User talk:ZimZalaBim/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

Image in UWM

UWM has close ties with Milwaukee and is located in the city. Putting a photo of Milwaukee in the article helps the readers to get this. Miaers 02:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, don't you think the name of the university tips off readers that it is located in the city? Not to mention the first sentence of the article? I don't see how a random photo of downtown Milwaukee helps illustrate that. Do we need to place random images of Chicago in the University of Chicago article or images of Manhattan in NYU for readers to realize that these universities have ties to the cities in their name? I doubt it - this is superfluous. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Especially since UWM is nowhere near the picture in question... Cheers, PaddyM 03:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If you read the trivia section of UW-M, you can see it was one of the top 10 city univerisities in US and was also selected as one of the gems of Milwaukee. It is not just the name. The image was used to help accentuate this information. UW-Milwaukee has its water institute near downtown lakefront and its school of continued education and a couple of student residence halls in downtown. It is also planning to open a research park near downtown.Miaers 03:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read the trivia section. But you fail to explain how an image of downtown Milwaukee and Pere Marquette Park "accentuate" the fact that UW-M is considered a "gem of Milwaukee". My point remains: such an image is superfluous to such a statement. (Perhaps an image showing UW-M campus with downtown in the background would indicate some kind of relationship between the two, but this image fails to do that) --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter from which angle the photo is taken as long as the image is Milwaukee. Miaers 03:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You are missing my entire point. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It may not be a 100% perfect illustration, but it is relevant. It shouldn't be removed. Miaers 03:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I am moving this discussion to the article talk page. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:SF Symphony and Chorus.jpg

clarification regarding your placement of the {{cc-by-nc-nd-2.0}} tag. am i to understand that use of this image on wikipaedia is commercial? --emerson7 | Talk 03:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not commercial use. But due to the license (GFDL that Wikipedia releases its content, it could be used for commercial use (see WP:FORKS). If an image is licensed for "non-commercial use", then we can't allow it to be used on Wikipedia because we don't place that same restriction. Perhaps you can get the creator of that image to change their license, but short of that, we can't allow that image to be used. You can read more at WP:COPY and WP:IUP. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Adecn

Hi there,

You were trying to help me with my AdECN post.. i think i'm confused on what to do next. I am trying to add information on a company that was just bought by Microsoft - notable in itself but AdECN is also a part of an online ad exchange movement, too. I think it's going to be important and its on Wikipedia yet. This adecn post is my first step, albeit plodding. can you help me with some tips on next steps? or am i way off base here?

Thank you,

John Newval 00:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. For starters, I'd read through some of the policies pointed out to you on your talk page, such as WP:N and WP:CORP. I haven't thouroughouly examined this particular company, but in general, a company that is "going to be important" (as you put it) isn't notable for encyclopedic mention. (And, IMO, simply being bought by MSFT doesn't get you there either). The main avenue for you with this particular article is to follow the advice left on your talk page and seek a deletion review. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Respectfully, i'd suggest that this is as important as "rightmedia" which is currently in Wikipedia. I think there are other companies that should be added, too. Hey I don't want to mess up wikipedia. I just want to be a helpful part of it and I think I've found an area that I can contribute (ad exchanges).

Thanks again,

john Newval 13:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If the companies satisfy the guidelines at WP:CORP, feel free to add them. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Joaquin P.

Thanks for the info - I corrected my sources. --Mimi C. 17:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem - and thank you for your diligence in providing sources for the article. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding AdECN and East Village Podcasts

I think i did the same thing here with East Village Podcasts that I did with AdECN. Am I right? I need to prove notability? I would like to add East Village Podcasts to Manhattan/East Village. What do I need to do? Do you want me to send links on why this is relevant to the east village?

As for ADeCN.. how do i create something that you can review before I post it?

Thanks,

John (been on vacation, I'm back now.)

Newval 16:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Any links added to articles must adhere to our external link policy, and it appears that the one you added is to a blog of podcasts by some random person, which is a "link to be avoided." Unless this blog is notable or some reason, it likely doesn't belong.
2. Regarding Adecn, let's be clear that it is not up to me to accept or reject your proposed addition. If I have time, I could look at a draft, but I can't guarantee anything. You can always create a draft on a subpage of your userspace, such as User:Newval/Adecn. Otherwise, you can work on it at Wikipedia:Drawing board. Finally, I urge you to review Wikipedia:Your first article, WP:CORP and other related guidelines. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool. well thanks for getting back to me so quickly. let me see what i come up with on the AdECN thing. I may swing by here again - I understand, you can make no guarantees.

