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.

I was going to take this up with can't sleep first, but their talk page is also protected. Cannabis (drug) is usually unprotected. It attracts the most vandalism of any page but no one seems to mind. Vandalism gets fixed seconds after it happens. However as you know many of Wikipedia's editors do not register a username, and there is no reason to deny them the opportunity to edit this article. Please reconsider, and also please ask can't sleep clown will eat me to unprotect their talk page as well. I know they protect it occasionally, but it's been protected for four days now. 199.125.109.32 04:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ive copied your comment to his talk page. Mr. Z-man 04:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. 199.125.109.32 05:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering why you deleted the page on Fagan? I did post a request to give me a little longer to finish the page.... Ashleyfagan 00:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC) user:ashleyfagan

There was no assertion of notability in the article. Given that they have yet to release an album, it is unlikely that the band will be considered notable by Wikipedia's standards any time soon. Based on your username, you may also have a conflict of interest - note that writing articles about yourself or groups you are a member of is, while not prohibited, is generally discouraged. Mr. Z-man 00:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

In Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks you wrote: “The towers were not designed to withstand aircraft attacks, they were designed to withstand aircraft impacts. According to Collapse of the World Trade Center, they were designed in the 1960s to withstand an impact of a Boeing 707 at 180 mph, in the event one was lost in fog. The Boeing 767s that hit the towers were longer, wider, taller, could carry more fuel than the 707, and were traveling 440-540 mph.” You used selective quoting to prove a point. For honesty you should have written a reply including the articles second paragraph: “The National Institute of Standards and Technology, however, was unable to document the study reported by Robertson and FEMA. Instead it found a reference to a study of the effects of a Boeing 707 carrying 23,000 gallons of fuel hitting the buildings at 600 mph, which would not only be faster than either of the two planes that hit on 9/11 but with twice the fuel quantity.” Wayne 02:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And you left out the part of that paragraph that states "NIST was unable to find any further details about the study and ultimately suggested that any attempt to compare the performance of the buildings to design expectations would be 'speculation'." Since our own research is irrelevant in terms of the article, the point is essentially moot. Mr. Z-man 03:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And that section should probably be archived - it's been there for over a month with no comments. Mr. Z-man 03:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It was actually "deleted for dickiness" according to the summary. I noticed it when I checked to see what was deleted. It may be speculation but there is independant documentary evidence that this reference is correct while it is only Robertson's recollections that the 180 mph is correct. I'm not trying to get you to correct your reply (it's deleted anyway) but merely pointing out an error. Wayne 04:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

How long did you protect WP:NOR? It has been nearly two weeks, which is an unusually long time for a dispute protection. Dhaluza 12:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the dispute resolved? As it has quite an extensive protection log for disputes (especially recently) I did not set an expiration time. Mr. Z-man 14:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No, far from it. But permanent (or indefinite) protection for a policy page is a bad precedent. You should have set a time limit. Please unprotect it, and if it needs to be protected again, set a reasonable limit. Dhaluza 09:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think your point of opposition has already been addressed. As noted in the discussion you can simply look at WP:FC which has already formatted a couple hundred lists in a main page friendly format. I hope you will reconsider your opposition after taking a look.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You previously opposed the List of the Day Proposal due to formatting concerns. Could you please look at the following two proposed main page mockups and reconsider your vote (I think the 2nd may meet with your approval):

Excerpted list format

Abbreviated text format —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger ( talk • contribs) 18:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks very much for the Good heart barnstar, but I was only doing what I felt was right, to fix my error in blocking newbies. Bearian 13:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The article was about Tampa-based band Keyhole. The reason for deletion was certifying the importance of the band? This is a newer Central Fl based band but already one of the more well-known industrial acts in Central FL, opening for such national acts as Marazene and Sister Kill Cycle & receiving radio airplay. The article didn't express opinions and was just a statements of facts. Why was it deleted? Much lesser-known bands have wikis with no contesting or deletions. Badmunchkin 00:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Badmunchkin

Neither Marazene nor Sister Kill Cycle have articles here, so that does not help your case. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (music) for the notability criteria for bands as well as Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Many radio stations have local music programs, so just saying "radio play" is not good enough either. If other articles for less notable bands exist, please point me to them so I can delete them as well. Mr. Z-man 00:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

there's plenty of localized bands on wikipedia - I'm not sure why neither marazene or SKC are here - I didn't realize it was a popularity contest. Here's one I found right offhand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburban_tragedy

Badmunchkin 06:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Badmunchkin Badmunchkin 06:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't really a popularity contest (as much as the media is) as notability on Wikipedia is based on the availability of reliable secondary sources. The article did not have any and made no significant assertion of notability. If you believe that the article met Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, feel free to argue your case on deletion review. Mr. Z-man 16:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I left you a response to your question. Please respond there if you have any additional comments, concerns, or questions. Thanks! -- Willscrlt ( Talk) 04:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for your input. I've made some changes to the templates (one which should really have been deleted months ago) and added a notice to the WikiProject page requesting help to clear the backlog. Thanks for bringing this up. -- Willscrlt ( Talk) 07:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There has been nothing but vandalism and reverts on the article since at least Oct. 18, maybe earlier. So I think the article deserved protection. You're right though, I should've tried semi-protection first. Frankly, I totally forgot about the option when I did that. Thanks for correcting my mistake. - Mgm| ^(talk) 21:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

So, images aren't allowed for use in signatures? Is that why the pic was deleted? If so, I'll take it out of the sig. Please, just let me know what's up. - The Led Balloon ( Tick Tock) ( Contribs) 04:05, Oct 28

Please see WP:SIG#Images. Not only are images not allowed, but you were using a copyrighted image, which is also in violation of Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. Also note that user subpages for signature templates like you have are not allowed to get around the character limit on signatures as they can be vandalized and the signature length limit exists for a reason. Please put your signature code in the signature area in your preferences. Mr. Z-man 04:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I didn't realize that was how it was done here; over at uncyclopedia we always just made sub-pages. But anyways, I'll fix that in a sec, please just leave the sub-page there for now, as I'll have to make some major changes. The sig itself fits in the box alone, I think, but the code that makes the date smaller and more aesthetically pleasing doesn't, when you add the sig code. Any suggestions, other than just scrapping it? -- TheLedBalloon —Preceding comment was added at 04:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Many archive bots use the timestamp to determine the age of posts, it is usually best to leave it in the normal format. Mr. Z-man 04:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, but for some reason now I'm getting an italic timestamp. Can you see what's wrong? It's tough to tell with that tiny prefs box... - TLB ^{( Tick Tock) ( Contribs)} 04:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Put the last '' outside of the </small></sup>. Mr. Z-man 04:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks very much for all your help! - TLB ^{( Tick Tock) ( Contribs)} 04:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and I guess you can delete User:TheLedBalloon/sig now. Can we just have a few moments alone together?

