User talk:Zarbon/archive1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, hence, its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome

Hello Zarbon/archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 17:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]

Image Tagging Image:40zar.jpg

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:40zar.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or {{fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Bjelleklang - talk 22:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the preview button

When you edit, use the preview button to see the effects. This will help save you from having to make loads of edits to do what could be done with one or two. That, and when other people check the recent edits to a page, they won't have such a large set of edits to compare between.--Drat (Talk) 17:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:Infinare

We don't ban editors on Wikipedia just because they have a different opinion than us. The two of you are engaging in a content dispute; it's not up to me as an admin to decide whether Zarbon's character is "vain" or "handsome". I think the two of you should discuss this, and reach some compromise. Ask other editors who are familiar with this subject to voice their opinion too, I'm sure this would help figure out what the best version is. In any case, don't get into a revert-war going back and forth, since then both of you might get blocked. Owen× ☎ 20:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Bevilaqua.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Bevilaqua.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. --OrphanBot 08:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Sopranos episodes

You seem to be copying and pasting the Sopranos episodes from the HBO site into wikipedia. This is a copyright violation, and is not allowed under Wikipedia's Copyright policy. -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 23:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, don't worry about it! -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 23:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

okay, I'll tag for speedy deletes. -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 23:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

okay thanks, as long as the copyright infringe tags don't stay up because i don't want to get in trouble. - Zarbon

Image Tagging Image:Bugsypic.jpg

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Bugsypic.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Ep29_jackiejr2.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Ep29_jackiejr2.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags.

Image copyright problem with Image:Mattbevil.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Mattbevil.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 13:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Shot21.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Shot21.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 09:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Woodsmikey.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Woodsmikey.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 08:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double-vote

Please do not use a non-logged in account (User:72.227.132.62) and pretend to be someone else to post comments and make changes stating that you "agree" with your logged-in account. I personally find it fraudulent. Beowulph 02:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr warning.

Please read up on WP:3RR. William M. Connolley 20:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Your persistant reversions has forced me to block this account for 24 hours. Oberiko 18:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet reverts

Zarbon, do not revert pages using your sock-puppets. I have banned your User:72.227.132.62 puppet and will ban your main account again if you persist. Oberiko 15:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have banned your account for 48 hours for continued sock-puppet violations of the 3RR. Do not do this again. Oberiko 23:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freeza Family Tree

Hi. About your activity around Freeza Family Tree. You don't own an article in Wikipedia when you create it, so please don't try to dictate the way it will develop. Also, please be civil and assume good faith when dealing with other editors.--Commander Keane 20:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah i understand that. its just that i've been commanded around so much. i just want to have a page where others won't dictate things. i know about all the rules and i read up on it all. Can you please help me be an admin too. I want to be able to write things without worrying about getting banned. if you can help me, please do so, i promise to be a benefit to the wiki cause. i don't know how to request adminship, i tried but wasn't able to.

I'd strongly suggest holding off on trying to run for admin at this time. You seem to need a bit more experience editing, as well as interacting with other users. You should also attempt to familiarize yourself with policies and guidelines first. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 03:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

regardless, i do try my best. but there are members who just keep reverting to falsified information just for the heck of it. i can't stop them, especially when they themselves are admins. i'm not saying that all admins are bad, its just that there are a few who purposely revert and respond incessantly and jokingly as well as banning good members. I can't actually help the pages unless i am an admin myself.

You can run, just follow the directions at WP:RFA. Please also sign your talk page replies, for that and many other help info see:

Welcome Zarbon/archive1!

Hello, Zarbon/archive1, I'm xaosflux and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date, and use edit summaries whenever you change a page. If you have any questions, need help or assistance, check out Wikipedia:Ask a question or contact me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Enjoy Wikipedia!!

xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 03:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi, thanks again. i tried to do that. i went to nominate self and wrote in my user name. Not sure what else to do. - Zarbon

Fair use images

I have also posted this at Freeza Family Tree.

For an image to have a fair use licence you need to state on the image description page the reasons why you are claiming that it is fair use. See Wikipedia:Fair use. Since many/most/all of the images on this page don't explain the fair use claim they may be deleted. Unless someone indicates that they will work on the fair use problems with the images, I will remove them from this article soon - we are breaking the law by having them in this article.--Commander Keane 20:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archive talk page

I encourage you try archiving your talk page versus deleting it. The history of those conversations still exists in the histories of your talk page, so blanking it isn't erasing all of your past. --Zsinj^Talk 03:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, i don't know how to archive it...so can you help me out. it's just getting long so i wanted to shorten it is all. help me out.

Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page may be of interest.--Commander Keane 06:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert war warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

No site on Wikipedia is one's own private repository of information. Articles will and should be expected to be edited mercilessly by other users. It's suggested you rethink submitting anything if you believe otherwise. Papacha 08:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refrain from posting those links

They can get you in serious trouble, whether you know the legality of them or not. Be more careful of this rule in the future. Papacha 04:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Jessicadarlin.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Jessicadarlin.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Jessicadarlin2.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Jessicadarlin2.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 04:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Pummelo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pummelo.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 06:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[[Image:Powerrangers7.jpg]]

I noticed you uploaded the image Image:Powerrangers7.jpg with the tag that it was public domain. I believe this may have been in error, since the power ranger's material is likely to entirely be under copyright. Is there a source for the image which could be added? Thanks, --Hansnesse 20:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no, i just put the pics together to make the pic. i didn't get it from a site. - Zarbon

Ah, I see. In general, derivative works (things remade from a source) are still considered to be under copyright (at least that is my understanding of the law). Is there a source for the images you used? Thanks, --Hansnesse 20:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ah yes. i got it from rangercentral, but the site is temporarily down. its from the character bios.

