User talk:ZimZalaBim

; Archives
	2004; 2005; Jan 2006 – April 2006; May 2006 – June 2006; July 2006; ;

Talk page for user MichaelZimmer

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 this page.

I dont get it

Why are some links to external sites excepted, but others are not. I have repeatedly tried to link to my site that offeres music venue information for Madison, WI. But you keep removing it. It isnt like I am making any money. How does that link differ from any of the other offsite links that self-promotes?

My user page?

Is there not a special exclusion on user pages as for interfearing? It's called a user page, not a bloody article for a reason.

--G-Spot 20:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gzlfb (talk • contribs)

User pages are meant to facilitate communication & other activities related to the Wikipedia project. Per the User page guidelines, "It is a mistake to think of it as a homepage: Wikipedia is not a free host [or] webspace provider". Further, "As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community. ...In some cases, material that does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed." Please remove the excessive list of external links, search queries, lists of search engines, etc. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a web site owner, I know the difference, for instance I don't have a cgi-bin here. I put way more on a personal home page, somethings more informative than here, like what got deleted from the 2005 Vancouver Municipal Election Pages and other additions of mine. Home page, well in a home base or hq sense, maybe, it isn't a web site and I wouldn't have it that way, but all I have are resources and research tools in the scheme of things. Sure if some are getting adword bonuses or Google bribes here maybe it would offend, but come on, why fear Wikipedia Watch or Google Watch? There's even a Google Google Watch. Watching them, they seem to brush it off. Point is, it still isn't an entry or article. --G-Spot 13:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC) User:Gzlfb

I know nothing of the 2005 Vancouver Municipal Election pages, and little about the issues related to Wikipedia Watch or Google Watch. Is there something I can do to help? --MichaelZimmer (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gzlfb Zimmer thinks he is the wiki God. He goes around summarily deleting things he doesn't like in his sole opinion. This is one of the biggest flaws in wiki - that anyone can go in and do this. I just found out he deleted a friend's page who was goint to participate in diving discussions. No rfc, no discussion, no warning, just a deletion. It's ridiculous. People like Zimmer are why so many professionals in the Internet world are afraid to get involved in the wiki project. I have a call in to Helen Nissenbaum at New York University to discuss with her Mr. Zimmer's "research activity" and the need for increased supervision and instruction on professional ethics. ArteWorks Business Class 13:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide an example of my "summarily deleting things" outside the deletion policy. If you are referring to the article User:Ronmaier, I merely asked you about it, and pointed out that it might be more appropriate in main-space and not user space. As it is, if you look at the deletion log, you'll notice that I was not the one who deleted it [1]. Calling someone in my academic department seems like an odd way way to resolve an issue you have with me here - perhaps you should try the dispute resolution avenues already in place here? --MichaelZimmer (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the dispute resolution procedures that you do not follow? Are those the ones you are talking about?ArteWorks Business Class 21:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide an example? Regarding your edits on search engine optimization, you'll notice that I did revert your addition from a few months ago [2], and then we proceeded to discuss it on the talk page Talk:Search_engine_optimization#Confusing_phrase.2FPageRank. Nothing out of policy here. Then you recently added a lengthier mention on the same topic [3], which I did not revert so as to avoid an (seemingly inevitable) edit war. Instead, I left a message on both the article talk page [4] and your talk page [5]. Again, both within policy and procedures. You, however, decided to reply with personal attacks and threats of harrassment: [6] & [7]. So I find it odd that you would accuse me of not following Wikipedia's rules & guidelines. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal finance

Chuck's most recent edit seems to follow from a failure to appreciate what is meant, in the encyclopedic context, by personal finance—which surely isn't simply the fact of one's keeping his/her personal finances separate from those of his/her business, for reasons that are plain, not least that his formulation would lead to our having a one-sentence dicdef—but I'll not revert lest he should think me vindictively and capriciously reverting his edits. I'll leave the situation to your considered judgment (read: I'll let you deal with the attendant hassles)... Joe 21:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was gonna leave you a similar message, hoping you could step in to avoid a 2-sided edit war. I'll see if I can chat with him a little about this.... --MichaelZimmer (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, notwithstanding the considerable difficulties you encountered, you actually, over the course of the day, not only resolved some issues relative to Chuck's edits but, more importantly, improved the article quite a bit ([8]), for which you are to be commended—I'd give you a barnstar, but, well, I'm lazy/tired/generally a jerk. :) Joe 04:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for your note at my talk (I'd not realized that you'd offered a similar explanation at Talk:Personal finance, but I suppose it can't hurt to emphasize the point). Joe 05:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conklin, Rick

