User talk:ZimZalaBim

; Archives
	2004; 2005; Jan – April 2006; May – June 2006; July – September 2006; October – November 2006; ;

Talk page for user ZimZalaBim

Please click here or use the + sign above (next to the "edit this page" button) to create a new section for your comment.
Please be civil. If you have a problem with any of my edits or reverts, please state the issue calmly and factually, and I will respond in kind.
Please sign & date all comments by adding ~~~~ at the end of the comment.
Unless you specify otherwise, I will reply to your comment here, so you might want to watch his page.
This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:ZimZalaBim/Archive 6.

Waikiki2006

Please do not block people you are having disputes with. JoshuaZ 19:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to unblock or bring up at WP:ANI, but I first reported this user's activity at WP:AN/3RR and other users have intervened. So I presumed it would be ok for me to block as a follow up. (Plus, its hard to even say there is a true "dispute" since the user has been completely uncommunicative and unwavering in his/her actions.) --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I forgot to sign on Waik's talk page. sorry 'bout that. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've reduced the block to 24 hours since the previous was only 12. If he continues let me or another uninvolved admin know and the block will be lengthended. As for it being ok for you to block it would be one thing were it hard to find another admin but in this case in the middle of the day (US time) and with the previous blocking admin clearly editing it would take two seconds to get the block. Even if the editor is not being cooperative now, having an impartial party telling them to quit is more likely to bring them to discussion than the person they are edit warring with. JoshuaZ 19:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

got it. thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Joshua was right. He actually hadn't violated 3RR on the last change; I checked. So a ban based on edit warring is more appropriate than a ban based on 3RR. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

guess i'm feeling trigger happy today. thanks for the audits & clarification. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just had this user blocked

User:Smelly begger, who I reported via WP:AIV. I talked to blocking admin about it, but he/she's afk, perhaps left for the night. I'm reading contribution history, and the closer I look, the more obvious it becomes that he wasn't directly involved in vandalism, but actually reverting it. He was just grossly and stupidly incivil, and doing stupid things like adding tags to image name. Perhaps he should only have gotten 24 hours; or at least told he could sign up under a different username. It's rare I think a troll might have some point, but this time he might. I wouldn't have a problem, but he's complaining about rule violations on our part, and he might have a point. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only see 1 or 2 (arguably) constructive edits, and multiple extremely uncivil and disruptive edits. Seems the block was warranted, and I'm not in the habit of undoing other admin's blocks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK; yeah, if you look at the edit summaries, they were crap, but, if you can believe it, the content changes were some of the time good. For example, he was reverting vandalism on another guy's page. But yeah, it's your call, and it's a fair one. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Admin: Jeapordy Training Grounds

I noticed that in cleaning up the edits by the now blocked Fakir005, you also found and edited out other questionable additions to ad serving related articles. That's my industry, which is how I ran across Fakir005's edits. It made me think that this sort of threaded cleanup is probably pretty common, where an admin winds up weaving through related articles on a particular subject/industry when arbitrating disputes. You fix a defacement, then notice on another article that another user made a non-neutral comment, etc.

It made me curious. Do you find yourself learning a lot about subjects which you previously had little knowledge of simply through this process?

BTW, I was particularly amused by the name Fakir005 chose for his sock puppet :-)

Thanks for doing what you do. --DoGooderJohnnyD 05:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, when disruptive behavior is found, its common to examine the user's other edits to see if the pattern has been repeated, and sure, you can discover and learn new things when you come upon articles you wouldn't otherwise have visited. Perhaps a positive side-effect of cleaning up after vandals. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blocked User:Bimzalazim

Hi.

The User Bimzalazim sent me an email requesting to be unblocked. The email is pasted here User talk:Bimzalazim#email to User:ish ishwar from User:Bimzalazim.

I usually dont get involved in these things. But, since it was requested of me, I ask you: Why was Bimzalazim blocked? It seems that you think this user is the same as User:Fakir005?

Thanks – ishwar (speak) 14:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I, and others, have also received e-mails from this user (I posted notice of it at AN/I, which is now archived). Fakir005's only edits and intents on WP was to improperly edit the Zedo, ad serving and related pages. After Fakir005 was blocked for disruption (not by me), s/he made threats of switching IPs to continue these efforts [1]. Shortly thereafter, ad serving was again vandalized in similar fashion by Bimzalazim [2]. The content & tone of this vandalism was similar to Fakir, it was the vandals first and only edit, and the username was obviously chosen as a derivative of my username. All these factors led me to the conclusion that Bimzalazim was a sock of Fakir attempting to continue the vandalism. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not clear as to why you restored this libelous comment: [3]. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I guess that I am more lenient than you. I would have waited for more than one edit to reach a conclusion about the supposed identity. It may be obvious to many, but I generally give people the benefit of the doubt. I am not convinced that anyone necessarily needs to reverse your block, I was just wondering about your thoughts. I restored Bimzalazim's comment because that helps inform someone not acquainted with the situation (like me) about interactions between Bimzalazim and Wikipedia users. It is in the page history, but I find that a bit troublesome to have to go through the effort and search for it (as I wrote above, I am not really so interested in these things). peace – ishwar (speak) 18:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

What "spam" are you referring to? I simply added a resourceful link, how do you consider that spam?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Compman12 (talk • contribs) .

