	Wikipedia		Meta-Wiki		Commons
	Wikinews		Wikiquote

You're back!

I noticed you were'nt around much; glad you're back! :) Thanks for wishing me a nice week, and for asking God to bless me. :) I hope you're back to normal and stress-free soon! · AO ^Talk 10:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad you're not as stressed anymore. Wikireligion was a tough nut; new wikis always are. Seven of Nine was right at wikikids, but I didn't stick around long enough to say how he was at religion. I did see his userpage comment though, and I don't think it should have been deleted, and a rule created against it. If it was as you say, the block could have been fair (for disruption). I don't think his best bet was to send e-mails to you; did you respond to any of them? · AO ^Talk 01:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't? (just kidding :) Well, life goes on eh? Some people just try to be mean, others are misinterpreted, and others—such as you—are just plain nice. Like it or not, that's the way it is. God bless you my friend. · AO ^Talk 01:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still edit on religion? I thought you said you left. Anyways, don't pay too much attention to what he says; WP:TROLL might help. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!!! :) · AO ^Talk 14:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then read Dante. ;) · AO ^Talk 14:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.whyaretheydead.net

I removed this link from Scientology per WP:EL. The site is little more than unverifiable original research suggesting some kind of conspiracy about Scientology-related deaths. And I am concerned that your adding the link was meant to push some kind of critical point-of-view regarding Scientology. If you really think it has encyclopedic value, suggest it at Talk:Scientology. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This link provides nothing more than original research and weakly argued conspiracy theories. Please familiarize yourself with the policy on reliable sources. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And your addition of http://scientology.bridgeinc.us/scientology/fot_3.html was also reverted again for violating WP:EL (link primarily to sell something). Please don't just add random links in order to try to provide "both sides" - links must fit within existing policies. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible renaming of Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints

It has been suggested that the above named project be renamed Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian saints. Please express your opinion on this proposed renaming, and the accompanying re-definition of the scope of the project, here. John Carter 17:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heeeeeeeeeey buddy

Yeah I saw you were inactive for a while. So how's your project going on? I'd be happy to join with that? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 18:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Error

FYI: this does not appear to be vandalism. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks. My bad :) --James, La gloria è a dio 21:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:I'm Back

Hello Sir James Paul! It's nice to see that you are back and sharing your talents with the Wikipedia community. I hope you enjoyed your month long break. Lately, I've been editing some articles pertaining to Lent. Thanks for your message! With regards, Anupam^Talk 20:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back and thanks for your message! The Rambling Man 22:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back from me too! I too have been forced away for just over a month due to internet problems, so missed most of your absence, but it is, in any case, good to have you back. Martinp23 22:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMA

Hi, I notice that you've taken on this AMA case, as per your comments at User talk:Notmyrealname 2. Could you please enter your name under Advocate Status in the case file, just to let other AMA members know you've taken the case? Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 17:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my fault - I got it mixed up with an older case at User talk:Notmyrealname from December 2006. For some reason, the above talkpage was cited as relevant to the dispute, despite the fact that Notmyrealname and Notmyrealname 2 appear to be two different users. Thanks for the smile. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot

Dear Sir james paul, Thanks a lot for the lovely smile and great message..Wish you best of luck..Wish you all the strength, you need to fight those (amazingly) unfair critics of Christianity/Roman Catholicism and rest of vandals.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 01:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are still listed on the Admin coaching request page

Your name is still listed at Requests for an admin coach. If you are no longer looking for a coach, or you currently have one, please remove yourself from that list.

The instructions for getting or receiving a coach have changed. It's now a self-help process: just look for a coach from the list of coaches, and contact one. See the instructions on Wikipedia:Admin coaching. Good luck.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 01:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Vandalism?

Removing spaces from your own comments is vandalism now? Please try not to bite the newcomers. Thanks – Qxz 21:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MartinBot

Thanks :). It's nice to have got the anti-vandal bots working again after a few months of absence. Martinp23 22:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Barnstar

Thank you so much for the barnstar. I very much appreciate the thought. Have an excellent week yourself too :-) Will (aka Wimt) 22:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is/Is Not Vandalism

Hi. I see you've found a new tool for reverting edits and warning users. Cool. It also seems to automatically label them as vandalism in the edit summary. Just be wary of accusing folks of vandalism if their edits aren't precisely that. Remember, some edits need to be reverted, but aren't necessarily vandalism. You might upset some people, especially the the newbies. Happy editing. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point: [1]. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That one I did not mark as vandalism and I did not warn the person. Thanks for bringing it up though :) --James, La gloria è a dio 02:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a closer look at your edit summary. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to write mean to make instead of mark. I know I did actualy mark it as vandalism. :)--James, La gloria è a dio 03:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I urge you to again review the links above to help discern what is and is not vandalism. As you can see below, there seems to be an increased frequency of mis-labeled reverts. Cheers. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will:) Thanks a lot for the advice:) --James, La gloria è a dio 23:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need to probably take a look at all the policies and guidlines again. It has been a while:) --James, La gloria è a dio 23:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See yet another example below.Cshobar 01:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jobs?