John

Newval 17:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

*Giggle*

My apologies, I re-read my original comment on the AfD page, and it didn't come out very well, so I can see how it could be mis-interpreted. It sure sounded good in my head though! That's what happens when I try to be brief, lol. ^Ariel♥Gold 00:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've written some of the most wonderful prose in my head - its that final few feet from the brain to the fingers that gets me every time... :) --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

~*Giggle*~ Thanks for understanding! ^Ariel♥Gold 01:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Cow Tipping ASCII

We were on the verge of something big. In fact, I heard that the theory of relativity was started in much the same fashion. However, at least it is in the archive for future generations to discover. All the best - the_undertow ^talk 05:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Einstein would've been proud. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 10:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

He may have been. But he never would bury conclusive evidence. the_undertow ^talk 10:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I plead guilty. I get fed up with the idiots sometimes. Baseball Bugs 04:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Especially when they expect others to do their work for them. Anyone who has ever heard of Chicago knows it's called "The Windy City", "The Second City", etc. They want a freakin' citation for something so obvious, they should look for it themselves. Baseball Bugs 04:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt Damon

A lot of the career information comes from movies which would be considered the public domain. Do you need to cite movies? Mitchowen 20:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Citations aren't needed to info like "Damon's first film role came in 1988 with one line in the romantic comedy Mystic Pizza." Rather, I'm referring to a multitude of other claims like "Damon was advised after the filming that he was fortunate his heart did not shrink. Damon was required to be on medication for several years to correct the stress inflicted on his adrenal gland, but maintains it was worthwhile to properly reflect his character's anguish and to show the industry how committed he was to the role" or "Goldman's only advice was to agree with Reiner in that the script should lose its early thriller focus." These, and statements like them, aren't cited. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

70.113.76.108

Regarding the University of Notre Dame article, I know you're smarter than to get in an one-word edit war with a wrong-headed anonymous IP user, but I'm counting 3; you really should sit this one out. -- KelleyCook 03:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to the "Roman" Catholic war, I haven't reverted any of those today. Only dealing with the other stuff that person has been trying to add. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

link removed - not violating any policies, would like your explanation

I do not understand your removal. I have been reading Wikipedia for years. I read the instructions very carefully for a long time before beginning.

You removed it within like 2 minutes of my posting. Did you even look at the link? It's impossible that you took a look at hte information contained on the site in that short amount of time, b/c the information is pretty vast.

When you eliminate something, instead of just frustrating people, explain where on Wikipedia exactly users can find out WHY something violated a rule.

I'm reading the rules and I see no violation.

The link was to a site that contains informaiton on how to write a memoir. There is no advertising to the company hosting the site. There is not even a clear path to get to the rest of the site, so it's defintely NOT advertisign the site.

The pages have been cited online several times already as a great source for witer's on how to write their autobiography.

I'm looking at the rules right now and I see nothing in the policies that this violates.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Minaksk (talk • contribs).

Wikipedia is not a collection of links to how-to sites. The article autobiography explains what an autobiography is, and is not meant to be a place to list links to random websites that purport to help people write.--ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Route Maps

I'll be honest, I don't even know what the GFDL is so I've reverted all back to the previous non-free promotional. Sorry- I didn't mean for "copyright infringement"? Sox23 01:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Then why did you use that licensing tag??? We need to be very careful about using copyright-protected work here. I don't think these fall under fair use either, since the maps are not irreplaceable. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll be more careful next time. Thanks for the warning. In regards to not being fair-use, each route map was released by each airline in their online press kit, and they do serve as great assets to each specific article. Sox23 01:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Being "great assets" isn't sufficient to make them fair use. Again, please read the copyright policies. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

What would make them sufficient enough to be on wiki? Sox23 02:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

IMO, nothing would make these particular maps acceptable to use here, short of the airlines releasing them under GFDL (which will never happen). If you want route maps on the articles, I suggest making them yourself. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

just delete them now then- no point in waiting 2 days Sox23 02:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Fordson High School