Cool, great work on the image,by the way. I'll add the {{PUIdisputed}} tag to the article, and start a discussion on the talk page about it. I'm not sure what tag, if any, should be used for this. Hopefully someone with more information can sort it out. Thanks, --Hansnesse 20:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Snowmon.JPG

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Snowmon.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Tempshill 20:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About image uploading

Please stop uploading images to Wikipedia that you find around the web. Everything you see on the Web is copyrighted and it's a violation of Wikipedia policies to upload them here, with certain narrow exceptions for Wikipedia:Fair use. Thanks - Tempshill 20:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Anik2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Anik2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 08:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting Henchmen

Please stop reverting the Henchmen article without giving cause as to why you are deleting other people's examples. If you disagree, say so on the talk page. Continually deleting examples that do not pertain to Ninja Turtles or DragonballZ is ridiculous. Sir Isaac Lime 13:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Shank.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Shank.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Jkelly 02:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Dram2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dram2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 17:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshots uploaded (images)

Please add the sources: names of movies, tv programmes that the screenshots are from. Please do it soon or i will have to tag them again. Thanks. feydey 02:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

which screenshots are you talking about? Let me know and I will do my best to fix the problem so you don't have to tag them. - Zarbon

Image:Shank44.jpg

The identical image to this one was removed for lack of sourcing information; when you replaced it after deletion, the new image still lacks sourcing. I have amended the image with its lack of source; but all you need to provide is the original sourcing of the image and remove the {{no source}} for it to be w/in Wikipedia:Images guidelines. If you have any questions, let me know! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Crowley

The Wikipedia:Naming conventions page is clear on how fictional characters need to be distinguished from their real-life counterparts. The show is put in parenthesis following the character name to disambiguate him. Rank is never specified in a title; not for General Colin Powell, not for President George Bush, not for Queen Elizabeth II, and not for Detective Terry Crowley. Kafziel 18:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found another resolution. - Zarbon

The issue is not the matter of miscategorization, but of proper placement of the page. Kafziel is correct in the naming conventions being what they are. Please read them as they are well-applicable to this issue. I've re-moved (yet again) the page back to Terry Crowley (The Shield). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your "resolution" was to move it back to "Detective Terry Crowley" again? Why do you keep doing that? Kafziel 20:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My resolution was NOT that. I tried to move the player to Terry Crowley (Player) and make the character just plain "Terry Crowley" but i got a weird message saying move failed. - Zarbon

Real people take precedence over fictional characters. The baseball player should stay where he is, because he's a real-life famous person. Fictional characters (or less-famous real-life people) that share a name are the ones that get the () in the title. Everything works fine the way it is now. Kafziel 23:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the real life people remain that way? Personally, I feel that the character of Terry Crowley was a more major notable person than the player anyday. - Zarbon

First of all, that's just the way it is. Second of all, Terry Crowley was in one episode and then a couple of flashbacks. He's barely notable enough for his own article as it is, let alone to be considered the Terry Crowley. I thought it would be better just to try to improve it so maybe it won't get merged back into the main article and deleted, but there's no way he wins out over a major league baseball coach, that's for sure. Kafziel 23:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User page pics

By the way, Kilo-Lima is right in taking those pictures off of your user page. It doesn't matter who uploaded them, it matters who owns them. Unless you own the production company that makes that cartoon, the photos are not free for your use (even if it was you who uploaded them). They may be Fair Use, but fair use means that they can be used a limited amount of times and only in articles dealing with that specific material (not user pages). The way you are using them is not fair use. Kafziel 23:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding those images to user pages

You have been warned by at least four people that using those images on a User page violates copyright law and Wikipedia policy. See WP:FAIR, "fair use images... should never be used... on user pages." It doesn't matter that you uploaded them; you are not the copyright holder and you are breaking the rules and can expect to be blocked again if you continue to do so after being repeatedly warned. 4.253.46.129 02:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will upload a photo EXCLUSIVE for my page so that it DOES NOT show up on other wiki pages. - Zarbon

Doesn't matter. If the picture is copyrighted (which every screenshoot or still frame of a cartoon is) then you have to have a good reason to upload it, and you can't put it on your user page. Kafziel 05:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Negative. Per Wikipedia policy: "Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace.". You have uploaded Image:Zarbonz.JPG as qualifying under a Fair Use argument; (setting aside that doesn't qualify as such for the purposes of your user page) as such, the policy is quite clear on that. Simply put, the only images which would qualify for use on your user page are ones under a non-copyrighted/free-use license. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Zarbon.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Zarbon.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 11:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning

Please do not remove maintenance notices from articles unless the required changes have been made to the article. If you are uncertain whether the article requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the article's talk page before removing the notice from the article. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. Thank you. Kafziel 18:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second vandalism warning

Third vandalism warning

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Armadillo Quintero, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Final warning

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to List of characters from The Shield, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Kafziel 00:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I heard you already the first time. Stop biquering with me. I won't edit it anymore. Also, I will be going to the discussion page and voice myself there. - Zarbon

The problem here is that you don't listen to anyone. Removing the tags is vandalism, and it's too bad if you think the pages look bad with them. That's what all those warnings were about. But you just don't get it. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.

Speaking of talking to a brick wall, how many times have you been warned about taking that picture off of your user page? Others have removed it, numerous people have posted messages to you about it, and it has even been deleted. But you keep uploading it and putting it back on. The reasons for not having it has been explained plenty of times, and there is nothing you can say or do that will make it okay. You need to take it off - now - or you will be blocked for that and you can forget all about the discussion on The Shield pages. Kafziel 13:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, the photo's been there for ages now, and just because you say it, does not mean I have to remove it. It's my user page, it's not any of anyone's business. Why don't you just tend to look at the matter at hand, instead of trying to find ways of having me banned. or is that all you want to do, get me banned? - Zarbon

I want you to start listening to what people are saying to you about your behavior and your practices. This is not your little playground. The issue with The Shield and the issue of the picture go hand in hand. And the photo hasn't been there for "ages"; you haven't even been here for "ages". And since day one, people have been warning you about image copyrights.

I have no need to get you banned; you've lost the vote on The Shield anyway. Kafziel 13:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How did I lose the vote? It was just two people...? Also, did you even do as I told you? Did you bother to check out the Oz characters, Sopranos characters, and the Dragonball Z characters? You should, because you'd see how people prefer all the categorizations there. Why don't you check that out and then get back to me with your opinion. - Zarbon

As I've already noted on the article talk page, it's five people; four to one. And once again, you're not listening. I don't care how they do it on those pages - they are wrong. Did you do as I told you, and read the policy? Of course not. Kafziel 13:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand very well what you're saying. but how can you not care how things are done on very similar pages. it's still wikipedia. and what happens when I add 100 more shield characters....the one page will become heavily fluttered. - Zarbon

Well, part of keeping clutter down is being able to trim unnecessary details from descriptions (like the 40 MPH thing, for instance). The difficulty you're having is that you are unable to leave anything out, because you think it's "awesome" or "extremely important", when really it's neither. This is an encyclopedia; it's not The Shield Fan Club, and it's not intended to include every detail of every minor character in every show in history. Once again, this is also related to the photos on your user page. You think that cartoon guy is the greatest thing ever, so you abandon all reason, disregard all of the rules, and ignore all of the warnings, just so you can have a picture of him on your page. You don't care what the policy is (or the law, in that case). That doesn't work here.

