User:Shimdidly/Archive

The following is/are backups of the Zezima user talk page due to popular demand

To moderators. Please revert to the original talk page - the big one, if you like.

'kthxbi'--Cloak' 10:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shimdidly/Zezima

why is it? hes a famours runescape player, he should be acknowledged

It's not really an important article. If this was supposed to exist, then it's better to merge it with the 'Runescape' article. yah this should be merged with runescape article at least, even a little note of how he is top player and has been for a verry long time now. Drrake 06:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC) --Shaddowwolf 03:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no point posting here because among the dozens of admins that would never let this article through one has consistently wiped this talk page in gayness. Wikipedia is a wonderful site, and does contain good info (for the most part). For some reason too many people think that having this article somehow is bad.

Guy: Why isn't there an article here? I looked it up. WikiAdmin: We feel that although this article neither interferes or harms any aspect of Wikipedia, I don't care about this guy and therefore deem him Non-Notable so that those who do want to read more about this obscure topic of interest cannot read it, and those that want to expand knowlege on the subject have their hands tied. Have a nice day (:

Shimdidly 00:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about this guy and therefore deem him Non-Notable so that those who do want to read more about this obscure topic of interest cannot read it.--Cloak' 17:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, going by your logic, I don't care about George Bush. Let's delete his article because I deem him non-notable so that those who do want to read more about this obscure topic of interest cannot read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.36.175 (talk • contribs)

---

Non-Notable?!! let's see, how many people play runescape? At least 100 million people do, and out of those, most of them know who Zezima is. How can you say he's not notable?

You're missing the point. He hasn't done anything noteworthy. Good-Bye.--Cloak' 08:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a pointless debate because those that disagree with the article have already won, and those that would be fine with it (like me for instance) can't do anything about it. It makes little difference that my value system indicates acceptance toward topics like these when a majority of people would see this done away for various reasons. I'd say go to urbandictionary.com, or tip.it for additional information or an offical interview, respectively. Shimdidly 16:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Instead of making an article on Zezima, how about an article on the top players of Runescape? Everyone knew Zezima as being the highest player of Runescape. But now with the series of new released skills, he has lost that title. Why dont we just do it on the top players? Players other than Zezima should be recognized for their achievment. BushMyster 13:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I support making a 'Best Players' article just as I support the Zezima article (I don't). Clicking a lot of trees/monsters/Other Players...(The list goes on), just doesn't seem to warrant an article. What is there, honestly, noteworthy about that?--Cloak' 17:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

good point... forget what i wrote lol BushMyster 22:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Cloak is against the article for all the wrong reasons, although it doesn't make a difference because it doesn't exist anyway, and probably never will. If people want to see/colaborate on the closest thing to an article in Wikipedia, just go Here. Shimdidly 15:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it's correct to have a link right at the top of a talk page.

But go ahead, if people want to read about a guy who plays a game a while - so be it. Just not on an actual article. --Cloak' 16:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This is somewhat irrelevant but get off your soapbox. The world does not revolve around you (although you're about the age whereas feeling that way is normal/expected). At least try to be mature kthx ;) Shimdidly 18:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if we can delete user pages? --Cloak' 19:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean one like yours? Shimdidly 15:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No, one like this. --Cloak' 16:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Even if the former is more intellectual than the latter? If you feel as such, what's stopping you from blanking the page yourself?  ;) Shimdidly 17:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Meh. --Cloak' 17:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Cat got your tongue? Shimdidly 20:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No, boredom has.--Cloak' 08:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Try making dry ice bombs. Can you buy that stuff in your area? Shimdidly 14:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If I threw a lot of snowballs at a lot of people, would that make me noteworthy? Same situation with Zezima, huh? Except, if you go on YouTube, you'll find some Zezima videos, and the sad thing is - he'd rather 'up' his score than talk to his fanbase. And he has one, no denying it. Just a note, that's all. --Cloak' 08:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

But if you threw a higher recorded number of snowballs at people within a recorded amount of time, that would make you noteworthy. And if you started a small scale internet phenomenon with people recording you for some reason... no matter how pointless/stupid that may seem. Seeing that Zezima was not only the first to throw 1,000,000 snowballs at people, and maintains the highest rank in the field, I'd say he's noteworthy. Shimdidly 14:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I can, but can't understand. It's just wrong to have an article on a person who clicks on a few more 'monsters' than other people have. Anyway, I really don't want to keep debating,

maybe because this page will probably get blanked anyway. Bye.--Cloak' 17:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you against an article on Hitler? Just wondering. Shimdidly 22:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No. If people seek information on a tyrant who killed millions, then they can go ahead. They have the right to know.