I am on the fordson alumni association and put the schedule up for alumni living outside of michigan who were asking for updates on the football season. The schedule will only be up until the end of the season. i did not want to make a page for the 2007 season as a high school football season is insignificant enough to have its own page. Also for the facts section, i believe it is warranted to have them as students can understand the history of the school while also giving them a firsthand knowledge of who the busts and statues within the library are. it is only a high school page so students, alumni, and people within the metropolitan area are mainly looking at it. Peanuts5402 16:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi - it seems you are trying to use this article for something it is not meant to be:

1. Wikipedia is not a news site and should not be used to provide alumni "updates on the football season".
2. Wikipedia is not free web space and should not be used to communicate with students, alumni - that's why the school has its own website.
3. Listing the various statuary at the school does not provide historical facts nor context. It is merely indiscriminate information.

In short, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a webspace for reporting on a high school to is students or alumni. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand the cause for deletion, but I am not sure why the recent history of the football, wrestling and girl's tennis seasons were also deleted. I believe that information explains how they accomplished the acheivements. Peanuts5402 17:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

i was trying to delete the File:FHS seal. jpg, but did not know how. Is there a page for that or does an administrator have to have access to i? Also is Fordson High School page looking better? Peanuts5402 23:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Only admins can delete, and I just deleted Image:FHS seal.jpg. I haven't looked at the FHS article recently. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ned2507

Ned2507 is a director on youtube, that's why I made it redirect there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedi Master Bra'tac (talk • contribs) 09:14, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

S/he is non-notable, and doesn't need a redirect. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

How the Bluebook Cites Wikipedia

Hi there. I noticed your edit to the article on The Bluebook today removing information on how to appropriately cite to Wikipedia accordidng to the bluebook. I think that it is worthwhile to keep at least some of this information in the article.

I think that it makes sense to have a short entry on how to cite Wikipedia under the bluebook on Wikipedia. Since specific information on how to cite to Wikipedia is not included, Wikipedia is probably the quickest and easiest way to find this information. The information on how the Harvard journal cites to Wikipedia is especially relevant since The Harvard Law Review Association is one of the four editor organizations for the bluebook as well as the publisher of the bluebook. As a result, students are often advised by professors that the way a harvard law review cites a particular source is almost certainly the correct way to cite that source.

I agree that the article does not need to include a list of how every different journal cites to Wikipedia, but I think that one source that can essentially considered an authority and is not readily available elsewhere is very helpful to readers. For instance, it is where I direct younger students to figure out how to approrpiately cite to Wikipedia. I didn't want to just revert part of your edit, but I think some of the information is better left in the article even if it doesn't quite meet Wikipedia's normal requirements because it makes it easier for legal scholars to cite to Wikipedia. Dekkanar 04:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Each Wikipedia article has a link in the left-hand column with instructions on how to cite this page, including the Bluebook style. If you think the Bluebook citation format needs adjustment, I suggest taking it up at Wikipedia talk:Citing Wikipedia. But it does not belong in an article about the Bluebook itself. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 05:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Home run

Why are you so hung up on that McGwire photo? It's obviously a home run cut. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What's so obvious about it? I'm "hung up" on the fact that this is an encyclopedia of verifiable facts. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're making a big deal about this for some personal reason. But I have other things to work on right now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Your behavior toward that picture does not inspire good faith. However, the problem could be solved by determining precisely where the picture came from. It could be a home run, it could be a fly ball, it could be a swing-and-a-miss for all we know. But it's definitely a home run cut. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What "behavior"? The original caption was fluffy and not verifiable ("swinging for the fences"), the 2nd caption ("at bat") rendered the image irrelevant for the article. Your description of the images as "definiteyl a home run cut" is unverifiable original research.--ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have asked the picture's uploader to explain the source of the photo, if he can. If he can't, then I agree it's questionable to put it in the article. However, McGwire hit a lot of home runs, so even if it's not an actual home run, removing it from the article is also questionable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

