![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Cool got your point about proving notability...will use more references and details in the future! "arf1" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.169.202 ( talk) 12:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Cool now I understand how this thing works! Thanks for the advice Z-man. "Arf1" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.169.202 ( talk) 13:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
:
).
Mr.
Z-man
17:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Greetings, Mr. Z-man, I'm unclear why you deleted the {{tl|dfu}} tag from Image:Sunrise at Campobello film.jpg before the Non-free use rationale was added, but in any case I have now added the information required per WP:NFURG (although I am not the original image uploader). JGHowes talk - 04:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see that block on 216.124.153.98. *laughs* I'm sorry! :) -- Amaraiel 15:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It was very nice to have you be the first one to welcome me to Wikipedia, and because you are interested in adoptees, I was wondering if you would adopt me. Thank you in advance for your assistance! Park Crawler 01:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Park Crawler
Thank you! I understand what my position is as an adoptee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Park Crawler ( talk • contribs) 00:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't take notes; as I recall, there was a common page that Pioneercourthouse's latest sock had been editing followed by HWDEF, making similar edits. I will attempt to dig up the info. Usually if it's not self-evident I post it on the talk page or something when I block, but this time I don't see that I did.
HWDEF has been sending repeated messages to unblock-en-l asking for someone to investigate. It's probably a good idea if someone else does; I certainly don't pretend that I never make mistakes. Georgewilliamherbert 21:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to thank you for performing the histmerge for the Beaconhills College page. Much appreciated! -- SRHamilton 22:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Z, I'm not a fan of too much trivia / cultural refs either but the list at shiv is monitored and useful. It was trimmed down from a much bigger list. If you want to trim out a couple more and / or help monitor additions that would be great. Thanks, Deiz talk 04:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Good job! I've watched that article be mutilated all day! -- Amaraiel 05:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I currently find myself blocked, being grouped within the rather broad 201.9.0.0 range.
Whilst I fully understand and appreciate the reason blocking is an available option to administrators, I would point out that blocking such a large range of users could be considered extreme.
If indeed necessary to stop a rash of vandalism, would a shorter block period not suffice? And if not, then why not block permanently, excluding forever the possible input from valid participants who happen to live in the same IP neighborhood as the offenders?
While my submissions may be few and far between, all have been made as either small grammatical corrections or valid comments. Perhaps relatively "insignificant".
Regardless, I view the prohibition of rights to a large group as a punitive and not protective measure; or is it possible that the errant posters have been so prolific in so broad a range of wikipages and from so broad a range of IPs that this is the only method of "protecting" the pages?
Regards
Chrisklinger 22:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Oops, didn't mean to cut you off there. I think an indef block is appropriate. (That's what we do for legal threats, so shouldn't death threats be as bad or worse?) Anyway, if you think the indef was inappropriate, let me know. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 20:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi There,
I love wikipedia and wouldn't want to do anything considered to be spam. My name is Michael Jensen and I'm the editor of the website AfterElton.com. The only links I add are ones that should be directly relevant to the entries such as an interview with certain folks. Is that not permitted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.10.175 ( talk) 21:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the threat of legal action you have alerted me to. The material labeled Church Scandals on this page clearly violates Wikipedia's own policies. There is no reason for it to be on the Archdiocese of Miami page other than anti Catholic propaganda which this clearly is. I have asked for an administrator to remove it at least twice, giving clear reasons listing the Wikipolicies it violates; there is clear evidence of a consensus of editors except the one who added the material, that editor's talk page (DominvsVobiscm) clearly identifies him as a vandal, yet, in spite of overwhelming reasons supporting the removal of this material, the material remains. I will not report Wikipedia to the Catholic League but Wikipedia must consider that it is inviting others to do so if it does not follow its own policies and remove this material NancyHeise 15:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice, Mr.Z-Man. I had noticed the thread shortly ago and have just placed my comments there. Regards, Hús ö nd 22:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Mr.Z-man, I'm confused as to why you've nominated John Hassall for deletion. You seem to acknowledge that he is a notable musician, so I don't suppose it's a notability issue. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems your nomination was a bit hasty. faithless (speak) 07:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mr Z-man A heads up on a recent addition to the Ultramarathon page - Ultra running in Africa - this is insulting, has nothing to do with the topic - in my view should be removed Gold Pen 07:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - I see the vandalism was removed and the item reverts to prior wording. Gold Pen 06:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
hi Mr Z-man Thanks for the feedback wrt the Rhodes Run image. I must still go over those various criteria again carefully, as I interpreted my initial posting as clearly indicating that I do hold the rights to that image (which I do) - anyway I'll have another look, as from what I can see even if I do claim the rights to the image the person who blocked it previously can do so again .... could be an interesting repetitive circle; but I'll have a look and (if it's ok) come back to you for more advice. Gold Pen 07:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi again- yes, that's my point - although I can claim legitimately that I own the image (as I thought I had done with the license wording I used) it can still be removed - Catch-22; but as I said I'll check the various license wordings, although as I interpret them there is still nothing stopping someone removing image again - or do I then protest as vandalism? Gold Pen 06:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, here to ask about the block. I see no evidence of sockpuppetry, and while there has been some edit warring, I don't see that it has reached the level of disruption which would indicate a need for an indef. It does not appear that anyone has tried to work with this editor to help him or her learn to work better towards consensus and understand our rules. Am I missing something? KillerChihuahua ?!? 09:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello. That user, whom you blocked for vandalism etc., appears to be honest in his promise to cease disrupting Wikipedia if unblocked. Would you be willing to unblock him with the understanding that the block will be reinstated in the event of any further disruption? Sandstein 06:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for vandal fighting! Please don't skip templates when warning vandals, though. Jumping from 1 to 4 doesn't help anything. In order to be blocked, users must have the 4 warnings, in most all cases, so it's counter-productive to skip any. Regards, Lara Love 03:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the block that was keeping me out yesterday, Mr Z-man. Can you tell me why being logged in didn't get me around what I assume was a complete block of all editing originating from that IP?