The three articles in question are stubs. There's really very little chance of them ever being more than stubs, so the policy says to merge them into a character list. I'm right, and consensus is with me, so I don't care what any of the other pages are doing - but if you really want me to go look at them, I'll start slapping merge tags on those, too. Kafziel 15:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

understood. but what about antwon mitchell. in that case, he should be merged also. he's only in seasons 4 and some of 5. he's not a major character either from your standpoint. don't say he is, because appearance wise, he's only as important as margos and terry. - Zarbon

You can put a merge tag on his article, too, if you want to. He has more screen time than all three of those other guys put together, though, and he's also a famous actor in his own right, so it's fine with me if he keeps his article. Others seem to think he deserves his own article, too. Whatever the group decides is okay with me, and whatever the group decides about the other articles needs to be okay with you. Kafziel 18:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sopranos

Hey Zarbon, its great that you keep updating The Sopranos episode page with images but in the future can you be sure to label them "Sopranos ep6xx.jpg" instead of what it is now "Epxx xx.jpg" just to be more manageable and organized. Keep up the good work! Sfufan2005 02:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh sure. no prob. i will keep that in mind. - Zarbon

Final warning

You've already had several warnings about removing maintenance tags from articles. I thought we had come to an understanding. That doesn't mean it's okay to use an anonymous sockpuppet to remove them.

You're writing articles that don't conform to Wikipedia's standards, using sockpuppets to remove tags and vote on AfD pages, uploading copyrighted material without sources, and now you're breaching WP:CIVIL by using inflammatory language in edit summaries. This is your final warning. Please don't ignore it. Kafziel 15:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You promised me you WOULD NOT go into the other sections and tag them. You don't seem to understand. BRENDAN FILONE is what i live for. If there's a tag on him, i am suicidal. Anything else, but for that one character, I perfected it. There's NOTHING wrong with his info. Please discuss it. Tagging it is quite useless. - Zarbon

Tagging it is not useless; tagging it is Wikipedia policy. I have already listed some of the problems on the talk page (though probably not all of the problems, as I am not the editor who originally tagged the article).

The simple fact that you "live for" a minor character from a TV show several years ago might be a hint that you do not have the objectivity required to write a proper article on him. Kafziel 15:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT?!?!!?! The fact that I live for him should consolidate and DETERMINE the fact that I can write something solid on him. It's the backbone. And please, state the problem so the tag can be removed, it makes my most favorite guy in all history look bad. - Zarbon

It's not history. It's an old TV show. And the fact that you live for him (whatever the hell that means) shows that you can't write an article about him without using inappropriate tone, which is quite obviously the case with everything you touch on Wikipedia. Kafziel 15:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's history for me. But please already, just specify the problem, have it fixed or something. I just don't want to see the tag. It's demeaning and gives off a negative vibe. - Zarbon

The problem has already been specified on the talk page. Kafziel 15:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images on user pages.

I just wanted to give you the heads up that no image that is marked as "fair use" can be used on User or User Talk pages. I removed one such image on your user page. I'd happily explain the reasoning behind this, if it's necessary, but it is a legal requirement on wikipedia. Thanks. Hpuppet - «Talk» 16:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i've been through this about a hundred times, minimum. Do you know of ANY way in which I can keep that image on my page? - Zarbon

Buy the rights to the company that makes the cartoons. That's it. Kafziel 16:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered drawing (not tracing!) it yourself, and then uploading the drawing? Hpuppet - «Talk» 16:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that's not a bad idea. - Zarbon

As long as the drawing is not a copy of a copyrighted work, it will be fine. Hpuppet - «Talk» 16:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even that is sketchy; a lot of copyrights for animation include likenesses of the characters, even if homemade. You (Zarbon) would need to check the copyright information and post it with the image(s). Kafziel 16:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

check the one i'm putting up now. i made the image using my own software. - Zarbon

Your two most recent uploads are blatent copyvios. Taking a lot of copyrighten characters and putting them on one panel retains all of the initial copyrights. I recomend you get out a set of pencils and start drawing. Hpuppet - «Talk» 16:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another Idea that might pass muster: Buy a poster of Zarbon or whatever, and hang it on your wall. Then take a picture of yourself with the poster in the background. If "you" are the main emphasis in the picture, with Zarbon in the background "covering your back", then that might make an artistic point that might serve several purposes; without violating the copyright rights of the creators of Zarbon. --T-dot 16:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what about a rendering or a 3d work, something i'd make of him using software. does it HAVE to look unprofessional...because I want the rendered image to look appealing. If I personally make the image from scratch in a 3d rendering, would that still be against the rules? check it now, if this isn't good, then i will draw it. - Zarbon

You can theoretically make your own "fan art" artistic interpretation of Zarbon or whatever, perhaps incorporating your own new ideas as to how he "might" or "should" or "could" look. You can then use the copyright tag associated with YOU being the "creator" of the image, and giving the Wikipedia your explicit permission to use it. The copyright restrictions are against "stealing" or "plagiarizing" other people's artistic work, and posting it on your User page as if it were your own, without permission from the artist. Posting "authentic" Zarbon artwork on your User page is expressly prohibited. It is allowed on a relevant and topical wiki-encyclopedia page only in a limited sense. By the way I don't have a position on Zarbon or your specific User page, I came in to investigate what the the problem is - as there is a considerable effort before the Administrators to have you blocked and banned. No offense, but some of the arguments here over your edits and image uploads look more like a cat fight between some raging young teenagers, not at all like a 21-year old adult (as previously stated in older versions of your User page) and other adults. Anyway I'm just here to try to help. --T-dot 17:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I applaud your vigilance. I'm still trying to understand exactly what your message was though. Thanks for the input regardless. Isn't a created/rendered image from scratch a work of my own, even if its the portrayal of a previously existing character? - Zarbon