Zezima, he might have clicked millions of monsters in a game. That's all. I hate having to come back.--Cloak' 10:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh...Come on, you all...

You all are just sitting here arguing like a bunch of children. Heck, you aren't even on the topic of Zezima anymore!

It all comes down to this: We have an article for RuneScape. But we don't need an article for Zezima. When it comes down to it, what has he done? He's became the #1 player in an MMORPG half the world's never heard of and the other half is obsessed with. If you think we need a Zezima article, well, you've got problems. Despite.....past encounters.....with Cloakdeath, I have to agree with him here. We don't need a Zezima article because he isn't important. End of story. Elfred 02:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No article on Wikipedia is needed. If people want it enough, why not?

I don't know why you're using the internet right now, it isn't needed. Why are you sitting in front of a computer? Oh no! That's not needed either. If you really don't care, then what difference does it make? Nobody has to look at an article called 'Zezima' if they don't care, so why are you guys wasting your time contending against something that does not affect you?What's your angle? Shimdidly 03:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree in a way. Although I would consider many articles essential to Wikipedia's existence and reputation for reliability, they do not comprise enough of what Wikipedia is today to pick out this possible future article from many others which are not "needed". (I could summon an extensive list, but I'll bet you know of many, yourself.) This is what baffles me about some Wikipedians; I wonder what they are like away from their computers. I have seen so many articles tossed away, and without a just reason, unless you consider "well, we don't need it" as one that counts.

Oh, please, use your brain. Think of it like life itself, if you must. There are necessities and wants; the necessities must come first, but when those are managed, you can proceed with what is desired. This does not fit perfectly however, because this concept is being implemented across however many people who view or edit Wikipedia. You may think that the page is not wanted, but others might disagree. (And if you are considering citing that little AfD debate, don't bother. It was clearly biased, which anyone could tell not only from the consensus but from the editing history of those who participated.)

At it's core, my point is this: why not have an article that isn't needed, yet would be nice to have? There are articles about people/things/places who less than a million of people have heard of, yet over five million know of Zezima. Yes, the article would require protection at all times, but that can be aranged. I (and a handful of others) would be happy to construct a "Start"-quality page about this fellow.--Morale 04:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It may not be needed, Shimdidly, but he's just one player among the millions in RuneScape, and apart from RuneScape, he did NOTHING. What was that? Nothing! Elfred 13:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

...just one player among the millions... that mananged to become #1! You are clearly biased. You will never get anywhere without objectivity, especially in a website like this. Shimdidly 15:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

All that Leeroy Jenkins did was scream "All right, chumps, let's do this! Leeeeeeeerooooy! Jennnnkinnnnnnnss!", got killed, had it posted on the internet, and for some reason he has an article.--71.235.72.188 20:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

My Argument For Reinstation

I find it absolutely rediculous and power-abusive that the admins have deleted this article and blocked its re-creation. Let us analyze the evidence:

• Runescape has 100 million users (approximately)
• World of Warcraft has 20 million users (approximately)
• There is no article for Zezima, the greatest Runescaper
• There is an article for a second-rate World of Warcrafter who stages a worthless video just to annoy guildmates and acquisition fame (everytime I hear someone yell the Leeroy Jenkins battle cry, it makes me wish I carried around heavy weapons more often)
• Conclusively, the fact that Runescape has 5 times as many players as World of Warcraft, yet Runescape's best player is left in the waste basket of deleted articles, yet a second-rate World of Wacraft player is given glory and admiration. This trend is indicative that the admins are (more than a little) biased against Runescape.

Luksuh 03:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I hate WoW even more than I do Runescape. But Leeroy Jenkins has been in the WoW trading card game, afterall. Don't ask me how, he just has.