Also, in case you're interested, your user page has a bunch of section edit links riding over the Finished projects/Other section (when I look at it in Firefox 2; when I looked at it in IE, there were no edit links anywhere on the page). I can post a screenshot here if you like. - Eric (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Interesting to read your reply and CZmarlin's reply to this individual's questions. Each of you is saying the other one is responsible for the deletion/reverting back to the stub form of the article. So what is it?
Daniel Morris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.150.55 ( talk) 23:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
How are things going with Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-03 Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture? Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Be well! Vassyana 22:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- So a while ago I reported this I.P. for off-topic discussion on article discussion pages. This time he's done it again: [5], [6], and finally here [7] . What do you recommend? Another warning? Take care, Scarian Talk 03:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering why you deleted the article I made about the band Mordred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orthodox41 ( talk • contribs) 05:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Though I cannot see what the content of this article was, I think you went a bit quickly to delete it. The "Association amicale des amateurs d'andouillette authentique" is really notorious in France (the corresponding article on :fr gives quite a number of details) and all but a joke.
Its label is often seen on menus in French restaurants with no special explanations : for a Frenchman (at least a reasonably affluent one visiting upper-range restaurants) the label is well-known (a random example on this page - as you can note, no explanation was deemed as necessary by the advertisment writer). This article should not have been deleted, and certainly should not have been speedy deleted, and I come to your Talk page to beg for its reinstalment. Thanks for your attention. French Tourist 22:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Zman, You recently protected the above mentioned, template due to some edit war going on in the template, the conflict was based on the national flag of Sri Lanka that was on the template. The user who requested the protection, made the request after the template was altered to their desired look (which is without the flag). The national flag of Sri Lanka had been on the template since the day it was created, I can attest to this as the creator of the template. There was never consensus to remove the image and I don't see any effort put towards fair and meaningful consensus building, the participation was only by four users, two opposing the image and two endorsing it. The Sri Lankan conflict template is a very important template that covers many articles which are highly contentious. I kindly request you to reconsider the protection of the template or restore the image as it was until consensus is built. Thanks in advance NëŧΜǒńğer Peace Talks 08:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
If Pingfu can be deleted for blatant advertising, why isnt HTTP-Tunnel, the company deleted for the same reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickolas Nickleby ( talk • contribs) 19:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
That still doesnt answer the question. The article HTTP-Tunnel(company) is written with exactly the same problems that you are talking about —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickolas Nickleby ( talk • contribs) 18:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Quote - from HTTP Tunnel, a company page (Isnt this talking about why people should use it???? )
These are some common reasons for using HTTP-Tunnel:
* Need to bypass any firewall * Need secure internet browsing * Need to use favorite programs with out being monitored by work, school, ISP or government. * Extra security for online transactions * Encrypt Internet traffic. * Need to play online games * Visit sites that you were previously blocked from accessing * Prevent 3rd party monitoring or regulation of your Internet browsing and downloads * Use your favorite applications previously blocked * Hide your IP address
Unquote —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickolas Nickleby ( talk • contribs) 06:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Lost your voice? Nickolas Nickleby 20:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Nickolas
Thanks for looking into it - glad the confusion has been sorted out no thanks to me Nickolas Nickleby 17:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Nickolas
I saw that you removed the page "Avalia". Would there be a way for me to view the page before it was deleted? I know some people in the band, and I know who created the page, so I have in interest in the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallaway6554 ( talk • contribs) 15:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallaway6554 ( talk • contribs) 20:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
For taking care of that Seattle reign history move so quickly! I gave the editor a few days to post it, but I also didn't want to wait too long, so I hope I was not hasty in reporting it. I've spoken to the editor, who realizes the mistake and has promised he'll remember for the future. Thanks again! Ariel ♥ Gold 13:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for placing the semi-protect tag on the Llama article. It is a favorite among anon-IPs and kids to vandalize. BTW - I tried to use your "leave a comment" button and I probably created a wierd looking comment or article within WP. This comment was made by editing this page. -- Blind Eagle talk~ contribs 15:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you warned User:86.31.144.104 for vandalism for that supposed malicious undo that they did, however, I couldn't help but notice that they might have tried to redo to this edit, instead of having malicious desires to redo a vandalized version of the page. Please think about this, being a former anon myself, I hate to see an anon's good intentions (if they were good) go to waste. -- əˈnon gahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 19:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I did not vandalise Bald Eagle. My edit was perfectly in order. Please check before making accusations. Thanks. 86.31.144.104 19:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
[9] - Non-article improvement related discussion from him again. Just thought I'd give you the heads up. Sorry to disturb you. Scarian Talk 01:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I am creating a wikipage on the Oklahoma City Crosstown for a class project. I noticed that you have locked it for editing. If you have any comments or suggestions I would appreciate them.