I think so - if it was truly "your creation" that came from nothing but your artistic creativity, and your impressions of the subject and its appearance, and is not an attempt to "associate yourself" with or "profit" from someone else's work, it should be considered "fan art" and "yours", and free to distribute. On the other hand, if you "started off" with a previously copyrighted image or images, and simply processed it using image processing software like Paint Shop Pro or whatever, to stretch, distort, combine elements, delete parts, or reshape the image, or alter the colors, or to "funk it up" just enough to disguise it's true origins, then that too could be considered a copyright violation (although it is a much weaker argument than that for an image that was simply copied and pasted from a copyrighted web site). You also need to be very careful with using trademarked logo typeset styles. I do not know much about Zarbon or DragonballZ or whatever - but if the image includes trademarked text styles, then that too could be considered unauthorized use of a trademark. I just hope all this "mentoring" helps got you going on the right path. --T-dot 18:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks a lot, you are quite adequately refined in explaining the argumentations of these processes. May I inquire your help in another field? Many people have told me to synchronize my history into some sort of batch...to create more space on the discussion page. I simply deleted all the stuff previously, but I was told it would be better to save it under the history...? I don't know how to combine it, etc. and store it, so maybe you can be of some assistance and aid me in combining this old history on this page and having a clean page without deleting it. Much thanks. - Zarbon

Certainly - I think they meant for you to "archive" the old material, so it is still accessible to you and others with a few clicks, but hidden from your current "user page" or "talk page". You can always select some material for archiving, and leave the rest visible. See how to do this in: Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Just don't archive your recent warnings and tags and things - that would be considered an act of undisciplined defiance of the wiki-policies and guidelines that you were called out for. When "enough time" (perhaps a month or so) has passed for you in "wiki-purgatory", in repentance as it were for your past "sins" (including the inadvertent ones), and you have not been ticketed again for the same "crimes", then perhaps you can begin delete or archive the warnings, unless the editors or administrators that placed the warnings go ahead and delete them themselves. You can always contact the administrator or editor who applied the warning to respectfully request removal of it, provided you have learned the lessons.

One more thing - I would not recommend you try to get an "administrative" appointment anytime soon. Most admins must to show months and months of faithfulness to the cause, with extremely high quality editing work, and impeccable kindness to others, and great demonstrated knowledge of and respect for the rules and guidelines, in order to qualify and get enough votes from their peers and other admins. It appeared in your earlier effort for an admin-ship was that you were hoping to become an administrator in order to "gain firepower" in your wars with other editors and administrators. That kind of motivation and apparent power-lust is not going to help you much. It also appears that you used "sockpuppets" to try to deceive the system and other users, in order to get your way in reversion wars and other arguments. That won't help your cause either. The purpose of the wiki-administrators is to help new and wayward wiki-editors with rules and guidelines, and to protect the integrity of the Wikipedia, and to gently discipline those who violate the rules; not to try to get enough power to selfishly bypass the rules and guidelines, or to dodge discipline, or to carry out vengence attacks on other editors and admins who may disagree with your point of view. Not saying you did any of this, just trying to illustrate the point. Peace, and good luck. --T-dot 19:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User page image

Your new user page image is still a copyright violation. Kafziel 14:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Filone.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Filone.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 19:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Brendan Filone, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Kafziel 14:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you can seriously go to hell at this point. you are intentionally following all my activity and trying to get me banned. - Zarbon

You have been blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia for a period of 1 week. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. --Nlu (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complete sockpuppet / alternate IP list

For reference, I compiled a list of sockpuppet/anonymous IPs that Zarbon has edited under while not logged in. All the contributions from these IPs seem to belong to Zarbon, and so anyone wanting to examine Zarbon's full history should incorporate the talk pages and contribs for these. It's a bit unclear whether to call these sockpuppets or not, because he does actually sign talk page comments with "Zarbon" while using these, but he also uses them to attempt to bypass 3RR and to cast fake votes (such as in AfD). 4.89.242.24 16:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have set up the category and replaced appropriate tags. Thanks. Kafziel 18:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The tag should be mirrorered here since I'm sure it'll be removed from his user page when his block expires. I hope he'll play nicely from now on but the information should be available in case anyone needs it in the future.4.89.240.43 13:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is still posting under sock puppets and posting this ID with his messages. He has only been banned for three days, so he is not accepting his punishment. At some point, can't you ban him forever for refusing to follow the rules? Wesleymullins

Yes, but I'm hoping it doesn't come to that. Kafziel 17:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A note to Zarbon

I know saying "don't take it personally" is much easier said than done, but I assure you that I didn't want it to come to this. I hope that you will take advantage of your time off and read some of these policies, so that when you return you will be prepared to cooperate with other editors for the good of the project. A few policies to read:

Wikipedia:Assume good faith - Don't jump to conclusions and assume others are out to get you
Wikipedia:Civility - Staying calm during disagreements and not resorting to personal attacks
Wikipedia:Consensus - Reaching a consensus in a dispute and accepting community decisions
Wikipedia:Notability - Guidelines for articles about fictional characters
Wikipedia:Copyrights - Policy on uploading copyrighted images and "fair use" licensing
Wikipedia:Vandalism - Policy stating that removing maintenance tags from articles or warnings from talk pages is considered vandalism
Wikipedia:Three-revert rule - Policy on reverting changes to articles

These policies should give you some insight into why you've run into so many problems here, and how you can avoid more problems in the future. I hope you will continue editing here in a more responsible and cooperative way. Kafziel 18:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zarbon/The Sopranos

Zarbon, you have to understand: you have really drilled yourself into a bee's nest particularly with Kafziel and Wesleymullins. Even if I did try to get the article back for you, its kind of impossible since your in the minority and it has already been merged and would be considered vandalism which is definitely wrong. What you need to do if you want to contribute for Brendan is to expand the Brendan Filone subarticle on The Sopranos characters page. Then if the subarticle is lengthy it then receives its own article. But you have to make sure that everything about the subarticle is precise, concise and well written. To be honest though this rarely occurs since if it has already been an article and is being merged back, its not likely to reverse, sorry. Otherwise, other Sopranos editors are going to continue to treat you as a vandal and troll. I suggest that you create a site dedicated to Brendan since he is your favorite character and go from there. You have to remember that not everyone thinks the same here and that not everyone is going to agree with you but continuing to revert edits and create edit wars is not going to lead you anywhere. So when your block is up, I would make a fresh start but remember that fancruft is not tolerated on Wikipedia. Sorry if I was of no help or hope. Sfufan2005 20:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sfufan, i will make a lengthy profile for brendan on the characters page without fancruft, but i will really need your help afterwards. i will need you to give him back his own page because i can't do it since these 2 others are particularly and purposely trying to get me for reasons which i seriously don't understand. they are following my edits and purposely reverting them, nonsensically. since you are a fair wiki member and someone i consider a friend, i am hoping that after i write the profile for brendan, you will help me by returning him his page in the secondary area next to matt and sean. thanks again. - Zarbon

It's not a matter of length, it's a matter of notability. Writing 10,000 words about him isn't going to make his role in The Sopranos any bigger. He doesn't deserve his own article, and something like ten people have already told you that. He's not going to get his own article; using sockpuppets to vandalize pages after you've been blocked and making personal attacks on other editors isn't going to get you anywhere.