As others have tried to explain on your talk page [4], the external link policy provides guidelines for what kind (and what amount) of links are considered helpful, and which are not. "Resourcefulness" is not a sufficient criteria to for a link to be added. The vast majority of your previous contributions were spam, and your additions to AdSense [5] and Rubik's cube [6] added little to the articles. Feel free to propose them on the relevant talk pages if you wish. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fakir005's Legal Threats

I have unprotected User talk:Fakir005 so that he may publicly withdraw his legal threats. I will revert and reprotect it if he misuses it. ➥the Epopt 21:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. thanks for the update. ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chuck Marean/first article

I've been dying to ask him that, but hadn't wanted to stir up those particular waters again. I'll be very interested in his reply. I agree with your implication that this would not make an encyclopedic article... Best, Gwernol 02:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitated when I clicked "save page"... While likely a violation of WP:NOT, its pretty harmless (but for his presence leading to the occasional meddling in other project pages). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ASIAN WISCONZINE

RE: ASIAN WISCONZINE

how was it presented like an ad? --ALDEN PASCUAL

It read as if it was cut/pasted from a marketing brochure. The language and tone was promotional, not encyclopedic. (Also, please sign your posts with 4 tildes like this ~~~~, which will automatically insert your username and the time/date) --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is it getting deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alden pascual (talk • contribs) .

Again, it has been nominated for deletion, and the discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Asian_Wisconzine. Debates typically remain open for 5 days. (and, again, please sign your posts with ~~~~.) --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I will delete it per your request here [7]. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

could you please delete the discussion page for asian wisconzine? i just don't want people that know us to have access to this and have knowledge of what happened here. -alden pascual

The article's talk page has already been deleted. If you're referring to the AfD discussion, that must remain for archiving the debate. And its nothing to be ashamed of - many articles are deleted everyday in accordance to our deletion policy. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Christian Journal and JPMinistries.

The reason why it only has 1 source is because I'm the one who made and runs the christian journal. Thank you and bless you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sir james paul (talk • contribs) .

Yes, and personal homepages (which is essentially what this is [8]) are generally not notable to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. Please see WP:WEB and even WP:SPAM for guidance. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Christian Journal is not a home page. It is a ministry that is meant to help people live a more godly life. If you would of went to the Christian Journal home page(I put a link to it below) and if you do you will realize it is not a home page. thank you for giving up time to read this. [9] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sir james paul (talk • contribs) .

The site is hosted on Geocities and fails WP:WEB. It might be a great site, but it doesn't meet the guidelines to be included in an encyclopedia. Please note that Wikipedia is not a collection of weblinks or a space for advertising (or evangelism). Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if you can go to my website [10] and leave some feedback on my email. also tellyour friends about it.

How can you say the christian journal is non notable. I find that very offensive because it is not true. It is a christian website and I made a link to it on a christian page. My web page is good and notable—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sir james paul (talk • contribs) .

Its nothing personal, and not a larger commentary on the site. It just doesn't fit the notability guidelines we have spelled out for websites to be included in our encyclopedia. You can read them at WP:WEB. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On wikipedia you have a lot of articles that are not notable and you do not delete them. Are you saying that a ministry is not a notable thing? It kind of seems like that. My website is a lot more notable than many other things on wikipedia. Let me re make the article. Go check out my site and then tell me if its notable or not. Thank you for giving me your time and god bless you and let you live a rich and full life. [11] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sir james paul (talk • contribs) .

If I, or other editors, see articles that fail to satisfy the notability guidelines, then the proper action is to either try to edit the article to make the proper claim of notability, or to submit the article to the appropriate deletion process. Thousands of articles get added everyday that fail to be notable, and the vast majority of them are addressed in such a fashion. And, yes, some squeak through. If you see any that don't seem to be notable, feel free to add the {{notability}} tag to them to draw attention to your concern.

Regarding JP Ministries, this is a low-content site on your personal webspace that fails to meet the notability guidelines as spelled out in our policy regarding articles on websites. This doesn't mean that "ministrity is not a notable thing." Just that the site doesn't meet our guidelines (collectively authored) to be included here. Please note that Wikipedia is not free webspace for you to advertise your sites. This is an encyclopedia. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that both the christian journal and JPMinistries deserve a spot on wikipedia. These two websites have info that could be used on an article. A good example of this is the saint of the month. This is a tool that could be used as a link on the bottom of the article that is a list of saints. Another reason is that my website helps people. People should learn about a wide range of christian realated things and my website is a christian website. I will be macking these pages again but this time please wait at least a week before you delete it. Thank you and bless you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sir james paul (talk • contribs) .

Sir, have you read the WP:WEB guidelines that I've pointed out to you numerous times? Please do not recreate these pages. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went over the guidlines and my article was fine. It is a notable thing to write about and I think it is a total lie to say that it is. Please give me a more detailed reason why. I understand it is your job to make sure that the articles on wikipedia meet the guidelines and that most of the time you are right but in this case it is not. Thank you and god bless.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sir james paul (talk • contribs) .