Gouldie64 03:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I see LOTS of typos, grammatical errors, etc... I would appreciate the opportunity to correct these. I'll check back in the morning and see if you are still editing.
-Gouldie
68.227.103.67 03:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
You sure about the unblock of Shawnpoo ( talk · contribs)? The rationale for unblocking was extremely weak, and from the username to contributions I fail to see what this editor adds to Wikipedia... Deiz talk 06:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry sir, but the including of the My Farts parody from YouTube is not considered vandalism. Do not remove it from the article. If the Oops! I did it again article could have a similar parody, I don't see why this can't be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The fifth burning bush ( talk • contribs) 10:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
On August 4th, you protected "Tales of Phantasia" due to one user's multiple vandalism of it over the course of the previous day. The user has since moved on, and the 'edit war' was simply other users reverting the page. I don't feel it needs to remain protected. -- Unnatural20 12:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello!
I wouldn't be surprised that User:Lordofwar. It is okay to give Shawnpoo a chance, since Lordofwar is the main responsible of the problems. I've blocked Lordofwar indefinitely for his troubles since he may be the one who did this edit under the Shawnpoo account in the Hong Kong article (not to mention the creation of this now salted article and since he uploaded this JForget 16:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
the free use image available is from 2005 and is far to dated, there is not real reason to keep removing these images, they have all been released for public use by the band, and there is no reason they should not be in the article. Why would there be an option on wikipedia to upload images if they didn't want people to, by being one of the many wikipedians that constantly go through articles removing images your ultimately just adding to how bad wikipedia is coming through over obsessed users, i am sorry that this isn't exactly a nice way to put it but i think it is stupid how the guidelines for images have always been the same but users keep changing there interpretation of it. I know ultimately i will loose this argument but still. ( LemonLemonLemons 15:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC))
Okay. I will only use proper english from now on. But I am just a kid so I may not know how to spell some words. -- Mr. Comedian 16:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Can I make a suggestion? Do you think move protecting the same pages that this editor is notorius for moving (i.e. World Wrestling Entertainment, World Wrestling Entertainment roster, Playstation 3, etc.) are worth it if it drives him away from page moving? I honestly don't think any conflicts can arise from doing so and most of the pages he is moving are long established under the name they are currently under. — Moe ε 03:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I edited my user page, how do I add contents to it? Agtaz 19:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
__FORCETOC__
to the top of the page.
Mr.
Z-man
20:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Could you take a look at User talk:128.112.139.195? looks like a range block with some collateral damage. Sandstein 22:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't really have an interest in the Ney article, I found it while on anti-vandal patrol and noticed quite a few violations of WP:BLP which needed to be removed immediately. And wow, I didn't realize we could override WP:3RR and institute a 1RR rule for an entire article. That's pretty cool! As you pointed out, I didn't think the limited edit warring warranted either protection or a block - but your solution to limit the article to 1RR sounds good to me. I attempted to locate an editor who spoke French to take a look at the article because all the references were in that language. In any case, I'll leave the article in your capable hands, but let me know if I can be of any assistance! Dreadstar † 05:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I have no personal stake in the article, and have no opinion one way or the other on this individual. I only happened to notice the changes when I was looking at the Recent changes page, and decided to take a look. All I am saying is that I have no personal or ideological axe to grind. I just want to see the article improved---which is to say, I want to see it turned into a real article with properly-cited information. Thanks for taking on the issue. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 19:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The following articles probably need to be protected from Grawp moves: 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake (3), United Kingdom (2) and Lord Voldemort (2). Most of the articles he's ever moved so far are now protected from moving except ones he hit sporadically. — Moe ε 21:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
How is this image not fair use? It is low-res, it illustrates the subject in question (Crapware), and no free alternatives exist. SteveSims 01:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Patrick Alexander (cartoonist). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. DollyD 11:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Z-man, Could you kindly leave a comment on my block log saying it was a mistake as per WP:BP#Recording_in_the_block_log, I know you have apologized in my talk page and it is recorded in the ANI discussion as well, but just in case, could you also leave a comment. Thanks NëŧΜǒńğer Peace Talks 07:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Please do not make edits like [10]. The article was deleted because it consisted of nothing but an infobox, not because it's not a worthy subject. -- NE2 06:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for catching the image vandalism on my talk page, I was busy reverting all the other instances, lol. I appreciate your quick response! Ariel ♥ Gold 18:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
can you adopt me