......OK, I've said my goodbyes. Farewell, relic of an alternate wiki! You were always ahead of your time...maybe behind it...oh well, it's not important. Anyways, feel free to delete it, Mr.Z. - TLB ^{( Tick Tock) ( Contribs)} 05:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

A couple of notes:

(1) I tested the "Other" by putting in the name of an actual article, in the "Create article!" box, and it dropped me into the pre-existing article. It would be nice if there was some way for it to check that the page didn't actually exist, for those who fail to search, or search properly.

(2) Have you considered using the existing Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Wizard-Introduction as the basis for your step-by-step create-an-article starting process? The Intro screen would no longer be needed, but the second screen ("Subject"), which now shows if you click "I would like to submit an article without registering", would be a nice starting point. (For what it's worth, I think it might have been built using the inputbox functionality of WikiMedia.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

1. I can (and will) do something like this.

2. I personally dislike the AFC system. "Is your article advertising" - No real spammer is going to say yes, they aren't stupid, and no one who ends up writing an advert-like article on accident is going to say that either. I'm also trying to make it simple, but not patronizingly so. I think people can get that an article needs sources without having a dedicated page for it and a bunch of HTML comment, some IN ALL CAPS on the editing page. I'm modeling more after the image upload wizard. 1 selection screen, then it takes you to the upload page. I also plan on using different preloads for different topics. The one for bios will have {{ Infobox person}}, companies will use {{ Infobox company}}, etc., and all the help screens will be more geared toward the specific topic. Mr. Z-man 01:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Good points. I do think that there is a group of people who are just clueless - they think that Wikipedia should have a page about their company because Wikipedia has a page about everything, for example. Letting them know about WP:N and WP:COI could, in fact, lead them to decide to drop the matter rather than writing an article; I hope that your process will include opportunities for such self-reflection. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully I can incorporate that without making it too long, the longer it is the more likely it will be that they skip steps. Mr. Z-man 04:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for responding to my RFA. I just would like to figure a couple things out. I'm not sure if you noticed, but in question 5 I think I addressed the comment in two ways 1)If it was a content dispute, or 2)if it were actually vandalism. If you don't mind, could you please reread my answer and maybe explain what I might have missed or what should have been done. Thanks, I just want to understand my mistakes so I'll be ready for the next RFA. Icestorm815 15:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Talk:Dan Jacobson (Taiwan). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jidanni 02:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw your comment on the VP. If you're planning on building a guide for article creation, you should probably take a look at the AFC process. It's a bit bare bones, but it should be a good start. Perhaps we should start an article creation bootcamp and award something like a medal or userbox for people who graduate? I had this plan earlier, but there is a LOT of material and policies to cover to make that work...- Mgm| ^(talk) 13:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've said my opinion on the AFC process both in an above section here and on the VP (not a fan). The boot camp thing is an interesting idea though - could help get new users more acquainted with the basics of the MoS and content policies. Mr. Z-man 13:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. I only noticed your mention of AFC after posting my message to you. The thread is that long. I'll try to mockup something for that bootcamp. Feel free to pitch in: User:MacGyverMagic/Bootcamp. - Mgm| ^(talk) 12:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I see you around rather frequently and I know you are an administrator. I need your help. I did a double redirect by accident. Someone moved the Lucas Roberts and Sami Brady page to Lucas and Sami Roberts against consensus about "supercouple" on soaps. Can you help me fix my error. The page needs to go under Lucas Roberts and Sami Brady. Thank you. IrishLass0128 17:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done Mr. Z-man 17:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, could you please take care of the reported vandal that has sat on AIV for some three hours now. Several people would appericate it. - NeutralHomer ^{T: C} 04:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef (why me?) Mr. Z-man 04:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks! :) I asked you, because you were the last admin to block a person, so I knew you would be online to recieve my talk page post....but thanks, none-the-less! - NeutralHomer ^{T: C} 04:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What were you doing? [1]. I strongly suggest that you contact Jimbo by email. While I have no desire to add to the burden of mail he receives, it is my invariable experience that a rational question will receive a civil, and usually comprehensive, answer. Always assuming his own response does not satisfy you, of course. Guy ( Help!) 20:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I was perfectly fine with the deletion of it. ZScout contacted Jimbo and was eventually resysopped. As far as I'm concerned, the matter was almost completely resolved at ANI. I have no idea why it was deemed necessary to undelete it. Mr. Z-man 20:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't even been following it, I considered (after the undeletion) of endorsing Deskana's "waste of time" view. They even changed some of the desired outcomes from what I originally had. Mr. Z-man 20:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not just change them back? -- El on ka 20:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The main desired outcome I had already happened before it was undeleted. I don't know when it was changed, so I don't know how many people may have commented based on the changed version. Mr. Z-man 20:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I still think that some good could come of the RfC. We could try to analyze the actual core issues involved, meaning the problems with the current policy system that made Jimbo feel that he needed to take unilateral action. I've actually got some comments I'd like to post, but I'm worried about wasted effort since people seem so trigger-happy about deleting it... If you, who created it, aren't behind it anymore, then I guess that makes things moot. But I wish that we could genuinely learn from this situation, rather than saying, "All done, nothing to see here, move along," which in my opinion is really just postponing the larger discussion that the community still needs to have. Or to put it another way: Would you please consider certifying the RfC, so that we can continue with the discussion? -- El on ka 21:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I was about to post a comment basically endorsing Jimbo's response, but I edit conflicted with the close by a few minutes. I took JzG's advice and emailed it to Jimbo, along with some other of my observations and suggestions. Perhaps a different discussion could be started based on policy rather than Jimbo's actions? Mr. Z-man 21:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That would work. My main desire is that somebody with the authority to actually implement changes, needs to discuss things and make some wise choices. I'd like to know that some constructive benefit has come from this recent controversy. If not, then we're just going to keep repeating the same mistakes, and all this energy was wasted.  :/ -- El on ka 23:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the format would be, policy RFCs are usually done on the policy talk page, but this involves multiple policies ( WP:WHEEL, WP:BAN, and others) as well as some "unwritten policy" like Jimbo's status. I'd say either create a whole new page or maybe a subpage of WP:VPP (as its pretty much guaranteed to get too long for the main WP:VPP page). Mr. Z-man 23:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