What I've been doing is perfectly fair; you have vandalized countless pages countless times, and I'm here to make sure it ends. I'm online all day, every day, and yes - I'm keeping tabs on you. So sit out your week (which will be restarted as of today), behave, and maybe you'll be allowed to edit Sopranos articles in the future. Kafziel 22:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zarbon -- you know you're not allowed to be editing Wikipedia articles right now, right? A block means you aren't allowed to edit with any account or any IP, and your continued circumvention using different IPs is just going to get your ban reset to a full week or even extended longer. You have the potential to be a useful contributor, but please take a break, calm down, and sit out your block. Until you do that, every edit you make is likely to be interpreted as vandalism, and you'll be wasting your time since you'll probably just get reverted. You're unlikely to get unblocked if you continue like this. 4.89.242.158 23:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Five people disagreed with you, Zarbon. The only person who you claim is on your side is at best on the fence. Sfufan also said "I do not believe that Brendan, Dino, Anthony, Sean or Matt are secondary characers: THEY ARE TERITARY. They played important roles in 1 to 3 episodes but do not deserve individual articles." You seem to be forgetting those comments by your only "supporter". Everyone else disagrees with you strongly. If you can't recognize and respect the majority decision, I fear your experience on this site will be gloomy. Wesleymullins

you people need to leave me alone, literally. on another note, it doesn't matter what you think, sfufan will hopefully back me up. the important thing is that Brendan was chosen to receive his own card in the set and others from seaosn one were not. for all intensive purposes, the people who did get their own character card are secondary characters, not tertiary. - Zarbon

I dont know who is/isn't featured on your set of cards, but if I understand you correctly, the set is only for Season One characters. I would guess that your position is that other characters from Season One who are listed as main or secondary characters didn't recieve a card, while Brendan did, and thus he is more important. That's a solid argument, but flawed. I agree with you that Brendan is an important character for Season One, but the series didn't end there. I am going to bet that Adriana or Artie were among those who did not receive a card. If the set is only for Season One, they should not have been included because it's true they were not as important as Brendan. For the series as a whole (which is what we are talking about here), their value goes up and his goes down. If you ranked characters each season on a scale of 1-5, with people like Tony being a 5 and people like JR's driver Merf being a 1, here would be some values for the series.

Tony - 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 = 30
Adriana - 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 4 + 1 = 15
Artie - 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 12
Brendan - 3 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 3 Wesleymullins

All of your edits will continue to be reverted as long as you continue attempting to edit Wikipedia while banned. You'll note that an admin reset your ban to one full week because of your attempts to circumvent it. The only way you will be allowed to edit Wikipedia again is if you accept and serve your one-week ban, which is currently set to run until April 18th, but will be continually reset to one full week as long as you continue editing while banned. Also, as a minor point of order, there's no such thing as "for all intensive purposes"; I believe you meant "all intents and purposes". 4.253.41.8 19:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Filone2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Filone2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me?

A week off, and this is what you do when you get back? Kafziel 04:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i have been banned 4 times already. stop quibbling with me. I am tired of this. The two characters will get their own pages because they are extremely important in their respective seasons, you cannot just keep reverting just for your own agenda. - Zarbon

So the fact that you've been blocked before means now you can do whatever you want? Wrong. Kafziel 16:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I ran across Kafziel's report on AIAV. Please please do not list legitimate consensus edits as "vandalism". It isn't vandalism. Now readding content despite consensus can be considered vandalism and that's what you are doing. Looking at the list of characters from the Sopranos article, I see a strong consensus to merge the characters into the main article. I'm sorry you don't agree with that, but we work on a consensus basis here. I'd suggest following the consensus or else eventually, you are going to be blocked again. Thank you. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 17:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zarbon, I suggest you pay attention to this warning from the administrator above. Accusing me of vandalism by writing "rvv" in your edit summaries can actually be considered vandalism on your part. You're not fooling anyone. (Especially since you don't even have a firm grasp on the lingo; "rvv vandalism" is redundant, and I see you wrote "rw" on your first attempt.) As he said, it's accurate for me to label your edits as vandalism because they go against established consensus. Labelling my edits as vandalism just amounts to personal attacks. Just stop, or you'll find yourself blocked again very soon. Kafziel 23:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i'm sure you want that since all you've been doing is trying to get me blocked. you've made it your mission. i didn't ask you to come and terrorize the sopranos page. i simply asked you to look at it as an example, not perform the same type of guideline consensus you placed in the shield pages by completely destroying my favorite characters there and merging them all and obliterating their image. Please just leave me alone and leave Brendan alone. that's all i ask. - Zarbon

You need to stop thinking I'm the only one who disagrees with you. Many other editors (including administrators) have told you that your behavior is unacceptable and that the content you want to include ranges from inappropriate to embarrassingly childish. If you followed consensus, obeyed the rules, and treated other editors with respect, I wouldn't have the right (or the desire) to have you blocked. As it is, I do have that right. I hope that you will take advantage of this next block to read the pages I recommended to you last time, before you are banned forever. Kafziel 23:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please, all i ask is that you leave my top favorite guy alone. is that SO much to ask. seriously, at this point, it is only you. the other person who was in support doesn't even care much. he just wanted to say all that stuff because he was caught in another room causing slurs, and if you want proof look at the episode 3 talk page. it's just you at this point who is causing the problem for me. - Zarbon

Well, I'm not the one who just reverted all of your changes. And I'm not the one who blocked you all those times. Just because your behavior has driven some of the other editors away doesn't mean you'll bully me into backing down. Consensus was reached, absolutely no one agrees with you, and going against it constitutes vandalism. That's all there is to it. Kafziel 00:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you stop it already. Brendan is a NOBODY!! He doesn't deserve his own page. Whining like a baby isn't going to change that. --M vopni 00:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zarbon obviously doesn't want to play by the rules here, did not learn anything from being banned and refuses to accept the census opinion. I quote Carlo when I say "he's gotta go." Wesleymullins

let me just say that you are extremely rude and obnoxious mr. wesley mullins. oh, and vito is a "nobody" as well from your perspective M vopni. He just got developed as a character in episode 71 after appearing all this time and doing practically nothing. Brendan to me is God. - Zarbon

Yeah, we've noticed. But if you choose to get fanatical about insignificant characters (just like Margos Dezerian or, arguably, Zarbon from Dragonball Z) then you should be prepared to face the fact that people disagree with you. It seems pretty obvious to me that you choose to like these particular people because nobody else does, so you feel it somehow makes you unique. I suppose Izzy is your favorite character from Thief? That's fine. But then you shouldn't expect everyone else to fall over each other in a frantic rush to agree with you. You wanted to be different, and now you are. Unfortunately for you, on Wikipedia we go by consensus. If you can't handle the decisions made by the group, then you should (as has been suggested before) make your own website dedicated to your love for those characters. What you should not do is attempt to disrupt Wikipedia for your own purposes. You will not win.