Dillio411 00:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Z-man, sorry to bother you, but you seem smart on the MediaWiki interface...where would I go to suggest that the Wikipedia upload wizard automatically include a blank {{ Information}} template in the upload wizard, the way that the Commons upload wizard does? I think this will cut down on some of our image copyright problems. Thanks for any guidance you can point to! Videmus Omnia Talk 17:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles, you hit the nail right on the head. I had just finished posting a smiliar comment when yours came across. Glad to know I'm not off in left field here. Thanks. / Blaxthos 16:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you find my Hidden Barnstar Page??-- Dillio411 18:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
to find my hidden barnstar page, tink inside the box,
and its on my user page (kind of)Mr.Z-man i would like you to un-delet this wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_429_productions because it is a wiki for a productions company. if you decide to keep it deleted you would have to delet every productions companys wiki to be fair. thank you and good day sir. Superfryman 21:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I see were you are coming from but please keep it's wiki up. I am asking you in the kindest way to let it stay up. it is currently in the process of being a offical USA company and then calling it a group would be defunct. also paramont is a studio not a production company (at least i think so) Superfryman 23:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
what policies is it failing? also can I just remake the page? Superfryman 23:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
mr.ziman what you said on my talk page sounded like a threat. i am not so shore if you care on whom i am. i can be a good allie and a powerful enemy. i will go through the deletion prosses thingy but be wared if you ever theraten me again you will be very sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superfryman ( talk • contribs) 02:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
ok, i feel as though it was not given a fair chance though just because you do not know about us does not mean we are not important
Superfryman
02:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a
deletion review of
Echo 429 productions. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
Superfryman 19:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
here is a list of 63 people who say Echo 429 productions does in fact exist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sig1.jpg and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sig2.jpg
Superfryman
22:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I too would also like to know for what specific reasons did our page not meet the guidelines. I'm part of echo429 and was there when we managed to get those 60 signatures in one lunch period, that's not small accomplishment at our school. I agree with staerblader that if you are to delete our production's wiki, you might as well be fair to delete all the others. does that seem like a good idea? sincerely viper1213 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viper1213 ( talk • contribs) 20:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Please take a look at the comments by this user regarding my block at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Netmonger/UserBoxes/Terrorism, your comments there is much appreciated. NëŧΜǒńğer Peace Talks 06:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Z-man, thanks for setting me straight. Bwjs 14:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
For the speedy handling of my un-autoblock request. Mael-Num 22:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
So your message you posted me there might be one problem . My ISP changes my ip address on a regular basis which i think i would be a problem . Richardson j 22:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mr.Z-man. You deleted Feast of Fools (podcast) September 30, 2007 per AfD. I worked with another editor to reference the article in his user space. With substantial new information added to the article, I restored it to Feast of Fools (podcast). If you have any objections, please let me know. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/ c 02:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your recent edits to the article on Edgar Allan Poe... you're my hero! Thanks for putting in all those citations, fixing up language, etc. It was a daunting task I had been (admittedly) avoiding for quite some time now! -- Midnightdreary 22:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The WikiProject welcomes two new members in the past three months:
The WikiProject is now halfway done, numerically, with the 1000 articles identified in December 2006. The first (oldest) 500 articles have been claimed, reviewed, and (when needed, which was almost all cases) improved. Moreover, given the passage of time, many of articles 501 through 1000 have been worked on by other editors (it's ten months since that list was generated). So reviewing the second half of the 1000 articles should be easier.
Section 6 (articles 501 through 600 on the list) has been organized differently than the previous five sections. First, blocks are (roughly) five articles each, rather than 10, making it easier for you to claim and finish a block. Second, perhaps more importantly, each block consists of similar pages; if you're interested in fixing disambiguation pages, there are blocks of those; if you're interested in articles (which is what the project originally started out being), there are blocks of those; and there is one block of lists and one of redirects (mostly redirects to articles). So, fewer surprises this time when you claim a block.
In addition, since the project now has 25 active members (though some are likely inactive), having more blocks will make it easier to spread the editing around.
If you received this newsletter on your user talk page and don't want to receive such postings in the future, please move your name, in the participants section of the WikiProject, to the "Inactive" subsection.
This newsletter is being delivered by
Anibot; it was written by
John Broughton. Please post any comments about it to
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abandoned Articles, in a section separate from the newsletter itself.