One idea I've been kicking around (just in the spirit of brainstorming, I don't know if it would work) is an entirely new committee system. For example, we already have MedCom and ArbCom, we could make a PolCom (or some other name) with a fluid membership for policy & procedure review. The way I'm envisioning it, would work like this:

(1) The community decides via some minimum threshold of good-faith editors, that a policy/procedure needs updating, and that the existing systems have not been effective in addressing the problem;

(2) A page is opened where interested members of the community can volunteer to be part of the PolCom committee for that problem. It could be an open call up to a certain size of committee, and then if we got more volunteers than that, then we could potentially do a community election process a la ArbCom, where the members with the highest % of community approval would be the ones actually on the committee.

(3) This committee would then go off somewhere, either privately or publicly, and debate the problem and come up with recommendations for a solution, which they would then present back to the community at large.

(4) The community could then accept or reject the recommendations by a consensus discussion, sort of like an RfA.

(5) If accepted, the changes would be implemented, the committee would guide the transition process, and then once implemented, the committee would dissolve.

This way we could have multiple policies being reviewed at at any one time, by committees that were actually focused on practical changes within a structured format. The system would also appropriately scale, as the userbase grows. Examples of issues to be addressed could be anything from dealing with longterm disruptive editors, to WP:V, to procedures for promoting administrators, to enforcement of WP:CIVIL. The multi-step process (consensus that a procedure needs to be reviewed, consensus on who the committee members will be, consensus on implementation of the changes), along with the advantage of having a small group analyze the problem rather than a large group endlessly arguing about the problem, might actually help break some of the existing logjams. -- El on ka 23:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea. My first thought is "not another closed committee..." but then I think of how difficult it is to get policy changed (even harder to create it) unless it is already common practice or there is an urgent need for it. This could be a good idea, large group discussion with lots of drive-by commenting is a really crappy way to get major changes made and new policy created (credential verification, flagged revisions, and attack sites come to mind). I especially like the idea of a different committee for each discussion; my question would be, would anyone be eligible or would it be limited to those who don't have a vested interest in the policy (people currently discussing it). I would add a bit to the end, something like "If not accepted, the committee would decide amongst themselves whether or not to try again based on the community discussion. And of course (and you would need to mention this if you propose it), policy could still be changed in the current way. The only problem is that you would need to go through the current method of policy changing to implement this, unless people would be willing to use this process to see if this process should be implemented (is that a paradox?). Mr. Z-man 23:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

For eligibility, I would say "editors in good standing", which could be defined in routine ways (min # of edits, time on site, no un-reversed blocks or open RfC/ANI threads within 6 months, something like that). As for whether they were or weren't involved with the policy already, I'd definitely like to keep it open to those that were involved, since they'd be more aware of the subtleties involved. Not to mention motivated. Your other suggestions sound good. As for implementation, I'm thinking the way to do this might be to have a short write-up as a "proposed guideline" somewhere and then posting about it at the Village Pump and whatnot. If it ended up in the same "logjam" as the other stuck policies though, we might need a goose from Jimbo to get it going. But first I just want to make sure that the idea looks plausible. :) What do you think of the name? Having a good name can actually be a big step in getting community approval, so if you like something else better, definitely speak up.  :) -- El on ka 00:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a good idea to me, but then I tend to be more progressive when it comes to policy than many other users and things that sound great to me end up dying in discussion :P - This definitely sounds like the thing Jimbo might be interested in, I think he is a little frustrated with some of our current policies and the unwillingness to change them. As far as the name goes, it sounds good, I can't think of anything better... Mr. Z-man 00:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)This is an interesting idea, Elonka; I'd like to spend more time thinking on this. A neutral and informed editor who has experience directly relevant to your question (in various areas) is Marskell ( talk · contribs). Since he edits mostly in fairly neutral areas, he's not agenda driven, but certainly has experience with agenda issues. He put a lot of time into WP:ATT (and saw the ups and downs of that), he reformed WP:FAR and he's now engaged in a workshop to propose some other changes to the community. You might want to query him; I think he'll give you some good feedback. On one hand, committee work like this may attract editors with a vested interest in a certain outcome, but it sounds like you've thought that part out in the composition of the committees. On the other hand, the committees can actually get something done by not having to deal with the policy and guideline trolls; the amount of time spent on trying to rework policies and guidelines is significant and not always fruitful. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, you have been involved in the recent blocking/unblocking of my account and that is why I tell you that I am now leaving Wikipedia. See my talk page for details. Goodbye, Thebestkiano ^{T| C} 22:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you block user:172.164.82.195 for me please? I've reported him long ago but no one seems to be watching AIV. Gscshoyru 22:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done Mr. Z-man 22:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!! Normally I wouldn't care but the yellow box was sort of disrupting my vandal-fighting abilities. Gscshoyru 22:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Great -- [2]. Looks like I'm in for a fun night... Gscshoyru 22:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm... thanks for the semi. That should stop him. Could you shorten it though? Eight hours is a bit much, especially during the time I vandal-fight the most. 2 should be plenty, I think. Thanks!! (sorry to be so bothersome.) (ec-ed with him, he's after you now...) Gscshoyru 23:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And thanks once more. :) Gscshoyru 23:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you do me a BIG favour and restore:

1. User:Tyler_Warren
2. User:Tyler_Warren/box-footer
3. User:Tyler_Warren/Welcome
4. User:Tyler_Warren/talkheader
5. User:Tyler_Warren/Secret_Page_Awards
6. User:Tyler_Warren/Things_you_can_do
7. User:Tyler_Warren/WikiProject
8. User:Tyler_Warren/Selected_biography
9. User:Tyler_Warren/Related_portals
10. User:Tyler_Warren/RFA
11. User:Tyler_Warren/box-header
12. User:Tyler_Warren/Selected_article
13. User:Tyler_Warren/My_page
14. User:Tyler_Warren/Sandbox
15. User:Tyler_Warren/Box-Bottom
16. User:Tyler_Warren/Secret_Page
17. User:Tyler_Warren/BarnBox
18. User:Tyler_Warren/Barnstars
19. User:Tyler_Warren/Categories
20. User:Tyler_Warren/Selected_picture
21. User:Tyler_Warren/Tyler_Warren_news

Once that's done, I'll go through and check my pages to make sure nothing else needs to be restored. PLEASE help me out and restore everything. Turns out I've totally gotten rid of the guy who was harassing me, so I dont need to quit Wikipedia. Tyler Warren ^{( talk/ contribs)} 13:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done - I removed the speedy tags that were on the most recent version too and found a couple more on your userpage. Mr. Z-man 16:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Other deleted pages in your userspace are User:Tyler Warren/Tyler Warren and User:Tyler Warren/Userboxes. Mr. Z-man 17:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The Userboxes one.....I don't need......but you did good and I thank you. A barnstar is coming your way. Tyler Warren ^{( talk/ contribs)} 02:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my user page. -- Nehwyn 07:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Mr.Z-man, looks like the article that you had protected will never be unprotected. I would like to request for a peer review for the article Propaganda model. I personally do not like page protection but I don't like edit wars as well. Invite your fellow admins for the peer review as well. Unless something has to be done about it, I guess that the "Propaganda model" article wil be protected until all hell breaks loose or by 2009 (more plausible). Please discuss your thoughts in my talk page. Thanks. this is iaN 09:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC) (talk page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ianlopez1115)

Hi. You added a {{ cleanup-list}} to List of people from The Bronx a while ago. What sort of cleanup did you have in mind? The tag says It may be poorly defined, unverified or indiscriminate. It seems like none of those things to me. The list is described as, These famous people all resided in The Bronx at some time in their lives. That seems pretty well defined. At one time, this was part of The Bronx, but was factored out to its own article. How would you improve the list? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If I had to guess my reasoning, it would be the way it is organized. It is in alphabetical order, but each letter is just a comma separated list on 1 line. Since the whole thing consists of almost nothing but blue links, it is a little hard to read. Mr. Z-man 18:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it any better now? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat, in a way it would be better if they were arranged by subject (politicians, entertainers, etc) and not just by name. Mr. Z-man 20:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. You do realize that what you're suggesting would require that I actually put some effort into this, don't you? :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, otherwise I probably would have done it myself :P - By no means do you have to do it. Mr. Z-man 22:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you're right. It would be more logical that way. I'll work on it. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, maybe this is just a dumb list after all. Replacing this entire list with catagory:People from The Bronx might be right thing to do. What do you think? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, A category would be easier to maintain than a list, you could convert the existing list pretty easily with WP:AWB (or if you don't have it already, I could do it sometime soon, it would be a fairly trivial task). A category would be best, unless you wanted to really put a lot of work into the list and make it something like List of Athabasca University people, a featured list. But that would be far more work than simply re-ordering it by topic. I don't know how ambitious you are, but I would just do the category. Mr. Z-man 00:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[3] [4] Editing from an IP? - LuckyLouie 17:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

His userpage has since been semiprotected and all the sock accounts and IPs are blocked. Mr. Z-man 18:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Just putting this here in case you didn't see it on Butseriouslyfolks' talk page -

The blocked ip's are for sock puppets identified as User_talk:NotSarenne belonging to the banned user User:Sarenne, they should not have an expiration date. And now he's harrasing and threatening an admin here. So what can be done to stop his range of ip's since he is a modem user and has flaunted such? -- Marty Goldberg 22:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much the only thing is either a short /16 rangeblock (2 hours maybe) whenever he is disrupting or (as I believe Auburnpilot suggested) longer blocks on smaller ranges that he seems to be in most of the time, though that might not be as effective. You may want to consult with a checkuser first to determine the amount of collateral damage a large rangeblock will do. Mr. Z-man 22:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like Auburnpilot is exploring all these options on his own talk page. Is there any way we can get a semi-protect on the pages this ip has been making continued dissruptive edits on now? He's gone to calling me a terrorist to threatening to ban me, and now was mentioning something about an AK47 on me. -- Marty Goldberg 22:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I pity you for having to deal with this... -- NE2 22:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you restore my pages again. It seems Maxim doesn't understand that I have returned. She deleted my pages, and then when I asked her to restore them she removed my comment, so it seems I'm gonna have to report her. Tyler Warren ^{( talk/ contribs)} 01:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it was just your main userpage. User:Manticore reverted my removal of the old speedy deletion tag. I've brought it up with him, it was probably a misunderstanding. Mr. Z-man 02:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I saw the history and noticed you just undid the edit. I assumed it was vandalism. Next time, it'd be helpful to leave a comment. Tyler, please refrain from leaving trolling comments on my talk page. -- Manticore ^{Talk | Contributions} 07:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

-- nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 00:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's that Barnstar I promised you for restoring my pages and clearing up that mishap. Tyler Warren ^{( talk/ contribs)} 07:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for restoring my pages. Tyler Warren ( talk/ contribs) 07:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Z-man. While I can't argue that the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alustriel Silverhand was to delete, I note that the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qilué Veladorn resulted in a merge to Seven Sisters (Forgotten Realms). Given that Alustriel is demonstrably more well-known and notable within the setting than Qilué, I believe a merger is more appropriate. As such, I'd like to ask you to userfy the deleted page so I can merge it into Seven Sisters (Forgotten Realms). Thanks in advance! Powers ^T 16:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Userfied to User:LtPowers/Alustriel Silverhand. Mr. Z-man 20:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Powers ^T 03:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		You are too efficient. :-)