McGwuire also hit a lot of foul balls; does that mean this image should go in that article too? Answer this simple question: what information about homeruns does this image provide? To me, it adds little more than showing a random swing by a hitter who also happens to have hit a lot of home runs. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That's why I've asked the uploader for clarification. However, you could just as easily post a standard portrait of Babe Ruth, not even swinging the bat, and it would still be good, because he and McGwire are synonymous with hitting home runs. For example, it would not make much sense to have a picture of Wee Willie Keeler in the article. Although Keeler hit some home runs, he was not known for it, and thus would not be the best choice of picturing a slugger, which is the point of that illustration - to show what a full-out home run swing looks like. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can verify that that was indeed a "full-out home run swing" by Mac, more power to ya. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I know by looking at it, as does any other baseball fan. It's a follow-through that looks like any of his home run cuts. However, I am still waiting for the uploader to get back to me on the exact circumstances, assuming he even knows. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Career HR # 564, July 14, 2001. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Spectacular. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed content

I removed something with good reason and specified it in the edit summary. Hurrystagemakes 22:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I erred in my edit summary, but not in reverting your removal. The event appears to be notable. Please stop removing it. Discuss on the appropriate talk page if you have an argument for its removal. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Clausen

The Jimmy Clausen article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you think your efforts to improve that article would be aided if new and unregistered users were blocked from editing that article, please let me know and I will protect the article. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 08:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I can also protect the page if it gets worse. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the personal attack removal on my talk page, they always seem to strike when I am not online :P. thanks again.--Kerotan^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 05:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

you're welcome. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

censorship about Google, Lunar Prize and Bravenet

talk of CENSORSHIP about Google and Bravenet actually IS on topic since our FREEDOM depend of them --- talk of the REAL inventor (with clear evidences) of the Lunar X Prize actually IS on topic --- again, you (STILL) don't delete FULL WIKI ARTICLES of personal/commercial groups (like the unexisting "Direct Launcher" concept) while you always delete the REAL things I post about SERIOUS problems! since you seem have FEAR of Google, I'll not repost again my comments on discuss pages, but I will add THIS FURTHER EPISODE OF CENSORSHIP in the text( the same you've deleted) I'm posting EVERYWHERE on the web, so everyone can judge with HIS OWN MIND without the "filters" of censors (that's why the Wiki discuss pages exist, I believe)--Gaetanomarano 05:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Article talk pages are meant to discuss the article. It is not a message board for people to opine about the topic. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Generation X edit

Hello. I'm not exactly sure why I got the "unsourced" message; I added 2 (Census Bureau) to the sentence above. Anyone can pull the same data I did manipulate it as well. Ledboots 08:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Extrapolating "confidence levels" seems unnecessary since the existing "about" language is sufficient for typical encyclopedia readers. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 11:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha! Ledboots 21:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

external linking

Please advise on the continued linking to Mudville Megaphone: Jacoby Ellsbury biography by 141.152.168.121 on the Jacoby Ellsbury page. I believe it may be in violation of guidelines for external links and I see that the user has been warned for this on the Green Bay Packers and Arizona Cardinals pages.Thanks (AZrooter 02:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC))

Done. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edit summary

Eh. I inadvertently edited a very old version of the article, that I'd gotten to while trying to figure out who had put that ridiculous pronunciation in there. (relevant diff) I was somewhat taken aback by the brusqueness of your edit summary, however. If it's an automated edit summary, may I recommend that you alter it so it doesn't sound so incredibly rude in the future? Thanks for your time and attention. (And I'm reïnserting the correct pronunciation, this time just being a bit more careful to do it in the correct version of the article.) Tomer^talk 22:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Not knowing you made those changes in error, I fail to see how noting that the changes your edit made the article were "unecessary, incorrect, or against policy" is "incredibly rude". Anyway, glad you fixed the pronunciation correctly. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I was probably so annoyed at your tone because I didn't realize what I'd done when I first saw your edit summary. Seeing your edit summary and the statement about "most of [my] MAJOR edits" being vandalism, essentially, I was under the impression that you'd gone around WP and decided I was a worthless editor based on my edits elsewhere. Tomer^talk 01:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No prob. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Clausen

Your Notre Dame fanaticism is ridiculous. Is it really "PoV-ish" to state that a quarterback was "benched" instead of "replaced" by another? I realize there is quite a bit of vandalism on his page, but sugar-coating the truth like that hurts the integrity of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.60.227 (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Find me a quote stating that the coaches decided to "bench" him and we can use that turn of phrase. Otherwise, it is more proper to simply remark that he was replaced. And cool it with the presumption of "ridiculous fanaticism". --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are other examples of players whose bios state that they were benched: Aaron Brooks, Jason Williams (basketball), Brad Johnson, Billy "White Shoes" Johnson, Ed Brown (QB)...etc. Curiously, there seems to be no current dispute as to the use of "benching" in their profiles. Writers and reporters alike use the term; it's simply not PoV-ish as you claim (unless the point of view is that of a disinterested observer). While wikipedia should make every effort to maintain the integrity of its site, such efforts should not sacrifice accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.60.227 (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