That makes him legitimate for an article. I don't really support it though.--Cloak' 07:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

So if I were to create a runescape Trading Card Game and had a Zezima card, would that make Zezima a legitimate article topic? Luksuh 08:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You? No. Jagex? Yes, unfortunately.--Cloak' 14:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The WoW trading card game was produced by Upper Deck Entertainment, but they could legally do it because Blizzard allowed them the copyright rights. So, if I were to create a Runescape Trading Card game and posted it on a fansite, it would be a valid, Jagex-sanctioned TCG due to the legal provisions provided for fansites.

Luksuh 19:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct, you partially answered your own question. If Zezima broke into media outside the internet in some way, then he may end up being noteworthy.--Cloak' 20:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that there are hundreds of articles on both objects and people that are notable solely on the internet alone. Some are internet celebrities because of YouTube, WoW, Starcraft, RuneScape, etc. Some have used the argument that they don't agree with the nature of the character Zezima or what he's done. Let me put it this way: People can be notable for good things, and bad things. Which one it is should not have a bearing on anyone's judgement concerning whether the person in question is applicable for an article or not, although it apparently does.

Also consider this analogy: Group A wants an article on Zezima and group B does not. Group B will never view the article (because they didn't want it, right?), and group A will view and gain something from the collaborated article they they wanted. Everything is good, right? Yes, until group B executes prejudice against the article and the people's motives for wanting it, and ultimately gains a majority which inevitably gains the articles demise. Now group A doesn't have it and group B (of whom the article never affected) moves on to the status quo of whatever else they were doing. Look at it from a racial analogy on the post-Civil War: Black's were just barely freed from slavery, but they had no skills, therefore they were discriminated from voting, owning property, etc. Because of what? White supremests that executed prejudice against their culture, their beliefs, and personal motives. And look what happened. The KKK comes in to hold upstart blacks at bay that are fighting for the vote. There seems to be a pattern here.

You might ask what that had to do with anything. USE YOU HEAD! Everyone that is against this article that I have seen has not had one legitimate reason for removing the article. If you don't want it, MOVE ON AND GET A LIFE. While we, the people that want it, that want to know more about a little bit of everything, can have it. Thank you. Shimdidly 22:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove admins and moderators while you're at it, too. Good luck with that!--Cloak' 22:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

How is that relevant? Read the 2nd sentence of the 3rd paragraph again. Shimdidly 22:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

ROFTLMFAO! I don't no if anyone else noticed this, but Cloakdeath just compared ending racism and KKK to removing adminstrators and moderators. LOL. Luksuh 02:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. The last two sentences really matter. What would Wikipedia turn into if everyone had your mentality? Why do you think we have "admins" and "moderators"? Really, I don't understand this thing about a few Wikipedians wanting to have a whole page on a person who has done nothing. Sorry, I must have forgot the tree clicking and all that.

Look, I don't know why I have to explain for all the "admins" who have locked the page, but it is just, plainly obvious. He hasn't done anything noteworthy. No matter how much you want to read about him, he still isn't noteworthy. It's just how it works. Blame Wikipedia, not me. Im just enforcing rules.

Oh, and sorry, I didn't have time to read your KKK comparison before. Between this and Hitler, you go all the way Shimdidly. You really make me wonder why you want it so much.--Cloak' 09:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, having an OpenSource encyclopedia that has admins who delete articles because the person the article is regarding yields only 303,000 google hits completely defeats the purpose of an OpenSource encyclopedia.