Bearian 19:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Bearian 19:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I undid your move of the Privatmusings thread to a subpage. It would make more sense, if the thread is too long, to split the new material into a new thread rather than to move it to a subpage that no one will look at. Lar put it on the AN/I to generate more exposure to the issue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to put the material in a new thread, do so. That section alone is about 80KB, the page takes forever to load on anything but a good broadband connection. And if people keep adding new sections, it will just increase the time it takes to archive the whole thing. Mr. Z-man 00:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the comments on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Majorly#Oppose, I'm sorry for only making talk page edits. As you said, I had not edited a single article until I received that notice. Please accept my apologies.-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. deleted contribs 02:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I supported Majorly and that is in the past (the warning, not the RFA), why did you feel you had to apologize to me? Mr. Z-man 02:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it was unnessesary. I just did in response to your comment on the RfA, because you were right. But moving on to vandal reverts.-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. deleted contribs 02:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I fear my extra comment on the semi-protection request may have gone unnoticed, Yukon vandalism has been ongoing for months and represents more traffic on the site than real contributions. IPs being similar here does not mean much as we're on a very narrow bandwidth and most IPs will be similar anyway. Do I need to resubmit my request or can it be reassessed in its present form?-- Tallard 23:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the comment about the IPs being similar after doing a WHOIS, they are in the same /8 CIDR range, but are completely unrelated (though some ISPs do have ranges that big). You can feel free to ask for more opinions, but it just isn't frequent enough for semi protection yet in my opinion. Mr. Z-man 00:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Mercury has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{ subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Mercury 01:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for voting at my RfA. Unfortunately, the result stands at 51 support, 21 oppose and 7 neutral which means that I did not succeed. As many expressed their appreciation of my works in featured portals during my RfA, I will fill up the vacuum position of director in featured portal candidates to maintain the standards of featured contents in addition to my active role in Good articles. Have a great day. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 04:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dearest Mr.Z-man,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your kind words of support are very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to The_undertow and Phoenix-wiki for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.

Lara ❤ Love 06:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Credits: This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks which was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

The reason for the deletion was "Is basically a secrets guide.".

While I should agree with this from an external point of view, the primary goal of the page was to be a LIST of NDS games with GBA connectivity, just as there exist a List_of_Wii_Wi-Fi_Connection_games or plenty other Nintendo related lists ( I don't know how to internal link to categories, sorry). Added informations on the page specified what the connectivity consists in for each game, so it eventually turned it into a secret guide.

I don't want the page to be brought back as is but I feel sorry for the loss of informations collected so far. Would it be possible to undelete temporarily the last version of the article so that it could be reworked to match other lists criteria (without inner games details, or with those deported on the game article on wikipedia). If you don't think it's the right thing to do, can you at least mail me the last version so I could post the informations on another site maybe more appropriate (gamefaqs or other video games related site) and so the 1 year contributions of wikipedians to this article won't be lost.

Thanks. VVedge 07:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've talked to Smiddle, admin of Nintendo wikia and he agrees with the migration of the page. Can you discuss with him how it could be done smoothly ? Thanks a lot. VVedge 20:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I lol'ed. Glass Cobra 05:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

When I start giving reasons like that, it usually means its time for sleep. Mr. Z-man 05:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You either voted on the original list of the day proposal or the revised version. A more modest experimental proposal is now at issue at WP:LOTDP. Feel free to voice your opinion.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you voted on the List of the Day proposal. A new one has been made and your comments are welcome. The Placebo Effect 01:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, you stated that the STCC section be deleted due to it being "advertising". I would like some clearification on this please, seeing the page was started by a fan of the STCC, using STCC content, with fellow drivers maintaining it. Could you please provide us with specifics on how it was advertising, we can work on the neutrality of the article, so it conforms with the guidelines. Gu3st 02:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Gu3st

I want to be adopted. I'm willing to learn (though sadly most of the work must be done through messages, as I live far behind UTC), and my brother, User:PRhyu, does work reverting, and I got interested. So, with regards, Executor Tassadar 13:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you adopt me please I am quick to learn and I think a joy to adopt. (Well I would say that!) Seen I am new I need help on the basics, and looking at your page your more then able. Can you reply on my talk page please thanks -- Patrice58 02:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed you on the page for this deleted article, saying you took the history to another Wiki. Could I have the link? I was referencing that article. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 02:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Its now at the Nintendo wiki here. Mr. Z-man 17:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! RainbowOfLight ^Talk 22:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My roommate asked me to bring this to your attention User_talk:GundamsRus#Block_rationale Why is removal of {di} tags without addressing the concerns not considered vandalism when copyright violation threatens Wikipedia?

My roommate had brought the issue to the talk pages but the reverters did not participate in any discussions before reverting. That seems to be more indication that MalikCarr and jtrainors reverts were vandalism.

Thank you. Lasalle202 13:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. A dispute over whether or not an image is fair use is not a dispute over whether or not an image is a blatant copyright violation. Wikipedia's fair use restrictions are far stricter than actual copyright laws. A blatant copyright violation is if someone tried to pass off a copyrighted image as under a free license or uploaded the image with no source or fair use rationale. If someone does not respond to discussion, bring it to the attention of others, don't continue revert warring. How do you know that they were doing it to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia? From the perspective of an outside party, it appears that both sides of the dispute believed that they were right, in which case reverting solved nothing. Mr. Z-man 17:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

An editor you blocked yesterday ( user:Pol64) is trolling once again, this time at the talk page for [WP:PAW]. There is further trolling by user:SqueakBox, including violation of posted instructions by admin to stop editing other users' posts.