Kafziel 18:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again you seem to be the only one who believes what you say. Vito, being a Capo and on the show frequently, isn't a nobody and his character has been devoloped over the seasons. And your last statement shows how delusional you are. --M vopni 17:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But why are you out against me. There's hundreds of troublemaking scum out there. Why are you constantly hounding me. Leave me alone. Seriously, go preach that nonsensical stuff to someone else. i love the guys I love because they all share something very important in common. They all get killed in a very excellent and memorable fashion. Those who get whacked are automatically better than those who linger. Booya. - Zarbon

Actually, I've been working on counter-vandalism for quite a while now, and you are the worst vandal and troublemaker I have ever encountered on Wikipedia. I've never seen anyone treat the rules of Wikipedia and the consensus of the community with such disrespect, and there is absolutely nobody out there I can think of who deserves more of my attention. Congratulations - you're it. Kafziel 05:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how they get killed, that might make up 5% of the basis for someone being a main character. Don't you get it! It depends on how long they've been on the show, how important they are in the storyline etc. And while were on the topic of deathsm Brendan's isn't close to being the best of the series, maybe top 5 at best. --M vopni 17:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i seriously hate wiseass responses. i tend to try to be a nice guy, but you just don't have any compassion for people whatsoever. I fixed the page up by putting all the rest of the secondary people under the same lining but you reverted it with your idiocy again. I am not blocked. For crying out loud, the block ended. - Zarbon

Um, no, that block ran out and then you were blocked again. Why do you think you can't edit articles under your real user name? You're blocked until the 26th, but it's going to be reset because you are using sockpuppet IP addresses to get around it. Keep it up. Kafziel 17:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a way to ban him forever. He clearly isn't going to follow the rules and is just being an asshole now. --M vopni 17:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the 26th? again?! seriously...fine i'll wait AGAIN! for like the tenth time in a row. but once i am unblocked, i will be fixing the page, because people who appeared in 2-4 episodes are listed as secondary characters. Kafziel, if you go back to see my edit, you will notice that i did NOT revert to the previous ones, but that I actually fixed it more to your liking, putting all 2-3 episode ppl in tertiary. in any case, i will wait for the block to end this time before i help the cause. and no, m vopni, i am not being an asshole. - Zarbon

I really don't know how much clearer I can make this. If, after your block, you "fix" the page to your liking, you will blocked AGAIN. That is why you're being blocked in the first place. Consensus has been reached on how the article should be set up, and it simply doesn't matter what you think.

As for your recent edits that I reverted, I don't care what they were. You're blocked, so you don't get to have any input on any article whatsoever. You can post messages to your own talk page, and that is all. Kafziel 04:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally can agree with a lot of what Zarbon says about Brendan. I think he is a fascinating character and believe his death could be the show's pinnacle moment. The scene reaches back to The Godfather, marrying a beautiful moment from Tony's domestic life with the brutal consequences of his profession. Brendan is not only memorable in the manner of his death; he also has some very good scenes and creates an everlasting impression with viewers. But, the six seasons of The Sopranos are full of great, memorable characters. The very impressive list of main and secondary characters found on this site (great work guys) is staggering in its size. The only way Brendan could be justified in inclusion in the list of Secondary characters would be if he brought 20-30 other bit characters with him. By doing that, we have totally lost the meanings of "secondary" and "tertiary". I suppose it's a testimony to the show's greatness that so many minor characters have made large impressions on the show. Some of my personal favorites from the tertiary lists are Irina, Georgie and Eddie Pietro. If I was building a personal site for the show, I would be inclined to promote them. But wikipedia is not such a site. It's essential that everyone here learn the difference between personal preference and unbiased importance. Wesleymullins 15:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, i understand what you're saying and i'm very glad that you recognize what i originally said. I'm also glad you like brendan as well and realize the excellence of portrayal in the same manner of sequence as the godfather. I would simply like to say that the I made the tertiary characters section. There was none there. I was the one who first put in the word tertiary. I didn't mean to do it if I knew that others would come and try to include my top three favorites from the show in there, because they played major roles in their respective seasons. I feel idiotic for adding a "tertiary" section and I wish i hadn't done that. But since I already did, the likes of Jackie Aprile Sr., Jackie Aprile Jr., Matthew Bevilaqua, Mikey Palmice, and David Scatino should be added to the section as well. Here's the amount of episodes they were in:

Mikey: 8 Matt: 5 Jackie Jr: 9 Jackie Sr: 3 David Scatino: 3

See, these guys would qualify as tertiary as well if you know what i mean. Lets not use their personal life and the actor's experiences (lillo brancato) as a reason to decide who is tertiary and who isn't. Honestly, there is no such thing as tertiary, but since i added it, i am suffering because of it. At least, the people i listed above have got to be added in the tertiary order for the list to meet qualifications. And i can't post it myself because I am STILL blocked, which makes no sense considering that my block should have been over by the 26th...today. Wesleymullins and Kafziel, I seriously want to get along, and Wesleymullins, I am very glad that you see why i like who i like. Please see into what i am saying here. - Zarbon