My point is we need a citation confirming that he was indeed "benched" and not simply replaced for some other reason (injury, gameplan, etc). (also, please sign your posts) --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Jacoby Ellsbury

Can you block Elsbury biography from the Jacoby Ellsbury page? It is continually being added and does not satisfy WP:EP. It is now being inserted by a different IP. The original user reinserted it even after being warned also. Thanks (AZrooter 18:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

Web browser

If you are going to remove some external links then remove all external links, lets try to be fair —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.163.40 (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:EL and WP:SPAM. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

if you are going to remove my External Link remove all External Links, Lets try to be Fair

if you are going to remove my External Link remove all External Links, Lets try to be Fair —Preceding unsigned comment added by UsernameQQ (talk • contribs) 21:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

See my message to you above. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Anti-numbers

I think you have gone to far to insist that the Ryan Shay article NOT mention his age. Really, you are outside the bounds of established consensus. Note that most deaths on the Wikipedia main list of deaths list the person's age. Newspaper accounts do as well, even in the headlines. Therefore, the information is important, NOT superfluous. Please respect WP:CCC and not insist on WP:OWN. Thank you.Ryoung122 06:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, I'm not trying to own the article. (The veracity of your reaction almost hints that you might be trying the same). If there is consensus to list his age, then go for it, but to me, it seems superfluous. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Zedo?

anyone you know? I undid the link to the user talk page, not sure if the other half of his edit should be removed as well. --Versageek 07:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone is holding a grudge from a year ago. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alicia Craig

Any particular reason why you closed this AfD after barely more than 12 hours? Your edit summary or closing comments provided no explanation. --ZimZalaBim talk 21:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for contacting me about the closure. The article, Alicia Craig, was kept due to the (IMO) snow keep that was registered. 88.8% of the votes were supporting the keeping of the article, whilst there was 11.1% of the vote against (you). I do see that the article was created on the November 4, and therefore may be expanded more in the following few days. If you have any other questions, don’t hesitate to ask me. Rudget _{Contributions} 09:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

ebay addition

--Thomasinventions 21:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC) TO ZimZalaBim of Wikipedia,

I was wondering why someone was persistently removing the addition to the ebay page. When I emailed wiki, no one bothered to respond. I finally have the answer now as you prefer to not see the CONSTRUCTIVE addition to the ebay page and opt to destroy my credibility.

I ask you to contact the Department of Justice and ask them what they have as far as complaints regarding the outright false advertisement of ebay.

If YOU decide to only publish past history and NO CURRENT HAPPENINGS, then Wiki site is doing the public an injustice by hiding what the public should be made aware of.

There is nothing personal in my addition and accordingly, I hope you use some logical thinking in reassessing your ill assumption.

The only vandalism going on is YOU removing a constructive post that was letting users know of the false advertising practice of ebay.

IF YOU HAVE ANY SENSE OF LOGIC, please review what I wrote along with the webpage that ebay presented their false advertising of a free listing policy.

PLEASE STOP YOUR VANDALISM OF MY CONTRIBUTION. I WILL MAKE THIS COMPLAINT ABOUT YOU MADE PUBLIC IF YOU PERSIST IN YOUR CORRUPT ACTIONS.

YOU HAVE JUST LOST ON A DONATION AS I SEE THERE IS AT LEAST ONE BOZO INVOLVED IN ADMINISTRATING THIS SITE AND THUS I CANNOT SUPPORT NONSENSE.

Sincerely,

Thomas Blankenhorn

I refer you to our welcome page with links to the various policies and guidelines. I'll also post a welcome message on your talk page that might prove useful. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

70.113.73.42

You made this revert of 70.113.73.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) earlier today. I've just blocked that IP for continuing to violate WP:BLP and other tendentious editing (it had received numerous warnings over the last couple days). I thought you'd want to re-check University of Notre Dame since the IP had re-done some of its edits. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look when I have a chance. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I would like to thank you for bring up all the mistakes that I have made in the past at wikipedia. You are the main person who helped me become a good vandal fighter. At the time, it was very annoying, but now I am grateful for your notices on my talk page. You were a major help. Cheers!--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 04:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Happy editing. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You to. Have a nice day.--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 04:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Why am I being treatened of being blocked?

