User talk:TeamZissou

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Tremble dance[edit]

Hello! This message is about six months overdue but thanks for improving the stub I started in Tremble dancing in bees! I'm glad someone was inspired by the topic enough to research it. - Beccargh

William H. Illingworth[edit]

Hi, I came across your article on Illingworth, which looks like a very good start. I've made some corrections to formatting, WP style and writing style and thought you might like to have another look... particularly with a view to how most Wikipedia biography/photography articles are formatted, etc. Check out the article's talk page too, because I've added a template linking the article to the History of Photography WikiProject, which might be of interest to you. Ciao! Pinkville 14:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Good job with that. Thanks!TeamZissou 19:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


Rats[edit]

Thank you so much for your help and research on the rats and the food supply on the Rat article! —mako 16:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Firearms[edit]

Welcome to the WikiProject Firearms. I hope you enjoy being a member.--LWF 02:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

bullets[edit]

Unless these bullets have enough special information to warrant an entire article, or you have at least a stub of info to post, I doubt that any of these "articles" will pass speedy deletion. Do they really warrant entire articles unto themselves? - superβεεcat  20:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Huot[edit]

Admittedly, it's difficult to discern whether "automatic rifle" is part of the proper name or just a qualifier. Browsing over the weapon categories I see a mixed bag of lowercase and titlecase. Anyway, if you're sure that it should be capitalized, you can move the page yourself; I don't think it's a big deal. Highly specialized topics like that often don't attract much discussion, as they're Greek to the general public. IOW, whatever you discuss agree with Kalashnikov and other editors is fine with me.

I don't understand your statement "Now we have two titles that say the same thing, but concern different topics." Huot light machine gun redirects to Huot automatic rifle, and there isn't any other article starting with "Huot". Duja 06:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Smoking[edit]

I saw your cry for help. I'm a bit busy studying for an exam, but I'll soon make a reply concerning Naacats outlandish criticism concerning smoking in art and history. If you're concerned about the article I recommend contacting an admin (or several of them) and pointing them especially to the replies made by David Ruben and Nmg20. Just ask someone to unlock the article by pointing out that the conflict is not representative of the community, but merely one newcomers POV zeal and misunderstanding of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. If there's more revert warring, request a temporary block for Naacats since this is a crystal clear case of POV pushing. The article should not be protected merely because a smoking activist decided to start a anti-anti-smoking campaign on Wikipedia.

I recommend that you studiously ignore Naacats talkpage activity until he manages to come up with valid, intellectually honest arguments to support his proposals to alter articles.

Peter Isotalo 07:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Zissou, I appreciate your commitment to countering pro-smoking nonsense, but I think you should try to calm down a bit. I completely understand your need to vent about the absurdity of the whole situation, but it doesn't really help right now. Just try to bring attention to the fact that Naacats isn't making constructive edits nor presenting good arguments. A single crackpot is not going to wreck an article like smoking simply by being obtuse.
Peter Isotalo 11:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd appreciate you taking a look at Passive smoking where a lengthy mediation process with two pro-tobacco editors has gone nowhere. I finally withdrew and it seems likely that a disputre will re-emerge on the page.JQ 11:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


De-Snarked[edit]

Think I've de-snarked it. See my talk page. Cheers! - superβεεcat  10:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Fighting the vandals[edit]

Thanks for keeping the grubby hands of vandals off smoking. I know it must be a bit frustrating to see it assaulted all the time, but you should consider keeping your edit summaries a bit more civil instead of venting your anger. Considering that anon editors seem to be engaged in defacing the article on a daily basis and making little or no constructive contributions, maybe we should request permanent semiprotection.

Peter Isotalo 09:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


Sorry sir! but vandalization is actually what YOU are doing to Imod apparently due to denial of your deletion proposal.

There is no evidence (nor even common sense) that suggests IMOD is anything but disinformation or quackery. Rather, it is a contemporary and obvious example thereof, a fact which was acknowledged in the deletion review process and cited specifically as a reason to retain the article, and therefore the external links stay. TeamZissou 18:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

IMOD[edit]

Yeah, it's a lot better to move it to IMOD (herbal extract) moreso because the referred to extract is probably complete BS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatarize (talkcontribs) 02:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

On Iran[edit]

The scientists mentioned ARE Iranian citizens (for sure Vafa, Musivand and Rahbar). They are not just Iranian-born! Some of them grew up there and did their university education there or were a faculty member. Sangak Talk 14:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

M-1 Carbine Article[edit]

The M1 carbine article is currently on lock down. An administrator has requested some discussion from memeber of the Firearms Wikiproject. Can you take a look?Sf46 (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

From Dinkytown[edit]

Sorry TeamZissou for not getting back to you sooner. I lived in Dinkytown from 1992-2006, but had been going to the "U" since 1985 (grad. in 1992). My major was history with Scandinavian emphasis and hung out with the Scandi crowd at the U, but that was back in early eighties. I'm active in the Sami community, but not through the U. Take Care. Dinkytown (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Your contributions[edit]