I've always been uneasy with David and Jackie SR being listed as Secondary characters. And I think Matt is on there because I asked whether or not the fame of the actor should influence his importance. I think enough people agree that it shouldn't, and he should be taken down. I think Robert Patrick's name also gets him bumped up higher than he should be. But Mikey and Jackie Jr are on a different level than the other people you listed. Someone could put up a good debate that Season Three was the Jackie JR season. As I mentioned earlier, I could see putting Brendan on the list of Secondary characters, only if he was able to bring 20-30 with him, and a list of 50 secondary characters would be a bit too much. If I had my way, Bobby, Furio and Blundetto would be bumped DOWN to secondary, while Matt, Little Paulie and Jackie SR would be bumped down to tertiary. I actually think this is the perfect place to throw up some voting options and let people cast votes on the more ambiguous characters. Wesleymullins 17:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that's exactly what i was trying to point out earlier. david scatino played close to no role whatsoever other than being one of tony's debtors. there's no reason for him to be on the list whatsoever. oh and i understand full well that season 3 can be mentioned as the "jackie jr. season" but season one wouldn't necessarily be referred to as the "mikey" season. season one was generally the "Brendan, Mikey, and Jimmy" season. I created the tertiary character area for a reason. it was created for guys like jackie sr. and david scatino. but personally and more noticably, matt and brendan were both credited very heavily on the show. when an episode's credits run and you see the character names rolling, the first names in the respective episodes are brendan and matt's, in the episodes that they appear in. the likes of jackie sr. and david scatino is not even close to the level of importance. jackie sr. was only in 3 scenes throughout the entire series...of which they were short two minute scenes. Brendan was in 12 scenes throughout the series and now he's being listed in tertiary while jack sr. is in secondary...this makes no sense. also, matt should be knocked down as well. he and sean stayed at the same level of importance throughout. matt is only in one scene more than sean, the sean he is killed in. it's unfair to brendan for others who were at his level of appearance to be noted above. as for mikey, he was credited with the same level of importance as brendan. i wish you would get the season one trading cards to see that brendan and mikey are the only two characters who get killed to receive character cards with description for the set. - Zarbon

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Kafziel 23:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Seangismonte.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Seangismonte.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Raichi.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Raichi.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ReyBrujo 02:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Hajak.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Hajak.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ReyBrujo 02:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Sopranos_Episode_21b.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sopranos_Episode_21b.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Is there a reason that you undid Opar77's changes to the list without discussion? He split the DiMeo crime family members onto their own page after approval from other editors on the article's talk page.

I'd like to give you a clean slate, but your continued agressive changes make it difficult. Please replace the content you changed and continue the discussion here. Kafziel 16:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, because he can move the other associates and family friends instead. there's no logic behind moving the dimeo family associates and leaving the rest on the page. if he wants to save space, let him move people like eliot kupferberg and special k. - Zarbon

You want to play this game again? Okay.

You have recently vandalized a Wikipedia article, and you are now being asked to stop this type of behavior.

Since you have registered an account, I am assuming good faith and hoping that you intended to do more than vandalize pages. If this is the case, you're welcome to continue editing Wikipedia, so long as these edits are constructive. Please see Wikipedia's blocking policy and what constitutes vandalism; such actions are not tolerated on Wikipedia, and are not taken lightly.

Here are a few links you might find useful:

Policy on reverting others' changes
Policies on politeness and wikiquette
Policy on maintaining a neutral point of view
Policy for content when editing articles and creating new ones
Policy on using Wikipedia to advertise

If you want to continue editing here, I hope you will begin to take these policies more seriously. You won't get very many more chances before punishments begin to be handed down. I'm looking forward to seeing your contributions, and if you have any questions, feel free to contact me for help.

i didn't vandalize kafziel. i am reverting because the edit is nonsensical. i have stated the rationale in the discussion. - Zarbon

Just because you leave a note on the talk page doesn't mean you get to disregard other people's work and do what you please. It's called a discussion page, not a do whatever the hell you want page. Discussion entails a back and forth conversation, not simply you handing assignments out to other people because you don't like what they've done. This is what always gets you blocked, and you're not going to get as many warnings this time. Kafziel 22:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

excuse me. but you went allowed a change without allowing me to put in my opinion. now that the change was made, how else am i supposed to convince that its a foolish decision. if you want to save space, move the other associates and friends. - Zarbon

That's not my problem. We discussed it, decided to do it, another user spent his time moving the list, and you don't get to revert it just because you feel like being argumentative. One more revert and you're gone. Kafziel 22:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that user did not use a proper ideal...the list separation makes no sense. if there is anything to be taken out or separated, it should be allowed for people to agree before being done. in this case, there was really no decision except for two people agreeing. - Zarbon

As a matter of fact, I agree with you. But instead of discussing it on the talk page and giving me a chance to support you, you vandalized the article. So now we're right back here again. Kafziel 22:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

alright. i won't move it anymore, but i expect you to help me now on the discussion page, since you do agree with me. - Zarbon

i removed the sockpuppeteer tag...it's a bad insignia...it makes me feel demeaning and its not needed. - Zarbon

Please do not start this again. I feel you are beginning to move in a better direction, but the fact remains that you have used sockpuppets to vandalize articles. It's going to take a lot longer than two days of good behavior to clear that record. I'm putting it back - you have been warned multiple times about removing it, so if you do so again you will be back in trouble. It's not up to you to decide when the tag can be removed. Kafziel 03:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so when does the tag get removed. i seriously don't want it there forever...? - Zarbon

It seems that you don't realize the seriousness of what you've done. You should consider yourself fortunate that you can edit here at all; using sockpuppets to avoid blocks can get you permanently banned from using Wikipedia. The tag will be on your user page for quite a long time, and removing it (or creating other accounts to use instead) can get you into even more trouble. Don't worry about the tag; if you become a responsible editor, your actions will speak for themselves. If you continue to get into edit wars and arguments, the tag will serve its purpose. Kafziel 18:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opark77

Hi Zarbon, my name is Owen username Opark77 and I'm a new wikipedia user. I'm sorry that we seem to have a misunderstanding while I was editing the List of characters from The Sopranos page and have come by with a white flag to ask if we can start over. I would like to reassure you that I have nothing against you personally.

I can see from the discussion boards that you are a big fan of the Sopranos and Brendan Filone in particular. I am also a big fan of the show. Brendan was never my personal favourite character but he was interesting for his spell on the show and I agree with you that he is one of the memorable season one characters. Christopher is probably my favourite character on the show.

I realised while thinking about Brendan that he is probably the only real peer Christopher has on the show. He is the same age and rank as Christopher in the beginning of the first season and almost an equal to him (he doesn't have Tony's support like Chris does). After Brendan's death Chris is the young associate in a crew of seasoned soldiers striving to get noticed. Once Christopher is made new associates begin to join the crew in his wake but they are all his subordinates. Benny Fazio was another friend but has always been a lower rank than Chris and other than him Christopher has been isolated within the organisation.