Delivered by
Anibot
00:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Cool got your point about proving notability...will use more references and details in the future! "arf1" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.169.202 ( talk) 12:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Cool now I understand how this thing works! Thanks for the advice Z-man. "Arf1" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.169.202 ( talk) 13:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
:
).
Mr.
Z-man
17:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Greetings, Mr. Z-man, I'm unclear why you deleted the {{tl|dfu}} tag from Image:Sunrise at Campobello film.jpg before the Non-free use rationale was added, but in any case I have now added the information required per WP:NFURG (although I am not the original image uploader). JGHowes talk - 04:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see that block on 216.124.153.98. *laughs* I'm sorry! :) -- Amaraiel 15:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It was very nice to have you be the first one to welcome me to Wikipedia, and because you are interested in adoptees, I was wondering if you would adopt me. Thank you in advance for your assistance! Park Crawler 01:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Park Crawler
Thank you! I understand what my position is as an adoptee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Park Crawler ( talk • contribs) 00:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't take notes; as I recall, there was a common page that Pioneercourthouse's latest sock had been editing followed by HWDEF, making similar edits. I will attempt to dig up the info. Usually if it's not self-evident I post it on the talk page or something when I block, but this time I don't see that I did.
HWDEF has been sending repeated messages to unblock-en-l asking for someone to investigate. It's probably a good idea if someone else does; I certainly don't pretend that I never make mistakes. Georgewilliamherbert 21:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to thank you for performing the histmerge for the Beaconhills College page. Much appreciated! -- SRHamilton 22:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Z, I'm not a fan of too much trivia / cultural refs either but the list at shiv is monitored and useful. It was trimmed down from a much bigger list. If you want to trim out a couple more and / or help monitor additions that would be great. Thanks, Deiz talk 04:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Good job! I've watched that article be mutilated all day! -- Amaraiel 05:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I currently find myself blocked, being grouped within the rather broad 201.9.0.0 range.
Whilst I fully understand and appreciate the reason blocking is an available option to administrators, I would point out that blocking such a large range of users could be considered extreme.
If indeed necessary to stop a rash of vandalism, would a shorter block period not suffice? And if not, then why not block permanently, excluding forever the possible input from valid participants who happen to live in the same IP neighborhood as the offenders?
While my submissions may be few and far between, all have been made as either small grammatical corrections or valid comments. Perhaps relatively "insignificant".
Regardless, I view the prohibition of rights to a large group as a punitive and not protective measure; or is it possible that the errant posters have been so prolific in so broad a range of wikipages and from so broad a range of IPs that this is the only method of "protecting" the pages?
Regards
Chrisklinger 22:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Oops, didn't mean to cut you off there. I think an indef block is appropriate. (That's what we do for legal threats, so shouldn't death threats be as bad or worse?) Anyway, if you think the indef was inappropriate, let me know. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 20:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi There,
I love wikipedia and wouldn't want to do anything considered to be spam. My name is Michael Jensen and I'm the editor of the website AfterElton.com. The only links I add are ones that should be directly relevant to the entries such as an interview with certain folks. Is that not permitted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.10.175 ( talk) 21:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the threat of legal action you have alerted me to. The material labeled Church Scandals on this page clearly violates Wikipedia's own policies. There is no reason for it to be on the Archdiocese of Miami page other than anti Catholic propaganda which this clearly is. I have asked for an administrator to remove it at least twice, giving clear reasons listing the Wikipolicies it violates; there is clear evidence of a consensus of editors except the one who added the material, that editor's talk page (DominvsVobiscm) clearly identifies him as a vandal, yet, in spite of overwhelming reasons supporting the removal of this material, the material remains. I will not report Wikipedia to the Catholic League but Wikipedia must consider that it is inviting others to do so if it does not follow its own policies and remove this material NancyHeise 15:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice, Mr.Z-Man. I had noticed the thread shortly ago and have just placed my comments there. Regards, Hús ö nd 22:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Mr.Z-man, I'm confused as to why you've nominated John Hassall for deletion. You seem to acknowledge that he is a notable musician, so I don't suppose it's a notability issue. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems your nomination was a bit hasty. faithless (speak) 07:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mr Z-man A heads up on a recent addition to the Ultramarathon page - Ultra running in Africa - this is insulting, has nothing to do with the topic - in my view should be removed Gold Pen 07:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - I see the vandalism was removed and the item reverts to prior wording. Gold Pen 06:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
hi Mr Z-man Thanks for the feedback wrt the Rhodes Run image. I must still go over those various criteria again carefully, as I interpreted my initial posting as clearly indicating that I do hold the rights to that image (which I do) - anyway I'll have another look, as from what I can see even if I do claim the rights to the image the person who blocked it previously can do so again .... could be an interesting repetitive circle; but I'll have a look and (if it's ok) come back to you for more advice. Gold Pen 07:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi again- yes, that's my point - although I can claim legitimately that I own the image (as I thought I had done with the license wording I used) it can still be removed - Catch-22; but as I said I'll check the various license wordings, although as I interpret them there is still nothing stopping someone removing image again - or do I then protest as vandalism? Gold Pen 06:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, here to ask about the block. I see no evidence of sockpuppetry, and while there has been some edit warring, I don't see that it has reached the level of disruption which would indicate a need for an indef. It does not appear that anyone has tried to work with this editor to help him or her learn to work better towards consensus and understand our rules. Am I missing something? KillerChihuahua ?!? 09:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello. That user, whom you blocked for vandalism etc., appears to be honest in his promise to cease disrupting Wikipedia if unblocked. Would you be willing to unblock him with the understanding that the block will be reinstated in the event of any further disruption? Sandstein 06:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for vandal fighting! Please don't skip templates when warning vandals, though. Jumping from 1 to 4 doesn't help anything. In order to be blocked, users must have the 4 warnings, in most all cases, so it's counter-productive to skip any. Regards, Lara Love 03:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the block that was keeping me out yesterday, Mr Z-man. Can you tell me why being logged in didn't get me around what I assume was a complete block of all editing originating from that IP?
