to fight what seemed to be an experienced editor on the Robert W. Malone page to get this point across. Can you please explain your actions, because I don't understand why we wouldn't want to direct people to the correct term/idea. Deep State Patriot (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss on that talk page. Creating the redirect for "mass formation psychosis" seems to indeed be spreading misinformation, but that's just my opinion. See what others think there. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I am definitely not trying to amplify the idea maliciously--I tried to delete it from Malone's page twice--but the other editor insisted. It's definitely a novel term, but an old idea, and there has to be another term for it (Nazism is covered well on Wikipedia it seems, so nobody here is allergic to the idea, but the way this issue is being treated risks making it a needlessly attractive term a la the "streisand effect", and so I think my original idea about just wiping it from Wikipedia completely was the correct one). Deep State Patriot (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

your message about One Week

Hello. This is a public computer in a hotel. I suspect the person you intended your message for is long gone. Good luck on catching the vandal. (Do you guys actually catch vandals, or just get rid of the vandalism? Nevermind, I guess I won't be around to read your response! Good luck, though!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.145.131 (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Janaury 2022

Don't understand how the edit to Rose's actual title was unconstructive, another person pointed out that it should be in her bio? there is really no reason it shouldn't.--BabyBella99 (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

That other user is YoungExpert (talk · contribs) who was reverted every time and is partially blocked due to behavior in another article. As I noted, discuss on the talk page to try to build consensus for your position. I'll also take this moment to point out our policy against using multiple accounts, as it might be applicable. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia edits

The subjective comments being made regarding articles on the Tosh Lupoi page are false and defamatory and should be removed immediately. I've attempted to do these twice and expect these edits to be taken. The article links can be kept, but the subjective comments are inappropriate and should be removed. Thank you for your help.

571117dtrj (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

As I noted in your warning, take your dispute to the article's talk page and discuss with other editors there to see if they agree with your position. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I hope my edits are acceptable, I think you for your review and feedback. ThomasBi (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Deletion for recent article

Hi, thanks for the update i am definitely doing my best to make sure that I find more credible resources and also removing the blog resource which shouldn't be used (I had to read the policy about that one) but thanks. i am doing my best to make sure this article is fully credible with good references to back them up, just please give me a little time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisw89 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hulk page

Hi, on the Hulk page a user keeps reverting my edits without an explanation. I know you already warned this user before about this but I don't want to edit war about this. The issue is that this user is removing the mention of the Hulk actors from the 70's series because of a personal opinion and not because of facts. Bill Bixby and Lou Ferrigno should be mentioned in the article and this is getting out of hand. I hope you could possibly help deescalate this situation. Horrorcomicnerd (talk) 6:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

amog impostor

y u delete sus 😳? Cosmic Capybara (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

clarification of edits

SpaceX Astronaut corps is formed so need spacex astronauts there. doing in aa simple manner again. Chinakpradhan (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not understanding what you're trying to explain. If SpaceX has an official "astronaut corps", then find a citation from a reliable source that indicates such. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Wordle

Hi ZimZalaBim, I hope your having a great day. I am Haahaaa and you have warned me for Vandalism on the article of Wordle, I do not know about when and what I did, but I checked my edits and found about ¨fart¨, I am really sorry about this mistake, I did not do this myself someone may have used my account. I most likley think you will not believe me but I have no proof, all I wish for now is can you take away the warning? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haahaaa (talk • contribs) 14:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Remote work

Hello ZimZalaBim, the article that i quote isnt's inappropriate for the network. They mention good statistics about the remote works and many other usefull information. I'll revert the changes. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Number1992 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

It is spam and if you continue to add it you risk being blocked for your disruptive edits. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Tomio Okamura

You wrote: "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Tomio Okamura. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Stop removing sourced content that confirms the descriptor used."

No, I removed malicious and libellous content as per Wikipedia guidelines. The "sourced" content DID NOT CONFIRM any of the libellous descriptors as I've already stated clearly when removing it. You are doing vandalism, not me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.164.183.213 (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

You are edit warring. Discuss on talk page. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Online video platform historiography

Dear ZimZalaBim, the page Online video platform describes the first video platform online as being 1997, but my local investigation here in Boston shows that this website was available from 1995: https://web.archive.org/web/19961105134258/http://graphicaudio.com/about.htm provides the same kind of online video service a couple of years before the stated one in the article. The site also invited people to send their media via postal mail VHS tapes and they would be compressed and converted to digital format and then uploaded to the site. Though I'm having a hard time verifying that fact online, so might not be a necessary detail. Since the first of anything can sometimes be contentious, do you have advice on the best course of action to fix the article's history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctormo (talk • contribs) 22:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest bringing it up on the article's talk page and seeing what other editors think. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Source of my contributions

Thanks for contacting me. I am literally the source. I’m a primary source directly from the city Tworiverslocal (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Right, and that's the hiccup. You cannot be the primary source for information in articles. We need to cite reliable sources beyond our own personal opinions or experiences. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Durham University Department of Engineering

Hi ZimZalaBim! I am wondering what the applicable notability guideline for Durham University Department of Engineering is. It seems to me that there is no in depth coverage and that other SNGs do not apply either, but do tell me if I am mistaken to spare me the embarrassment at AFD! Cheers, 192.76.8.92 (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:UNIGUIDE I'd consider the colleges within the 3rd oldest university in England to be inherently notable, and splitting them into separate sub-articles seems reasonable (as there are 12 others with their own article). But also, yes, additional citations to independent coverage would improve the article (as the maintenance tag also suggests improvements). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Bluetooth stack

Hi. I don't understand why you reverted my addition of a new section on the "Bluetooth stack" page. The new entry is entirely consistent with all the other entries on the page, just like, for example, the "Apache Mynewt NimBLE" entry, or the "lwBT" entry, or many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gboccongibod (talk • contribs) 04:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

By and large, most of the items listed there lack established independent notability. Wikipedia is not just a list of projects related to the topic, and also note WP:OTHERSTUFF. Feel free to discuss at that page if you'd like. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Links

List of most-streamed songs on Spotify please, help me add all the Spotify links in the list of most played songs on Spotify apparently those links were removed and I have no doubt that the IPs are behind all that.--Tirso Gutiérrez (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to regarding this. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Revert

Hello, just inviting you to discuss my recent revert of your edit, although I believe I summarized the reasoning clearly in the edit summary. Feel free to comment here or at the article's talk page if you think there's a larger discussion to be had. Thanks, UpdateNerd (talk) 05:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Rollback granted

I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. — TNT (talk • she/her) 21:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll read up on it. Years ago I was an admin but it lapsed and I never sought to get it reinstated. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

That editor

Would you like to report, or should I? And are you thinking ANI or ANEW? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Was just debating the same. Any reasonable attempts to get through to them clearly aren't working... You can go ahead and I'll support. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

New message from Blue Riband

FWIW, there are RSs for the name change. Is there some point for formality where the article name should be changed? (Personally, I don't care but it appears the country wants this.) Blue Riband► 19:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, aware that the UN accepted the name change. Don't think that overcomens WP:COMMONNAME though. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)