I've also requested a checkuser on users Pol64 and Squeakbox - writing styles are extremely similar, and posts are showing up by one and then the other in very short order. - HolokittyNX 00:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious that it is this kitty user who is doing the trolling, certainly not SqueakBox. Wikipedia does not need this kind of filth, and I do wonder why users who post this kind of trivialising of serious crimes are allowed to continue to edit wikipedia. It seems like an abuse of proivilege to me. Pol64 00:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Not right now you haven't and given Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SqueakBox (3rd) I suggest you do not waste your time. This allegation, which is false, has been disproven by checkuser by 2 users who have access to checkuser as you can see from the link. Pol64 00:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is really a dispute here (as the SSP case suggests this is all just attempts at harassment) please take to formal dispute resoultion. If this is just harassment, please take to WP:ANI; I'm too busy to deal with this now. Mr. Z-man 01:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Z-Man. I was wondering, this user is blocked for creating a spam page. While he is blocked, he puts the page on his user talk page and removes his warnings [6]. Is this OK? Cheers, Je t Lover ( Report a mistake) 04:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If he does it again, I would revert and tell him that Wikipedia is not free web hosting. Then the page should probably be protected. Mr. Z-man 05:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Z-man Thanks for your kind words and yes please adopt me, erm right I want to know how to make a page from the start, as I have discovered a page that has not been added at all so I want to be the first to make the new page if that makes sense thanks reply on my talk page -- Patrice58 14:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Z-Man thanks for the link I think smile bank should be given it's own page and linked to the co-op page am I right or wrong and if so why? ooooops the link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smile_%28bank%29 thanks -- Patrice58 14:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hay Z-Man should this article not the title be Kelle Bryan Or Bryan Kelle I think it should be Kelle Bryan but I am not sure at this point? (What I mean is her name after the title as it is Bryan Kelle) the link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelle_Bryan thanks -- Patrice58 ( talk) 23:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I was not talking about the title I was talking about everything below that thanks -- Patrice58 ( talk) 23:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That guy sure is annoying, but at least we know who he is with all the ref's to the number 41. When I first noticed the moves tonight, I added this. Was too late though, as it was already taken care of. - Rjd0060 ( talk) 06:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've dealt with him a few times before. Usually he gets more moves that that in before he is spotted, thanks for catching it. I noticed because I have a few of his popular targets on my watchlist. Mr. Z-man 06:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Good job! - Rjd0060 ( talk) 06:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This was nothing, someone beat me to the reverts, I just did the deletions. See my move log for some other recent incidents with Quacking and Grawp. Mr. Z-man 06:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, that guy is very persistent. Whats with the 41? - Rjd0060 ( talk) 06:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I thought I was being helpful in allowing other people previously involved in the article the noob, but I now see from your standpoint that it would be considered non-neutral. I will immediately cease and desist. Is that enough, or will you require me to revert or alter my edits? Once again, thank you for your concern on the issue, I apologize if I offended. Timmccloud ( talk) 20:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Re this edit: [7] Please do not delete messages from my talk page like that. Thank you. -- Coppertwig ( talk) 21:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The message was canvassing for an AFD. Please see the section above this one, thank you. Mr. Z-man 21:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know the reason behind your continued need to have the WRNY and WRRC articles deleted. The stations have licenses, hence they are notable. Just because they are in Rome, NY and Lawrenceville, NJ makes them not less notable. If these stations are deleted, then it opens up a "can of worms" that would give cause for each and every single radio station article to be deleted, no matter how notable. I encourage you to think before opening that can of worms and making WP:WPRS completely irrelavant. - NeutralHomer ^{T: C} 05:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Z-Man - if you want to modify the standard for notability, please take it to the Radio Project group disucssion. Unlike most of the other stub articles being created, I actually included a reputable media source about the format change. You might even have my support to modify the notability standard, but not by repeatedly tagging it for deletion without a rationale. StreamingRadioGuide ( talk) 08:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

SRG, I see no changing the Notability Standard for Radio and Television Station articles, it just won't happen. If the standard was change some couple thousand radio station and TV station articles and really any radio show, radio network, radio anything and by the same token, any TV show, TV network, or TV anything would have to be deleted as not notable. Since that would piss off a couple thousand editors, make several WikiProjects irrelavant, and lead to the exit of many, many editors, I don't see it happening...ever. - NeutralHomer ^{T: C} 09:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Z-man. I have closed two of your nominations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WRNY (AM)‎ & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WRRC (FM)‎, as snow keep. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask me. Regards, Rudget. talk 18:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. However, if I could, I would like to request all our discussion, go here. Where I have left a comment regarding the closure. Regards, Rudget. talk 21:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to see this for an explanation of my actions. Regards, and all the best, Rudget. talk 22:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr.Z-man, for supporting my RfB, which I withdrew at a final tally of (33/12/1). I failed to overcome the not unforeseeable opposition, but I am humbled by some extremely supportive, encouraging words I could read. In order to honor your trust, I once again vow to continue working and improving. Please contact me should you have any advice or recommendation to give. Or, should you need assistance. I am, as will always be, at your service. Again, please accept my most sincere gratitude. Best regards, Hús ö nd 03:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Z-man. You've recently blocked the above editor for 72 hours, for edit warring and general disruption; I'm not here to dispute that block at all. However, AMIB is currently a party to a RfM (located here), which has recently become active and which requires his participation, in that he is the only party on one "side" of the dispute.

Seeing as the RfM is concerning the article for which the user was blocked on, what would your position on unblocking him (pending a complete refrain from editing the related articles) in order to participate in this formal dispute resolution on these issues. Surely DR is a better alternative to blocking? Awaiting your response.