Luksuh 20:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I want the article for a number of reasons. For one, I think that having the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" have limitations on an article about an entity that was able to attain 99 in every stat, and maintain the #1 rank in a game with millions of people completely condradicts what I believe Jimbo Wales intended his encyclopedia to be. I think that removing it is a glorified form of vandalism. Many people read Wikipedia to get insight on obscure topics that aren't found in an ordinary encyclopedia. Cloak, be real this time, why do you care? You don't want the article? Move on and tell me when an article about 'Zezima' interferes with whatever else you were doing on Wikipedia. Try to keep an open mind. Let this encyclopedia be knowlege and info for those that seek it. Group A would benifit, and group B would save a whole lot of time contesting something that doesn't even interfere with them. Have you ever heard the principal, greatest good for the greatest number of people? We should live by that statement. That's why I'm here. Because I think that letting an article like this survive would make a greater statement about Wikipedia, and a larger base of articles. Shimdidly 01:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No Zezima article is stupid. No offense Cloakdeath. Oh and guys, please look Runescape up, I think it says 7 million people play it, with 850,000 members. Also, I disagree with you Cloak. What nonsense you spew is fine, but, keep with the facts. You seem to be haviing trouble with that. Bafu1234 2:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Which facts Bafu? The fact that he isn't really noteworthy, but since so many people want an article, he should just get one?

But I give up. Bye.--Cloak' 08:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm amazed that the tards who have deleted and protected this page from re-creation have gotten away with this prejudice for so long. It's outrageous. There is a healthy amount of us who are willing to collect information and maintain the page, yet we can't because a massive bias from a bunch of jerks with unfathomable power on Wikipedia is holding us back.

Welcome to my world. I'm thinkin' about getting a bunch of edits on Wikipedia and running on RfA. Maybe then I'll have the guns to get this page going. Until then, don't hold your breath. The grounds that this page have been deleted under are notability, which is 50% based on opinion and perspective. It is also based on what the majority will rule. Majority has power, no doubt. Shimdidly 15:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out.. the '100 million' and '20 million' numbers are absolutely wrong. --86.143.184.237 10:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

On Notability

The arguments for a Zezima article are based upon him/her being "highly notable". True, but only within the RuneScape community. This isn't an encyclopedia dedicated to RuneScape (and the one that is won't accept a Zezima article either) - it is for everything and everyone. The "non-notable" deletion reasons are not based on opinion; they are based upon Wikipedia:Notability, and more specifically Wikipedia:Notability (people). The primary notability criterion is that "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself" [...] "[t]he "independence" qualification excludes all self-publicity, advertising by the subject, self-published material, autobiographies, press releases, and other such works affiliated with the subject, its creators, or others with a vested interest or bias" - the RuneScape community, such as fansites, have a vested interest or bias, so therefore cannot be used to assert notability. In short, Zezima must be featured in mainstream media not dedicated to RuneScape in order to warrant an article in Wikipedia. Leeroy Jenkins is notable as the meme has had coverage outside the World of Warcraft community, just read the article. Can we stop this bickering now please, and get on with improving the main articles? We're trying to get RuneScape to Good Article status and fix up RuneScape gods, and help is always appreciated. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 01:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You've made a good point. Your first argument is invalid: this isn't an encyclopedia dedicated to RuneScape. That makes no difference whatsoever. Wikipedia is dedicated to anything notable to write about. However, your last points are valid. In that case, were are wasting our time here, since Zezima has no outside coverage. Thanks for bringing that up. Shimdidly 15:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

By "isn't an encyclopedia dedicated to RuneScape", I meant that Wikipedia isn't about every tiny specific detail of RuneScape and only RuneScape. Yes, we should obviously write about anything notable, within reason. It's not reasonable to write articles about the goblins that hang around near the Lumbridge/Al Kharid gate, for example. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If it isn't possible to have an article where the resources are "works affiliated with the subject, its creators, or others with a vested interest or bias", then there are no ways to create an article. If you can't use resources regarding the subject, then you'd either have to make stuff up, or use arbitrary sources (using a cat resource to write about the internet).

Luksuh 20:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A resource with a vested interest or bias is a resource dedicated specifically to the subject. For example, RuneHQ, an RS fansite, has a vested interest or bias, but Gamespot, a general gaming site, does not. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 21:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Your example: It's not reasonable to write articles about the goblins that hang around near the Lumbridge/Al Kharid gate, I disagree with. As long as Wikipedia is gaining donated support, we should keep pressing forward. If I donated to Wikipedia, I would support an expanding excyclopedia, not one that offers stipulation after stipulation because a topic isn't large/notable enough, even though there are 1,000's of people that want such an article. However, even said, if this article goes against the guidlines that qualify the article, then this debate is pretty much over. Shimdidly 15:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)