Also, in case you're interested, your user page has a bunch of section edit links riding over the Finished projects/Other section (when I look at it in Firefox 2; when I looked at it in IE, there were no edit links anywhere on the page). I can post a screenshot here if you like. - Eric (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Interesting to read your reply and CZmarlin's reply to this individual's questions. Each of you is saying the other one is responsible for the deletion/reverting back to the stub form of the article. So what is it?
Daniel Morris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.180.150.55 ( talk) 23:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
How are things going with Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-03 Cults and new religious movements in literature and popular culture? Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Be well! Vassyana 22:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- So a while ago I reported this I.P. for off-topic discussion on article discussion pages. This time he's done it again: [5], [6], and finally here [7] . What do you recommend? Another warning? Take care, Scarian Talk 03:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering why you deleted the article I made about the band Mordred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orthodox41 ( talk • contribs) 05:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Though I cannot see what the content of this article was, I think you went a bit quickly to delete it. The "Association amicale des amateurs d'andouillette authentique" is really notorious in France (the corresponding article on :fr gives quite a number of details) and all but a joke.
Its label is often seen on menus in French restaurants with no special explanations : for a Frenchman (at least a reasonably affluent one visiting upper-range restaurants) the label is well-known (a random example on this page - as you can note, no explanation was deemed as necessary by the advertisment writer). This article should not have been deleted, and certainly should not have been speedy deleted, and I come to your Talk page to beg for its reinstalment. Thanks for your attention. French Tourist 22:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Zman, You recently protected the above mentioned, template due to some edit war going on in the template, the conflict was based on the national flag of Sri Lanka that was on the template. The user who requested the protection, made the request after the template was altered to their desired look (which is without the flag). The national flag of Sri Lanka had been on the template since the day it was created, I can attest to this as the creator of the template. There was never consensus to remove the image and I don't see any effort put towards fair and meaningful consensus building, the participation was only by four users, two opposing the image and two endorsing it. The Sri Lankan conflict template is a very important template that covers many articles which are highly contentious. I kindly request you to reconsider the protection of the template or restore the image as it was until consensus is built. Thanks in advance NëŧΜǒńğer Peace Talks 08:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
If Pingfu can be deleted for blatant advertising, why isnt HTTP-Tunnel, the company deleted for the same reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickolas Nickleby ( talk • contribs) 19:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
That still doesnt answer the question. The article HTTP-Tunnel(company) is written with exactly the same problems that you are talking about —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickolas Nickleby ( talk • contribs) 18:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Quote - from HTTP Tunnel, a company page (Isnt this talking about why people should use it???? )
These are some common reasons for using HTTP-Tunnel:
* Need to bypass any firewall * Need secure internet browsing * Need to use favorite programs with out being monitored by work, school, ISP or government. * Extra security for online transactions * Encrypt Internet traffic. * Need to play online games * Visit sites that you were previously blocked from accessing * Prevent 3rd party monitoring or regulation of your Internet browsing and downloads * Use your favorite applications previously blocked * Hide your IP address
Unquote —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickolas Nickleby ( talk • contribs) 06:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Lost your voice? Nickolas Nickleby 20:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Nickolas
Thanks for looking into it - glad the confusion has been sorted out no thanks to me Nickolas Nickleby 17:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Nickolas
I saw that you removed the page "Avalia". Would there be a way for me to view the page before it was deleted? I know some people in the band, and I know who created the page, so I have in interest in the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallaway6554 ( talk • contribs) 15:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallaway6554 ( talk • contribs) 20:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
For taking care of that Seattle reign history move so quickly! I gave the editor a few days to post it, but I also didn't want to wait too long, so I hope I was not hasty in reporting it. I've spoken to the editor, who realizes the mistake and has promised he'll remember for the future. Thanks again! Ariel ♥ Gold 13:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for placing the semi-protect tag on the Llama article. It is a favorite among anon-IPs and kids to vandalize. BTW - I tried to use your "leave a comment" button and I probably created a wierd looking comment or article within WP. This comment was made by editing this page. -- Blind Eagle talk~ contribs 15:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you warned User:86.31.144.104 for vandalism for that supposed malicious undo that they did, however, I couldn't help but notice that they might have tried to redo to this edit, instead of having malicious desires to redo a vandalized version of the page. Please think about this, being a former anon myself, I hate to see an anon's good intentions (if they were good) go to waste. -- əˈnon gahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 19:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I did not vandalise Bald Eagle. My edit was perfectly in order. Please check before making accusations. Thanks. 86.31.144.104 19:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
[9] - Non-article improvement related discussion from him again. Just thought I'd give you the heads up. Sorry to disturb you. Scarian Talk 01:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I am creating a wikipage on the Oklahoma City Crosstown for a class project. I noticed that you have locked it for editing. If you have any comments or suggestions I would appreciate them.