Kind regards,
Anthøny 19:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Except for User:Hbdragon88, all the other parties in that dispute are blocked for the same amount of time, so I'm not sure if its really necessary. If they would all agree to refrain from editing the articles, that would be best. Mr. Z-man 19:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware there were more blocks. In that case, awaiting their expiry would probably be the best course of action - I'd rather avoid your blocks being overturned, even if you do it yourself :) thanks for your response! Anthøny 20:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You are correct about the "no shame" accusation I made against you. It was completely inappropriate. I have struck the comment and published a mea culpa and an apology, but I also wish to extend one to you personally. dhett ^{( talk • contribs)} 02:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Mr. Z-man 02:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sincere apologies .. I was going to ask how one properly moves articles after receiving advice that cutting and pasting caused a problem with page histories. There will be no more cutting and pasting to move pages! Bruceanthro ( talk) 06:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone thought of something that might be helpful: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#We should tell newbies what to do to create an article. I pointed out the Wizard. ( SEWilco ( talk) 19:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

I did read what was said in the discussion, the fact that he seemed to have a personal problem with your edit history does not erase the fact he feels that policy is being incorrectly overpushed in this case. He has a right to think that and to vote in that direction. Call him a troll if you care to, doesn't make his point any less valuable. Qapf ( talk) 12:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Hat. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- evrik ^{( talk)} 15:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• No offense meant. Thanks. -- evrik ^{( talk)} 17:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for pointing that out. If I'd actually scrolled down a bit more I would have seen the build up of categories at the bottom. Thanks again.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 09:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

User:GundamsRus has gone right back to editing Gundam articles after being unblocked. As I'm not eager to get another whack for edit warring, I shall instead pass the buck to you. Can you please protect Psyco Gundam? Jtrainor ( talk) 20:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea I know, I figured he could get like a 24 hour block or something. People like that are not going to suddenly make helpful edits, they should be blocked quickly. But I understand. michfan2123 ( talk) 05:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Does your close here preclude creating as strictly a disambiguation page? I (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No, feel free to do so. Mr. Z-man 23:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell me the three shows they're from? Or you could just restore it shortly for me to create it from? I (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Arnold!, The Red Green Show, and Recess (TV series). Mr. Z-man 23:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've recreated it. I (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the explanations in the broadcast media section are too long. Perhaps you can shorten them by cutting links; separate unlicensed stations and pirate stations and have a separate section for examples that don't meet the guidelines. - Mgm| ^(talk) 18:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Much of that section was written by other people, it would be best to suggest that on the talk page. Mr. Z-man 00:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You said you would request a checkuser on this guy. I didn't see it on WP:RFCU - did it get declined and removed already? Thanks. Mango juice ^talk 16:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Responded on the user's talk page. Mr. Z-man 17:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that we can call the decommission discussion solved as far as mediation is required. Those from WikiProject Highways would like to thank you for your involvement with the mediation. It has been a quiet but successful end to what has been a long hard fought discussion. The way forward is probably to set a standard for this sort of terminology along with other terms that consensus is needed for. Whether this be through a manual of style or some other format. Hopefully it will be done with similar success to this recent wave of discussion. Thank you again

File:WikiProject HWY.pngWikiProject Highways File:WikiProject HWY.png Seddon69 ( talk) 23:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Mr.Z-man. Will you please explain why you removed Hiroshima maidens and Pumpkin bomb in the See Also section in the article Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I think both are related enough to the article. Thank you. Oda Mari ( talk) 05:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of articles that could be linked to in the see also section. Category:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has 75 pages in it and a subcategory with 14 more. I might be able to integrate Pumpkin bomb into the article itself when I begin to rewrite and expand parts of it. As far as Hiroshima maidens goes, it should probably be explained and linked to in the Hibakusha section. Mr. Z-man 18:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand. I'm so glad to hear about the integration. That was what I wanted but didn't know what to do. As for the Hiroshima maiden, I agree with you. If there's anything that I can help for the matter, please tell me. Thank you very much. Oda Mari ( talk) 18:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I accidentally changed one of your edits that I actually liked--we were editing the article at the same time. I tried to change it back to what you had. Sorry! Toyalla 07:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I was going to upload pictures of the Iowa districts for the Iowa Senate and Iowa House of Representatives from their official website what image tag do i need to use? Ctjf83 ^talk 23:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't find anything on their website that indicates what the copyright status of works by the Iowa government is. Since there is nothing to specifically indicate that is is under a free license, it is probably copyrighted. If you mean maps like this - they are unremarkable enough that they could be redone by someone else and released under a free license (and in a better image file format). I would suggest contacting another Zscout370, who is very good with this kind of stuff about creating a SVG version under a free license for the images you want. Mr. Z-man 00:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

are works by the State gov like that even copyright? i would think it would be public domain? Also, the 2 i'd put are far more detailed then that, so it might be hard to reproduce it Ctjf83 ^talk 00:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It varies from state to state. I didn't see anything that indicated either way on the site, and no specific declaration is generally interpreted as copyright by default. ZScout does lots of work with images, including flags, seals, and coats of arms. As long as it isn't something like an actual photograph, he can probably reproduce it, or something similar. Mr. Z-man 00:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

ok, i contacted him, thanks Ctjf83 ^talk 01:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have laid out my reasoning on User talk:Mister GJK. It is also possible that this user was using open proxies that were also being used by a banned user; this is the only semi-innocent explanation I find plausible. I am prepared to unblock on a probationary basis if he states definitively that he is not banned or sockpuppeting. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 02:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Any decison is up to you, I didn't look into it too much. I just saw Jon Awbrey + arbitrator + checkuser and realized it was probably beyond the scope of the {{ unblock}} system. Mr. Z-man 03:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Only to say I shoved a "\" in before the "." on that one - I think it is needed though my regex is not my strongest point!). Plus thanks and congrats for doing the log too! Cheers -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

In this case a \ isn't needed. A period without a \ means "any character." The URL was changed to wart-pictures, so the period followed by * will prevent any combination of symbols or letters from being used there (or nothing at all to stop the original link), instead of just a -. I've always found Regular expression examples to be helpful. Mr. Z-man 16:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Appreciated, my education continues, cheers -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. A request for comment has been opened regarding User:Kmweber's oppose !votes on WP:RfA has been opened here. You tried to get Kmweber to stop his behaviour on his talk page, so your endorsement of the dispute is required within 48 hours. Thanks, Auroranorth ( !) 09:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday there were relevent and reliably-sourced casualty figures added to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article, and some editors objected to this. It seems you were called in to quickly "protect" the page from editing, effectively blocking the inclusion of the figures. You cited "edit warring," the more accurate term would be repeated reverts from those who did not like the figures for political reasons. There are casualty figures in all the conflict, war, battle etc. Wiki articles I have referenced, why not this one? Thanks RomaC ( talk) 11:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

RomaC, the edits which you tried to make were a set of statistics for one year only, which you attemepted to place in the first paragraph of an article describing a conflict of over sixty years. This article covers an issue of extreme sensitivity and complexity. The fact that your edits sparked so much conflict and opposition speaks for itself. Here at Wikipedia, we value the ability to achieve consensus, and to be fair to many viewpoints. And believe it or not, we often do achieve that at the article Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is not enough to disinegnuously claim that your figures were "reliable," without addressing any of the underlying issues, or any of the conflicts which it clearly and immediately caused.