Hello,

I'm a relative new contributor to Wikipedia (I have used it as a reference for quite some time now and have really been impressed on how much data is being contributed by some many members). On Saturday night, I was contributing to a number of pages...happily thinking I was making a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Then, a couple of hours later, I started noticing that my account was accused of vandalising a site and posting spam messages. I then discovered all of the contributions I had added over those previous two hours had been "undone".

Based on some of the Wikipedia help file recommendations, I then created an account for myself and tried to add information...only to find those changes were mot being saved either and that even my new account was being accused of causing vandalism.

Thus, I waited a couple of days (today is Monday) and after making some changes, the changes seem to be retained. But when I click on "talk", I am still being accused of vandalizing a site and posting spam. Your account is the one making claims on my account, so I was curious as to why my contributions are being considered as vandalism? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjhulseb (talk • contribs) 23:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As noted on both your original IP account 24.236.248.208 (talk · contribs) and your new user account Jjhulseb (talk · contribs), the links you are adding violate our external link policy. By going to as many articles as possible and inserting a link to your website, which has a large amount of advertising along with some statistics, you are spamming articles. Please stop, or you will be blocked. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What specifically qualifies the links as spam? I've read through "External Links" page and the links fulfill all of the points under "What should be linked" and "Links to be considered"....especially the point which states "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.". The links also do not violate anything under the "Links normally to be avoided". Many of the pages already have external links to so called "official" web sites which are self-promoting and profit on the sales of tickets, calendars, clothing, memorabilia, wbe-site subscriptions, etc...while the links I add are to a non-for profit site...with no direct sale of mechandise, no subscription rates, etc....while at the same time provides unique information that, as stated above is too volumnus to be added to the wikipedia page itself...but is directly related to the content of the page. Thus, if the links I added are considered spam, then the other external links on these same pages would also be spam and are in violation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjhulseb (talk • contribs) 03:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Spamming dozens of articles with advertising-heavy links to websites you own is not acceptable. (If you really think your links have something to offer, suggest their inclusion on the corresponding talk page, and let a third party decide.) --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If that is the defining of "spamming", then why is each individual Arena Football League team page allowed to have an external link to the for-profit web site http://www.arenafan.com? If you visit that site, you will find that it not only contains large amounts of advertising, but that it also produces pop-up windows (with more advertisments), promotes the selling of merchandising, promotes the selling of advertising on the site, and eitehr contains redundant information that already appears on the wikipedia page or contains information that could (should?) be added directly to the wikipedia page rather than via the external link? All of these points make this kink in violtion of Wikipedia's external link policy.

In addition, I find a lot of external links to obviously for-profit (and heavily advertised filled) websites for ESPN, CBS Sports, "official" team web sites, etc. which again are in obvious violation of Wikipedia's external link policies. Why do these links not full under the "spamming" category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjhulseb (talk • contribs)

First, please sign your comments. Second, just because other questionable links exist doesn't mean yours should as well. If you see a link that violates policy, remove it. Third, a link to an organization's official website is appropriate per WP:EL#What should be linked. Please take time to better familiarize yourself with these policies. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Denver School Of Science and Tech

please stop edditing our page

) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teejmya (talk • contribs) 16:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a wiki, and that is not your page. Please see Wikipedia:About for more insights. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Edward Felten

Should those quotes not have been transwikied to wikiquote?LeadSongDog 20:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hadn't thought of that. What's the process? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure, but its surely written up somewhere. Will dig.LeadSongDog 20:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, it's at TranswikiLeadSongDog 20:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yale motto

What is your translation of אורים ותמים Urim V'Tumim is latin letters of the hebrew letters but is not a translation to english. what is your english translation of Urim V'Tumim as in the hebrew letters אורים ותמים. as per Yale University on Wiki in latin Lux et Veritas Light and Truth. אור is Light. ים is Day. ותמ is Naive. Therefore Light Day Naive Day as my translation, what do you see this translating to.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.223.145.224 (talk • contribs)

Yale's motto translates as "light and truth", not "baby flame". see [1]. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Confused

I just added a hangon to IBU News to indicate that I could expand.. What's wrong with that? Should I not expand.. Or what?