Gouldie64 03:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I see LOTS of typos, grammatical errors, etc... I would appreciate the opportunity to correct these. I'll check back in the morning and see if you are still editing.
-Gouldie
68.227.103.67 03:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
You sure about the unblock of Shawnpoo ( talk · contribs)? The rationale for unblocking was extremely weak, and from the username to contributions I fail to see what this editor adds to Wikipedia... Deiz talk 06:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry sir, but the including of the My Farts parody from YouTube is not considered vandalism. Do not remove it from the article. If the Oops! I did it again article could have a similar parody, I don't see why this can't be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The fifth burning bush ( talk • contribs) 10:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
On August 4th, you protected "Tales of Phantasia" due to one user's multiple vandalism of it over the course of the previous day. The user has since moved on, and the 'edit war' was simply other users reverting the page. I don't feel it needs to remain protected. -- Unnatural20 12:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello!
I wouldn't be surprised that User:Lordofwar. It is okay to give Shawnpoo a chance, since Lordofwar is the main responsible of the problems. I've blocked Lordofwar indefinitely for his troubles since he may be the one who did this edit under the Shawnpoo account in the Hong Kong article (not to mention the creation of this now salted article and since he uploaded this JForget 16:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
the free use image available is from 2005 and is far to dated, there is not real reason to keep removing these images, they have all been released for public use by the band, and there is no reason they should not be in the article. Why would there be an option on wikipedia to upload images if they didn't want people to, by being one of the many wikipedians that constantly go through articles removing images your ultimately just adding to how bad wikipedia is coming through over obsessed users, i am sorry that this isn't exactly a nice way to put it but i think it is stupid how the guidelines for images have always been the same but users keep changing there interpretation of it. I know ultimately i will loose this argument but still. ( LemonLemonLemons 15:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC))
Okay. I will only use proper english from now on. But I am just a kid so I may not know how to spell some words. -- Mr. Comedian 16:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Can I make a suggestion? Do you think move protecting the same pages that this editor is notorius for moving (i.e. World Wrestling Entertainment, World Wrestling Entertainment roster, Playstation 3, etc.) are worth it if it drives him away from page moving? I honestly don't think any conflicts can arise from doing so and most of the pages he is moving are long established under the name they are currently under. — Moe ε 03:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I edited my user page, how do I add contents to it? Agtaz 19:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
__FORCETOC__
to the top of the page.
Mr.
Z-man
20:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Could you take a look at User talk:128.112.139.195? looks like a range block with some collateral damage. Sandstein 22:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't really have an interest in the Ney article, I found it while on anti-vandal patrol and noticed quite a few violations of WP:BLP which needed to be removed immediately. And wow, I didn't realize we could override WP:3RR and institute a 1RR rule for an entire article. That's pretty cool! As you pointed out, I didn't think the limited edit warring warranted either protection or a block - but your solution to limit the article to 1RR sounds good to me. I attempted to locate an editor who spoke French to take a look at the article because all the references were in that language. In any case, I'll leave the article in your capable hands, but let me know if I can be of any assistance! Dreadstar † 05:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I have no personal stake in the article, and have no opinion one way or the other on this individual. I only happened to notice the changes when I was looking at the Recent changes page, and decided to take a look. All I am saying is that I have no personal or ideological axe to grind. I just want to see the article improved---which is to say, I want to see it turned into a real article with properly-cited information. Thanks for taking on the issue. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 19:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The following articles probably need to be protected from Grawp moves: 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake (3), United Kingdom (2) and Lord Voldemort (2). Most of the articles he's ever moved so far are now protected from moving except ones he hit sporadically. — Moe ε 21:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
How is this image not fair use? It is low-res, it illustrates the subject in question (Crapware), and no free alternatives exist. SteveSims 01:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Patrick Alexander (cartoonist). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. DollyD 11:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Z-man, Could you kindly leave a comment on my block log saying it was a mistake as per WP:BP#Recording_in_the_block_log, I know you have apologized in my talk page and it is recorded in the ANI discussion as well, but just in case, could you also leave a comment. Thanks NëŧΜǒńğer Peace Talks 07:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Please do not make edits like [10]. The article was deleted because it consisted of nothing but an infobox, not because it's not a worthy subject. -- NE2 06:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for catching the image vandalism on my talk page, I was busy reverting all the other instances, lol. I appreciate your quick response! Ariel ♥ Gold 18:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
can you adopt me