Hey, I note you've made lots of fauna contributions. There's currently a talk page discussion on wikiproject:mammals about standardising the way names are displayed; if you'd like to contribute i'd be grateful :). Ironholds 10:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Re "Not a Top-notch Article"[edit]

I've replied to your comment on Talk:Rosetta@home. Emw2012 (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions discussion[edit]

Hi, you might be interested since you're an avid mammal article editor. There's a discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Wikipedia_naming_conventions_for_organisms that you might wanna read over. Shrumster (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Question about my history[edit]

I have a question concerning this edit. Not so much the discussion about the relevance of the "benevolent dictatorship" section which was mysteriously added without consensus at some point, but rather about your comment that "the most recent user has a history of removing relevent information". As I was the most recent user that had edited that article, I can only take it to mean me. Would you care to elaborate what that alleged history of mine consists of? --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The above argument continued on Saddhiyama's talk page, where I pointed him in the direction of the content of the comments on his talk page as evidence. He didn't find any evidence of a history of removing relevant information on his talk page despite more than half the comments left by other users concerning his removal of other people's relevant information, so I gave up. TeamZissou (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
what?TeamZissou (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Mammals Notice Board[edit]

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

" consider keeping your edit summaries a bit more civil instead of venting your anger"[edit]

The pot calling the kettle black. I made a good faith edit to Smoking. You arbitrarily delete it, without comment, I put it back, you delete it again with a snide and uninformed comment. Any altercation I have had on Wikipedia has been me responding. I have a tendency to lose my temper and respond with infantile vulgarity.

Its' not necessary, almost without exception people like yourself that enjoy impressing their views on others, create animosity and start altercations usually don't have a leg to stand on. You have made rude comments in edit summaries, you have had another user ask you twice to cool out with your attitude on the same article Smoking. If doing the right thing and improving quality was in the foremost of your agenda you wouldn't leave tags on articles you have "created" like Sherman Trap for almost 4 years already.

But I owe you a thanks I myself am going to control my temper. I can state my case in a rational manner without resorting to calling people "J***-off". It seems to be par for the course on Wikipedia that those who create confrontation with others can't defend their position rationally and usually have little or no constructive contributions, like yourself, 40 articles "created" most a sentence or paragraph at best and almost every one with a tag for multiple issues. So have a good day 7mike5000 (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Update: The above comment is part of a Wikiquette alert, found at: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Incivility_by_user_7mike5000. TeamZissou (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback.[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TeamZissou. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Donald Duck (talk) 02:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

re: John Boyd (military strategist) reference[edit]

Where in Coram did you read this? Can you add the page number to your reference? Thanks. Yappy2bhere (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Ugh, I swore to myself I'd never accidentally sign my mainspace contributions, but it seems I did just that. I just got off a ton of NPP, so I must've accidentally hit the autosine function. Sorry about that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Announcement[edit]

Hello! I'm The Arbiter, one of the coordinators for WikiProject Zoo. I am proud to announce the launch of a new portal: Portal:Zoos and Aquariums! ZooPro, ZooFari, and I worked hard to create a new portal for information on zoos, aquariums, and the associated projects and articles on Wikipedia. If you could head on over, take a look at our work, and maybe learn some more about zoos and Wikiproject Zoo, it would be great! Cheers and Happy Editing!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Arbiter (talk) at 03:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC).

Re: Image replacement fight on Agoge[edit]

Hello, while I've dropped a WP:3RR warning on the user's page, my involvement in the dispute was rather marginal, and honestly haven't looked at the dispute very carefully, I suggested the user engage in discussion on the talk page to establish consensus. Sorry for the delay in answering, I fail at tagging stuff with {{unsigned}}, takes me a while :D And in general, I can assure you that warnings and subsequent escalation to admin noticeboards such as WP:AIV and related are indeed effective methods :) A sysop has just a few more buttons, no more ;-) Snowolf How can I help? 02:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Synchronicity[edit]

Hello. According to the page history, you have repeatedly added 12 article links to a see also section in Synchronicity.[1][2] Not only have you reverted two editors without discussion (one of whom is the primary contributor), More interestingly, an anonymous account(s) has been adding unrelated and duplicate seealso links to this article for some time now,[3][4] and is usually reverted. For some strange reason, your two reverts to this article also appear to be the only two edits you've ever made to this topic. That raises a few red flags.