Edward Zimmermann (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You added the hangon to an empty page as it had already been deleted. You should not recreate the article until it satisfies the WP:NOTABILITY notability requirements. If you want to work on it, perhaps create a sandbox space in your userspace, such as User:Edward Zimmermann/IBU News, and then cut/paste into main article space once it is ready. You might want to check out Help:Contents before moving ahead, though. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

OK.. Would you like to have a look at it when I ready before I post it?

Edward Zimmermann (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if you'd like. But I can't guarantee my availability, and I can only provide my opinion, not that of the community. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Web 2.0

Dear ZimZalaBim, I have deliberately removed that passage from the Web 2.0 section. I am the one who originally created it. But I also added other material in which I quoted myself. Some considered this a COI, that is why my own page is now considered for deletion. I consider this unfair and find the passage now unbalanced because it only cites Tapscott/Williams and not my own work. That is why I have again removed the passage. Plese also see the reasons that I have given on the Web 2.0 discussion page and consider adding to or mediating the conflict that accompanies this discussion. Thank you. User talk: Crscrs

I suggest you use an edit summary next time to you remove large chunks of info from an article (if not explanatory itself, then noting that you will provide an explanation on the talk page). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Anon engaging in vandalism after previous warning

An anon you have previously warned in regards to vandalism has made further disruptive edits to Wikipedia (such as this: [2] & [3]). I have reported this user's conduct to the Administrator's Noticeboard. A block is probably in order, because this individual chose to continue to vandalize knowing full well the consequences of such action. ~ Homologeo (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. However, the IP appears to be assigned to an ISP and might have multiple users editing under the same IP address. Further, the most recent edits were 10 days after my earlier warning, increasing the possibility that the IP was re-assigned to someone else. A warning should suffice at this point. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems someone already decided to block the IP for a short while. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of ZEDO

An article that you have been involved in editing, ZEDO, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZEDO. Thank you. 69.68.125.6 (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

External links or citations

Please see Talk:List of digital library projects#External links or citations --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I replied. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

regarding BNAmericas links

Dear Administrator

We received the notice that the company Business News Americas is blocked from the wikipedia.

Business News Americas is a bilingual news service that covers the most important original stories in 11 different business sectors throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. We have over 50 journalists and researchers located throughout the region to write about the most important news affecting Latin America's principal emerging economies every business day.

The intention behind the links we were leaving are only informative, to include the company profiles that we have in the website to enhance the information. We are aware that there is a nofollow code in the wikipedia and that brings no traffic benefits for the company website; despite that, we wanted to add more information of the listed companies that our researchers have gathered. This, with acollaborative informational and content enhancing intention. The ip is shared and a user "pajaritos" was adding the information. Her account was also closed. If you take notice, the links arent to the website itself for the merely purpose to link it to the website, but to the company profiles that are written on the website.

Reconsider giving the user her account back please and take the ban out of the ip and or company, for we meant no second intention rather than to enhace the information listed in the wikipedia.

thank you.

best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.76.146.130 (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who told you "the company Business News Americas is blocked from the wikipedia", but it wasn't me. I also see no record of there ever being a user with the username pajaritos (talk · contribs · block log). And accounts are rarely "closed" - but might be blocked. If that user was indeed blocked, there should be instructions on his/her user talk page on how to appeal it.

As for my actions, I merely warned someone editing from your IP 64.76.146.130 (talk · contribs · block log) to stop going through the alphabet and adding links to what I presume was that person's website. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Admin: The user pajaritos is my user account and i didnt have one before so i decided to create one to add content in other topics of my interest, as the collaborative web behaves. The company I work for does profiles for companies that have different info that the one thats in the wikipedia, so it was ok for me I think. I cannot access my account anymore and there is nothing new on my talk page.

What should i do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.76.146.130 (talk) 12:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I see record of a user with the name "pajaritos" on English Wikipedia, nor any contributions or blocks of a user by that name. Please provide a link to your userpage (cut and paste the url here for me, if necessary). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Redacted POV pushing?

You commented "Your desire to find as many comparisons and declarations of it bombing is POV-pushing."