Thanks for taking care of that. Damn these feeble newbie fingers. --Avogadro 15:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job

4 minutes on a random page. This site really is quick. :) --Yanah 13:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. But please don't vandalize pages just to see how quickly they can be reverted. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chuck Marean

Thanks for the help with Chuck. I suspect he may be just a kid - his insistence that certain facts are "boring" and limited vocabulary is often a clear pointer to this. I hope that eventually he'll grow tried of what he's trying to do and leave good articles alone. Best, Gwernol 15:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to be patient with him for quite a while, but unfortunately I don't think he's a kid: Image:1 Picture Chuck Marean .jpg. You've been kind and direct as well, but if you review his (scattered) talk history, he simply doesn't seem to process the feedback he receives. Other than blocks, I don't know what else to do. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is indeed a case where a RfC would be wholly appropriate, especially given that he has specifically requested for other editors' views on the practice of editing. This may provide a good opportunity for expressing what we think his possible strengths could be. I'm not sure what his field of expertise is (certainly not Wikipedia practices or Personal Finance, especially since edits to the latter seem to be pulled mainly from one suspect text), but this may be something that we ask of him. --Avogadro 17:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I have been considering putting together an RfC, but uncertain whether to focus on user behavior in general, or this particular content-dispute. I'm hesitant, however, given I expect Chuck to have some difficulty in understanding how such dispute resolution processes should even work. I'll try to get something pulled together. Thanks for the input. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Ignore the Wikipedia:Reference pages comment. I'm happier now. :) --Quiddity 01:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - we all need to vent sometimes. :) --MichaelZimmer (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

recrest

I don't understand the the proper page for this so baer with me, the wikichat page was delated whall i was doing a "holdon" plase read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephK19 (talk • contribs)

Creating an article "for all wikipedian's who love to chat!" [sic] is not appropriate. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum or a social networking site. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sory JosephK19 15:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nedumkotta

Hello Michael,I have rewritten the atricle Nedumkotta after referring a few more sources and i have restructured the material and added passages after referring to them. A few sentences do appear as they have appeared in the source. Please suggest if this is not sufficient. activevoid 19:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly every sentence or significant phrase from your "rewrite" was cut/pasted from [9]. Just changing the order of sentences or a word here or there isn't sufficient to avoid copyright violations. You can use this page as a reference, and cite any content taken from there, but the article itself must not be taken verbatim from that site, you must reformulate the concepts in your own words. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I will rewrite it..thanksactivevoid 20:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the article again...Still writing!!! cheersactivevoid 07:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam link on "word search" article

Thanks for removing a spam link, but what about the other links there? I would appreciate your advice on this. I think that at least 3 of them are also dubious. Fwend 00:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just following the trail of one user, but I'll take a closer look at the rest in that article. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Off-wiki harrassment

You're welcome. I suspect he hasn't done what he claims to have done, though you never know. My guess is that your department is smart enough not to take these sorts of things seriously, but there is always the potential for damage. Off-wiki harassment of this sort is extremely serious. If it turns out he has contacted your department, let me know and I will ensure that appropriate measures are taken. Always good to see another New Yorker here on Wikipedia. Best, Gwernol 20:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize for making the erroneous assumption that you deleted the third party user page without researching the issue, and I recant all statements made contrary to that effect. ArteWorks Business Class 22:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. If you come across a deleted page in the future and want to accurately determine who deleted it, click the links embedded in the message that appears on the page stating "Please try the purge function, check the deletion log and/or the deletion discussion page..." --MichaelZimmer (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]