In general, when you want to add content but find yourself repeatedly reverted by different editors, you're supposed to use the talk page to initiate a discussion. Per WP:SEEALSO, "links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section". While this aplies to the majority of the links that you've added to the see also section, the rest are not clear and you will need to provide a rationale on the talk page. It is generally an attribute of poor quality articles to repeat links in a see also section like this, and of even poorer quality articles to add links that are not at all clear or capable of being merged into the article. Please use the talk page to convince other editors of your edits. Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not quite how it happened at all. I'll compile the info I need to challenge your gross accusations and demonstrate that I was reverting unconstructive edits -- and even went so far as to appease whoever placed the SEEALSO tag above the now missing section. I'm fully aware of the rules, and did not violate the three-revert rule -- I didn't technically add anything to the article at all, either. I'd appreciate if you'd stop talking down to me -- I've been an editor for 5 years. A look through my history reveals that I've been a jerk a few times, but a look through yours demonstrates that you like to repeatedly accuse people of sockpuppetry, and I'm not going to be intimidated by some passive aggressive Wikipedian McCarthy. I'll post a reply to your talk page tomorrow, and then copies of all of this to the Synchronicity talk page. Goodnight. TeamZissou (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Please read my comment again as it appears you missed most of what I said. If you like, feel free to copy this discussion on the article talk page where I will be awaiting your proposal. Viriditas (talk) 05:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure I caught what you were getting at the first few times I read your comment, trying to figure out why someone would frame a comment like that and then make accusations of sockpuppetry -- and what I figured out is that you regularly do that to people you disagree with. What I'm going to figure out tonight is why you felt the need to re-erase a See Also section which had been clipped-down as requested by the tag -- with an air of authority as though such a move was fully discussed on the talk page by you and several others -- and why your account regularly is involved in such lightening strike revert-then-call-sockpuppetry disagreements as indicated by your history. Synchronicity was placed on my watchlist because I was interested in the topic, and when out of the blue I see a huge deletion edit made to any article on my watchlist, I check it out. Erasing an entire see also section with the instruction to follow WP:SEEALSO -- which doesn't direct editors to delete see also sections WITHOUT incorporating the relevant links into the article, but to keep them manageable -- was the sort of edit I normally would revert. I checked the talk page, and it seemed that the original editor simply deleted the section without any discussion. So, I reverted those edits. BUT FUNNY ENOUGH, OUT OF THE BLUE YOU COME ALONG AND REVERT MY REPLACEMENT OF THE SECTION WITH SUSPICIOUSLY SIMILAR INSTRUCTIONS. So, I revert your destructive edit, but this time to appease the WP:SEEALSO and the "Too many see alsos" tag, I went through and trimmed out all the links which didn't seem to be directly relevant to the article. So, if re-reading your comment on my talk page will somehow enlighten me as to how protecting the usability of an article while following WP:SEEALSO warrants you to act like some sort of seealso admin and drop another one of your baseless accusations of sockpuppetry in an obvious effort to intimidate another user, then yes, perhaps I should. Pleasant words and a gentle tone aren't enough to hide the objectives of one's modus operandi. TeamZissou (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
UPDATE: I have more important things to attend to at the moment IRL, so I'll return to this when I can. TeamZissou (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of IMOD (herbal extract) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article IMOD (herbal extract) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IMOD (herbal extract) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ●Mehran Debate● 13:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject C-SPAN?[edit]

Greetings fellow Wikipedia editor -

I am leaving you this note because I have reason to believe that you are interested in C-SPAN. (I may have made this assumption based on your C-SPAN user box, or perhaps for some other reason.) If this is not an interest of yours, please feel free to read no further and delete this message.

If you are in fact someone who is interested in C-SPAN, then let me put forward an idea that I have been kicking around for a while. What if we started a C-SPAN WikiProject?

The parameters of this (potential) project are up for discussion, but it could include some or all of the following (as well as things that may occur to you that have not occurred to me):

  • Creation, maintenance, and improvement of articles and lists directly related to C-SPAN and its programming.
  • Use of C-SPAN programming in citations for various topics
  • Inclusion of unique and targeted C-SPAN video links for various articles. (Doing this with respect for established guidelines at Wikipedia:External links.) (Example: If you are interested in the submarine USS Wyoming (SSBN-742), then having easy access to the eight hours of programming taped while a C-SPAN crew were guests on that submarine could also be of interest to you.)
  • Inclusion of (and possible further creation of) templated links such as {{C-SPAN|laurabush}}, that will easily take article readers to a link of all C-SPAN Video Library links for the person about whom the article is about.
  • What else?

I don't know exactly how far we may want to go, nor in what directions, but I do believe (as I have long noted on my user page) that C-SPAN and Wikipedia are both...

...fantastic vehicles for the free exchange of ideas and information in a non-sound-bite manner, and they both invite the participation of any parties (expert or amateur) who are interested in taking the time to absorb and/or contribute to the ideas and information offered. C-SPAN and Wikipedia go together like peanut butter and jelly, and I want to help give other Wiki users easy access to the great work that C-SPAN has done on a variety of topics.

Now, I should mention that I have never started a WikiProject before, and I do not know the best way to go about it. (Perhaps one of you do?) Let me offer one of my sandbox pages, User:KConWiki/sandbox/Wikiproject C-SPAN?, as a gathering area for comments until such time as we gather enough steam to start our own WikiProject page.

Thanks for reading this far, and I hope that you will give some consideration as to whether this is something we ought to attempt. Please feel free to pass this message on to others you know whom might be interested, and please let me know your thoughts and comments.

KConWiki (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, TeamZissou. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)