Dillio411 00:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Z-man, sorry to bother you, but you seem smart on the MediaWiki interface...where would I go to suggest that the Wikipedia upload wizard automatically include a blank {{ Information}} template in the upload wizard, the way that the Commons upload wizard does? I think this will cut down on some of our image copyright problems. Thanks for any guidance you can point to! Videmus Omnia Talk 17:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles, you hit the nail right on the head. I had just finished posting a smiliar comment when yours came across. Glad to know I'm not off in left field here. Thanks. / Blaxthos 16:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you find my Hidden Barnstar Page??-- Dillio411 18:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
to find my hidden barnstar page, tink inside the box,
and its on my user page (kind of)Mr.Z-man i would like you to un-delet this wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_429_productions because it is a wiki for a productions company. if you decide to keep it deleted you would have to delet every productions companys wiki to be fair. thank you and good day sir. Superfryman 21:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I see were you are coming from but please keep it's wiki up. I am asking you in the kindest way to let it stay up. it is currently in the process of being a offical USA company and then calling it a group would be defunct. also paramont is a studio not a production company (at least i think so) Superfryman 23:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
what policies is it failing? also can I just remake the page? Superfryman 23:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
mr.ziman what you said on my talk page sounded like a threat. i am not so shore if you care on whom i am. i can be a good allie and a powerful enemy. i will go through the deletion prosses thingy but be wared if you ever theraten me again you will be very sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superfryman ( talk • contribs) 02:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
ok, i feel as though it was not given a fair chance though just because you do not know about us does not mean we are not important
Superfryman
02:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a
deletion review of
Echo 429 productions. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
Superfryman 19:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
here is a list of 63 people who say Echo 429 productions does in fact exist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sig1.jpg and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sig2.jpg
Superfryman
22:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I too would also like to know for what specific reasons did our page not meet the guidelines. I'm part of echo429 and was there when we managed to get those 60 signatures in one lunch period, that's not small accomplishment at our school. I agree with staerblader that if you are to delete our production's wiki, you might as well be fair to delete all the others. does that seem like a good idea? sincerely viper1213 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viper1213 ( talk • contribs) 20:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Please take a look at the comments by this user regarding my block at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Netmonger/UserBoxes/Terrorism, your comments there is much appreciated. NëŧΜǒńğer Peace Talks 06:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Z-man, thanks for setting me straight. Bwjs 14:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
For the speedy handling of my un-autoblock request. Mael-Num 22:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
So your message you posted me there might be one problem . My ISP changes my ip address on a regular basis which i think i would be a problem . Richardson j 22:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mr.Z-man. You deleted Feast of Fools (podcast) September 30, 2007 per AfD. I worked with another editor to reference the article in his user space. With substantial new information added to the article, I restored it to Feast of Fools (podcast). If you have any objections, please let me know. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/ c 02:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your recent edits to the article on Edgar Allan Poe... you're my hero! Thanks for putting in all those citations, fixing up language, etc. It was a daunting task I had been (admittedly) avoiding for quite some time now! -- Midnightdreary 22:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The WikiProject welcomes two new members in the past three months:
The WikiProject is now halfway done, numerically, with the 1000 articles identified in December 2006. The first (oldest) 500 articles have been claimed, reviewed, and (when needed, which was almost all cases) improved. Moreover, given the passage of time, many of articles 501 through 1000 have been worked on by other editors (it's ten months since that list was generated). So reviewing the second half of the 1000 articles should be easier.
Section 6 (articles 501 through 600 on the list) has been organized differently than the previous five sections. First, blocks are (roughly) five articles each, rather than 10, making it easier for you to claim and finish a block. Second, perhaps more importantly, each block consists of similar pages; if you're interested in fixing disambiguation pages, there are blocks of those; if you're interested in articles (which is what the project originally started out being), there are blocks of those; and there is one block of lists and one of redirects (mostly redirects to articles). So, fewer surprises this time when you claim a block.
In addition, since the project now has 25 active members (though some are likely inactive), having more blocks will make it easier to spread the editing around.
If you received this newsletter on your user talk page and don't want to receive such postings in the future, please move your name, in the participants section of the WikiProject, to the "Inactive" subsection.
This newsletter is being delivered by
Anibot; it was written by
John Broughton. Please post any comments about it to
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abandoned Articles, in a section separate from the newsletter itself.
Delivered by
Anibot
00:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)