To repeat: statistics for just one year of the conflict do not belong anywhere in the article's lead. there are a wide variety of figures which either side could quote, all in the name of objectivity, which would clear and unacceptably attempt to create a slant towards one side or the other. please note, this is why we are careful when making edit to be sure that we actually have consensus, rather than simply telling others that they should provide consensus. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 14:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object to your calling me "disinegnuous" [sic]. You wrote on the article talk page that you agreed with Hertz1888, who argued that the statistics might be biased. Do you not regard Haaretz as a reliable source? Please explain more clearly why you feel that citing reliably-sourced and up-to-date civilian casualty statistics in an article about a war, battle or conflict is disingenuous. If you or any other editor want to add more statistics, covering a longer time period, then go ahead, but do not delete relevant content added by other editors. Yes, the edit "sparked so much conflict and opposition" but note also also that here at Wikipedia we do not determine what is "fair" through intimidation by numbers. There is a big difference between consensus and false compromise. RomaC ( talk) 15:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if you felt I was offending you in any way. i only meant to describe the appearance of your edits, not to describe you personally in any way. if other editors deleted some edits, it is because they genuinely felt there was a reason to do so, and that the material was not beneficial or fair to the article. I responded to your concerns and issues further at the article talk page. thanks. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 15:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted, and I will also make my further comments on the article talk page. I am not a single-issue editor I get around a bit on Wiki, saw the Haaretz report and very much believe it is something very relevant to the article. I can't say I know for certain why other editors deleted the material, I try to assume good faith, we'll see. RomaC ( talk) 15:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"repeated reverts from those who did not like the figures for political reasons" - motive doesn't really matter, its still edit warring, its still disruptive. Protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Mr. Z-man 21:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The subject of this article is a deadly conflict, the lede is huge - and yet it contains no mention of the casualties. Clearly, there is something seriously wrong. As a result, your action here, while well-intentioned, looks highly partisan. Worse than that, it looks rather like like a cynical move to protect deniers, those who wish to cover up atrocities, the mass killings of (mostly) unarmed civilians, in many cases recognised by Western sources as war-crimes. If the events at this article really offend you, it would be a lot better to lock it at the alternative version. PR ^talk 10:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If I had a vested interest in the article I would not have been the one to protect it. See m:Wrong version and WP:PROTECT#Content disputes. Mr. Z-man 10:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

PR, your remark proves that these edits are highly slanted. I know you oppose Israel and consider its behavior and conduct wrong and unjustified. believing that doesn't make it worth putting in an encyclopedia. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 19:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve, your arrogance is astounding. Can we now assume you "oppose Palestine"? As your stated opinion is that "many or most Palestinians have no intention to accept or recognize the State of Israel. their main goal is to destroy Israel and to do harm to Israeli citizens. Any other statement is not true," then I strongly suggest you back off editing the article in question or running to admins to block edits you don't like. Here at Wiki, the articles are not anyone's personal property. The edits in question were sourced from Israel's oldest and most respected daily newspaper. If you think they are slanted then you can go ahead and attempt to purge Wiki of all Haaretz content. I ask you, would you object so much if the numbers in the casualty figures were reversed? Also I note you have already been reported for campaigning, your megaphone intimidation is not what Wiki is about, please desist. RomaC ( talk) 12:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw that you deleted this article - a quick look through the history shows that the article was not always copyvio - it was changed to copyvio by an IP in February, was quickly reverted, and then changed back without anybody noticing in March. I've restored the non-copyvio versions - please check article histories thoroughly before deleting for copyvio, however. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 16:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I usually do check that, but I generally don't check that far back, especially for pop culture articles. Though I should have noticed that copyvio revert and then another edit by a similar IP. Mr. Z-man 16:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It happens. I just feel obliged to scold for erroneous deletions. :) Phil Sandifer ( talk) 16:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The one saying that I am like the moderator of the NHS Page is kind of a little thing to keep vandaliser's away. I do keep a look out for the NHS article because i am an alumni from there. But I am not imposing ownership on it. The reason I revert alot of the edits make to the NHS page lately is because people have been deleting encyclopedic material. Like the last change that was made they said that it was uncyclopedic material and that it was promotional, i undid that revision. Sorry if there was confusion and please message me if you have any more questions. have a great day! Chrismaster1 18:26, 5 September 2007

In addition, I saw the thing about me on the Wiki thing about vandalism. I posted the bitch slappin thing to get people to quit deleting stuff about the band. So that's why I said what I said to get people to stop deleting the band. By the way, If you happen to run into justtoletyouknow6 i think thats his name, tell him to send me a message. Chrismaster1 18:05, 6 September 2007

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dearest Mr.Z-man,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 96 supports, 1 oppose, and 3 neutrals. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. I'm a new admin remember, so if you have any suggestions feel free to inform me of them. I would like to give a special shout out to Hirohisat, Wizardman, and Husond, for there original co-nominations. Thank you once again and good day.

Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor

Credits

This RFA thanks was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks. So unfortunatly this is not entirely my own design.

Kwsn (Ni!) has passed you the Wiki Joint! WikiJoints promote... uh... promote... help with... do... wiki... something... yeah... uh, what was I saying? WikiJoints help promote, uh, wiki stuff... and help with... {{subst:User:Krimpet/WikiJoint}}... huh?

Nathan has given you a kitten! Kittens promote Wikilove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and keep up the excellent editing! Send kittens to others by adding {{ subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Mr. Z-Man, I was wondering how do you become an administrator on Wikipedia? If you could please tell me how on my talk page, I'd greatly appreciate it. chrismaster1 19:52, 13 January 2008

Mr. Z-Man, how do I find out how many edits I've made to Wikipedia? chrismaster1 14:23, 15 January 2008

Dustihowe  Talk  has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{ subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.