Per WP:WEB, the site [12] would have to satisfy one of the following criteria:

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
- This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.except for the following:
  - Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.(Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.)
  - Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.
The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

As far as I can tell, your personal ministry site fails to fulfill any of these criteria. It is not notable for inclusion in this encyclopedia. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is JPMinistries up to your standards now

I am wondering If JPMinistries is up to your standards now.Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sir james paul (talk • contribs) . --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are not "my" standards but those of the community. I've asked other editors to help review your contributions. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JPMinistries article

Can you please tell me what I have to do on the JPMinistries page to bring it up to wikipedia's standards.--Sir james paul 21:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The site does not appear to satisfy the notability requirements at WP:WEB. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JPMinistries

It would make both of our lives easyer if you would leave me alone and let me write this page.--Sir james paul 21:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not trying to pester you, just trying to ensure that this encyclopedia is the best it can be and meets the various rules & guidelines the community has established. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is my site not notable--Sir james paul 02:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for CARM

I would like to ask for you do cosider deleting the article about CARM because it is non notable and is advertising a website. thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sir james paul (talk • contribs) .

I will look at it, but please don't start suggesting multiple articles for deletion just becuase some of your entries were deleted. That is considered disruptive. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, CARM appears to be notable, with over 80,000 Google hits [13] --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask what you mean when you say notable. Do you mean that it is visited a lot--Sir james paul 02:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please see the guidelines at WP:WEB. This has been pointed out to you numerous times here and on your own talk page (which you deleted). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is advertising CARM by offering a positive view of the website. Advertising on wikipedia, wich this is doing, makes this article fall short of the wikipedia's standards. By the way I'm not doing this because my pages were dealted I actually think you should of because it did not meet wikipedia's standards.--Sir james paul 02:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel a page sounds like advertising, be bold and make edits to correct it, or add the {{advertising}} tag to alert other editors of this problem. However, I really suggest you spend more time learning about Wikipedia. Perhaps start with the tutorial. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following up, this doesn't seem too much like an advertisement since there is a significant section devoted to criticisms. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My article is gone

I wrote an article on the rule of the society of saint john and now its gone. What happened to it.--Sir james paul 14:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What was the name of the article? If you go to the empty page, there should be a link to a "deletion log" which might tell you if/why is was deleted. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is called the Rule of the Society of Saint John the Evangelist--Sir james paul 15:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the article name was The Rule of the Society of Saint John the Evangelist, and if you look at its deletion log here, you'll see it was speedy deleted by User:NawlinWiki. You might also want to consider reading Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article fit all of wikipedia's standards. I also was not done. I was going to go back and make it better. Is there a way for me to get it back.--169.244.143.119 16:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, if you are User:Sir james paul, please login. Second, you might want to contact the admin who removed the article (noted above), and read the Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? also linked above. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you send him a message not to delete the rule of the society of saint john the evangelist again. The article was fine--Sir james paul 16:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you should contact the deleting admin yourself. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fakir005 Needs ZimZalabim attention

I don't know if this is the way to do it. But ZimZalaBim is creating fear in my mind. Like he says edit fearlessly. Yet he issued a threat to me that if I keep Calling Zedo an Adware I'll get blocked. that is a dispute that should not be dealt with threats. That makes me desperate and do stupid things. But the problem will not go away. I've added the following on my Users Talk to resolve the zedo and ad serving matter.

I was not accusing anybody of anything. I don't know who is who at Wikipedia So I asked. I've gone over my talk page over and over Again and I find a message not only from DoGooderJohnnyD but ZimZalaBim asking me to stop accusing Zedo of being an Adware or I'll be blocked. I offered to resolve the point in private if somebody would email me. But no body emailed. Search Engines are crying Foul. "powered by Zedo" is listed on the search engines (these are the keywords) as shameless Trojan Horses. Yet somebody is shamelessly promoting Wikipedia-Zedo as an Ad server. Obviously There is an Editor from Zedo. 'Is there any?' How are we go to resolve the matter? Could you look at Yahoo search Engine Listings Keywords "Zedo -trojan horses -819 listings", "removing zedo 23-400 listings", "Zedo- cookie -14,500 listings", Zedo Cookie - Adware - 1210 listings", "zedo - Adware- 16,400 listings", "Zedo popups - 3,400 listings" Zedo Pop Ups 3,400 listings", Zedo-Virus 27000 listings". All of these keyword listings relate to Yahoo search Engine. Yet Wikipedia continues to promote Zedo as an Ad server - "wikipedia - zedo 1910 listings". How do I resolve the matter? Please email fakir005@aim.com to reply. Thanx.
--fakir005 14:42 13 November, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fakir005 (talk • contribs) .

I've replied on your talk page. Also, the best way to sign your posts is to have the system do it automatically by inserting ~~~~. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If an administator at wikipedia tells you stop doing something then stop. He has the write to block you. All he is doing is making sure that wikipedia is the best it can be. Just listen to him and everthing will be fine. --Sir james paul 20:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]