You seem to have mistaken me for User:Alabamaboy who added the multiple comments about it bombing (which, I note, your revert retained). The contribution I added (which you reverted) was supplying actual figures and putting them into context - the metric of average taking per theater (which both those articles cite as the reason for it "bombing") was almost identical to Southland Tales, which opened on the same weekend. Personally, I think "bomb" is POV, whilst stating actual figures in context and letting the reader decide what they mean is more neutral. The current wording is wrong, anyway, the Daily Telegraph said it "bombed in the US", not that the movie itself was a bomb. btw, if you read the discussion page, you'll see that I've already questioned the negative POV of the article itself. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I would hardly describe a movie that cost $5 million and took $1,708 per theater as "bombing", in comparison to a movie that cost $75 million and took $9,233 per theater. That was my problem with the existing text, the comparisons cited aren't neutral, and so the text at the moment isn't neutral. The comparison with Southland Tales seems apt, since it opened on the same weekend, cost 3 to 3.5 times more than Redacted, and took only ~15% more. If you have any idea of how to make the point more clearly, or in a more neutral way, please say so. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This version sufficiently described the reaction, box office, and how people have described it. We don't need further contextualization. As it is, I fear there is way too much focus on "audience reaction" - as if a random set of votes on some movie website is meant to be encyclopedic. But that's a battle for somewhere else. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

An unbiased sample of sufficient size would be encyclopedic. But that is not what the article contains; the IMDB figures probably come closest to the underlying distribution, but the others that show close to 100% negativity and have less than 100 votes are surely biased. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines gives clear guidelines on what should be in a film article's lead and that info includes critical reception and box office financials. I explained in more detail at Talk:Redacted_(film)#Critical_.26_audience_reaction. Best, --Alabamaboy 01:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Caldwell (programmer) user profile on Monsterboard edit

Greetings, - There actually was a search for earlier instances during litigation between two OTHER companies over a copyright infringement in which Monster was brought in as witness for one of the parties as a "this can't be true because Monster did it earlier" - indeed this company did quite a bit of research to find out who had done it first to dodge the law suit. I had to testify at a deposition about what Monster did to prove that it was indeed logging in with user profiles, etc. And of course I had to reproduce the backup tapes (ugh!) The company that was suing on the basis that they had they had the earliest solution dropped the suit.

Edison is widely considered the inventer of the light bulb - but how could he prove that nobody did it first?

I used the text "probably the first" - I could have said "first known". I can't cite the law suit because of mutual gag orders though I'm pretty sure I could come up with Monster's associated patents ... but people seem to think that patents and copyright registrations aren't sufficient documentation.

I could list a bunch of different PEOPLE as sources, but its hard to create a web pointer to them.

So ... you've clearly been using this site for awhile ... what do YOU think I should do? I only created my entry to tie some other entries together. When people asked for "notable", I added a bunch of things that I know and can prove I did, but not with URLs. When they said I needed references, I got some close-but-no-cigar pointers to the web. I was going to site a URL to the AP article but it doesn't seem to be available any more. My guess is that that is going to start happenning with lots of Wikipedia articles - the references will become stale links.

I understand that since that I am providing most of the information there is a presumption of skepticism - I understand that. I'd even be OK axing my entry entirely - I am not trying to advertise myself. In some ways it makes my life easier to be completely behind the scenes - but it is wrong to say that such and such was done by "Christopher Caldwell" and not having it pointing to something that distinguishes it from the existing "Christopher Caldwell" entry for the columist for the weekly standard. He did NOT do those things.

Do you have any words of wisdom here? If you think I should axe the entry, how would I go about doing that?

Thanks for your time so far and any wisdom you can hand along ... ChristopherCaldwell (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As you have been told on your talk page and the talk page of that article, writing and contributing about oneself is frowned upon. If you have information you think should be added to your own article, post it to the article's talk page and other editors will arrive at consensus as to its proper inclusion. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism On ND Football Page

Hi Zim -

I note that you are an administrator from comments on the ND football page. I'm not sure what power/responsibility this entails - I just edit and watch articles that i work on/know something about. I contributed some history to the ND football article a year ago (the 1913 ND/Army game) and as I said over there intend to work on the players' section.

Seems though that there is one anonymous editor who in the last few days has voided large section of the article for no defensible reason. Just wondering if something can/should be done about this. the only ID is the IP 96.2.190.124. If not - then as Emily Latella used to say, "Never mind." Sensei48 (talk) 06:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)