One of the things that I think warrants characters having their own page is a back story with the Soprano's main characters - have you ever found anything in secondary sources about Brendan and Chris' past together before the show started? I look forward to editing alongside you in future.--Opark 77 23:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, Brendan has been my alltime favorite character and nothing will change that. I see him the most dynamic character because of the excellent performance of DeSando and the fact that he plays the kind of role I love most. He is also executed in the most memorable fashion and that moment of his demise is the pinnacle of the show for me. It is the most reminiscent scene from the Godfather baptism sequence where Moe Greene is killed in the same fashion. I have four favorite characters from The Sopranos. They are as follows:

1. Brendan Filone

2. Matthew Bevilaqua

3. Sean Gismonte

4. Dino Zerilli

All these characters seriously play major roles in the seasons that they are in. As for level of importance, it's obvious that based on backstory and not assumption, Brendan and Chris were friends. Also, from the way that Chris was extremely annoyed and angered when he found Brendan dead, there's a high level of friendship involved unlike others in his life. The way that he held his stomach before hugging Adriana when he found Brendan, that was a perfect example of sadness. There was also the fact that he fought for Brendan on numerous occasions, against Tony's judgment and even when killing Mikey..."My friend Brendan, you shot him in his bathtub naked, no way to run!" That was the second most anticlimactic moment of season one. And even through death, Brendan leaves a very memorable impression on the show. Like I said, in the two episodes that he is seen alive, he is primarily the main focus of the show. The storyline revolved around his actions. As for other sources to point to his fame, if you buy the Sopranos Season one collectible card set, you'd know that Brendan and Mikey are the only two people to receive character cards out of the people who were killed. All others who were killed in season one aren't even recognized in the card set. That's why Brendan is a very important character. I love Brendan for various reasons, but this should be sufficient. - Zarbon

What are you doing?

Have you received community consensus to give Brendan Filone his own article? Last I checked, the consensus seemed to be that he was a minor character and belonged on the list with the others. Has this changed? Kafziel 16:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well...i just gave him back his article...i didn't create anything new. i simply looked at the links and saw that benny fazio and eugene pontecorvo still have pages...so i thought it would be fine to give them back their pages as well. Some guys are in agree-ance with me, and you seemed to be fine with the idea...and i don't think anyone would even notice unless you don't revert back. i mean, you yourself said that if he gets the page, we can move on. - Zarbon

No, you said that if I supported you, you would move on. I said that I would support you (which I did) but that we still would not be able to do it because so many others were against it, and that is still the case.

Where are you from? I take it you are not a native English speaker, so it is possible that the confusion has come from linguistic or cultural differences. I figure if you're from somewhere with a King or something, that might explain some things, like why you don't grasp the concept of consensus or votes. The vote on the talk page was three in support of Brendan, five against. In what system of voting would three votes win over five votes? Kafziel 19:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that was a major diss from your part...telling me that i'm not a native english speaker when i live in new york and i speak english fluently. surprisingly, i didn't pay mind to that because the votes were, if you paid attention, to make tertiary people into secondary people. the votes weren't to decipher whether or not who deserves a page, etc. since the concept of tertiary has been eliminated, i was hoping that all people who played actual roles in the episodes would get pages. This would also decrease the overwhelmingly large size of the character pages. - Zarbon

So let me get this straight - you thought that since most people said he didn't even deserve to be considered a secondary character, that they would probably think he was important enough have his own page? I'm sorry if I was wrong about you not being a native English speaker, but can you see why I would think that? You never seem to understand anything that anyone posts on discussion pages. Kafziel 20:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

its not so much as me understanding as it is me neglecting. i won't easily give up when it comes to my top three favorite characters. and i know full well about the 3rr rule so i won't make the changes as frequently, but when someone is no longer caring about the changes, i will take that chance to give them the pages they deserve. and if it is reverted, i will wait a few more days and do it again. and so flows the process of me trying to help the three best characters to ever exist in the series. - Zarbon

Once again you misunderstand. If you are persistent enough, you can be blocked for 3RR just for doing it once. 3 times is not a requirement. I don't understand why you think you will ever be able to do it without anyone noticing; anyone with a watchlist (which is everyone) can see what you're doing. If you keep doing it long enough, you'll be banned forever. Why do that to yourself? Kafziel 22:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

because i have an undying love for Mr. Brendan Filone. One that is serious and uninhibited by foolish rule and foresight. you might want to know that at this point, I highly doubt that anyone actually paid attention to the profiles other than you. If you would be so kind enough not to revert them, then I'm sure even Wesleymullins, whom was the person to start the chaos, won't notice. Don't forget that I'm the only one who lives for Brendan and am willing to die for his image. - Zarbon

Ok, hold it, I have to chime in. You are wrong Zarbon, a lot of people are paying attention to these pages. Wikipedia strives to make the best possible encyclopedia, and your fanaticism is only getting in the way. I'm betting that you simply came from a message board environment where you could do whatever you wished, save for the most extreme outbursts. On Wikipedia, everyone is held accountable, everything is recorded. Lastly, it was not Wesleymullins who started this, it was you. It was not me who started the family tree issue, it was you. This is why your tag is still up, because you have, on a basic and fundamental level, have either failed, or worse yet, completely disregarded the rules and policies of Wikipedia.--Orion Minor 20:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm the only one who lives for Brendan and am willing to die for his image." Seriously, how messed up are you? --M vopni 03:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i didn't come from a message board...that was just ignorant...and as for being messed up, that's a personal opinion. i would, generally speaking, be an excellent wikipedian if it were not for this very small dilemma that m vopni, kafziel, and wesleymullins have brought against me. you people just want to get me banned because it's what you enjoy doing. - Zarbon

I don't enjoy doing this. Actually, it's a pain in the ass. Do you know how much time it takes to file a request for comment? That's why I've given you countless chances to redeem yourself. But every time someone gives you an inch, you take a mile. You went back on your word to me and you have stated in no uncertain terms that you will never stop vandalizing pages. You continue to try to bully people into doing things your way, and it might have worked on some of these newer users but it will not work on me.

Believe me - I've wasted many hours of my life jumping through the hoops I have to jump through to bring this situation to the attention of others, and I would much rather you just stopped breaking the rules so I could spend my time on more productive work here. But you won't, so I can't. Kafziel 19:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

first of all, if you didn't enjoy senseless quarreling, then you would have left me alone a long time ago. second, i didn't say i would "vandalize." All i said was i would try to help filone. and only filone. not all of wikipedia. i'm not going around putting in false information. i'm expanding on one character. please tell me how in the hell that qualifies as vandalism. and don't say it is just because you and three other members think it is. - Zarbon

I've said all I have to say. The request for comment I've opened will speak for me. Kafziel 19:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what is the rfc notice about...? I hope it isn't about indefinitely blocking me, because as you know, i'm not vandalizing. - Zarbon

RfC notice

I have opened a request for comment, here, regarding your behavior. The issue will be reviewed by the community and futher action will be decided upon. Kafziel 13:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]