You said to post here if I wanted jobs?

concernign the vandalism

Im sorry about the vandalism, it wasn't done by me, but by my younger(11 yr old) brother. So i sincerly apoligize for it. I would liek to be a positive contributor to this site. once again, im sorry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.224.89.150 (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

D.T.D

Uh, okay, I'm really sorry about whatever I did...(I have no idea what you're talking about, though). So, could you just tell me what vandalism I did?? (Probably wasn't intentional.) "Love forever, love is free."

Okay. Thanks for the smile, BTW. Happy editing, "Love forever, love is free."

- I dunno, perhaps 3, 4 months? I do most of my RV-ing under an IP thingy...I'm too lazy to sign in most of the time. :) "Love forever, love is free."

- - (You're right, it doesn't take that much time to log in. Fine. I'm overly lazy to an extent that people have to push me to get me to walk. :) ) Wikipedia's nice, actually. It's great for research, but it just makes me so mad to see people destroying pages that people put so much effort into.

"Love forever, love is free."

- - - Whacking vandals is fun (it's more of a big hobby. Haha, I sound like I have no life...kidding.). I don't do that much article writing because I don't think that my writing is particulairly good. Besides, most articles here seem well written already (with the exception of some). "Love forever, love is free." PS: Uh...why does your smily have two parentheses? Just wondering...:))

Tools? That'd be great. Where do you get this stuff anyways?

DTD

Veterans of the First World War Who Died in 2000

What was it, precisely, about the edits to this page that constituted vandalism?

Vandalism of John Paul II

What I wrote was not vandalism. It was an attempt at Neutral Point of View. 204.52.215.107 23:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't agree with the edit, I do agree that this was definitely not vandalism. I think you need to stop using the script. Cshobar 01:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A smile from you

That did make my day. Thank you and I am sending a smile back to you. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 20:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for stepping in and helping moderate the dispute over The Scientific Activist. Biochemnick 01:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What?

Not sure if this is being done right, but...I go a message from you about adding personal input in the Rule of Rose section just recently. I'm completey at a loss as to what you are talking about-could you please tell me what edit you were referring to specifically and how it was doing so? -11:05 17 March 2007

Okay, I read your new message, but am again confused. What was said the link was in now way in conflict with Wikipedia's policy. As of now, both the fansite and the forum ARE the largest in existence-it is just stating a solid fact. I have seen other links with similiar wording that have not been deleted, so why should mine be? Also, it really is not breaking Wikipedia's policy, since me calling it the largest is not my personal opinion-it just is. Just as Alaska is the biggest US state. It's a fact that is in no way in conflict with the rules.

The only source I can think of is showing you the link to the only other RoR fansite out there, which is not even close to being completed or anywhere near as big as Rule of the Rose: http://www.forgotten-sanctuary.net/rose/

With all due respect, there is quite a lot of information on Wikipedia that says it is uncited. There is no way to cite that it is the biggest, but there are tons of other links that also have uncited information in them, but none have been removed. It really feels like I'm being picked on because of this. There is currently only one other known fansite out there, and it is smaller than Rule of the Rose. But why would there be an official citation of this?

Re:Tools

Hello Sir james paul! Thanks for thinking about me when you found out of the new tool: User scripts. I really appreciate it. I have added the new tool, although keeping some previous ones. Is it okay that I do so or will there be compatibility issues? Your reply would be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much! With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be kidding!

Per your request, I deleted the word "largest" from my link, but now it STILL keeps getting deleted and some other mod is threatening to block me, trying to claim it is spam, even though it isn't!67.163.193.239 17:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed at great length on both your talk page and mine, this link fails WP:EL as it is essentially a personal site hosted on geocities, and it provides no encyclopedia information beyond what is found in the articles themselves. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most fan pages are not welcomed. If they were, every wikipedia article would have around 300 links. Your fansite isn't even an 'important' one, you don't get information from Sony about the game, you have a very limited bandwidth, and it doesn't even have a registered domain. Your page even adds any information about the topic. Pages like that are created all the time, and there's no need for them to be here.

-Pablo BsAs

That is a downright lie and you know it! I read those guidelines, and the site does NOT qualify as personal. It is not about me, nor does it have a resume or anything like that. It contains a LOT of information about the game-a LOT more than what is in the wikipedia article, including FAQs and in=depth anylasis on everying people have pointed out in the game.

@@ Line 162: / Line 162: @@
 ::Most fan pages are not welcomed. If they were, every wikipedia article would have around 300 links. Your fansite isn't even an 'important' one, you don't get information from Sony about the game, you have a very limited bandwidth, and it doesn't even have a registered domain. Your page even adds any information about the topic. Pages like that are created all the time, and there's no need for them to be here.
 ::-Pablo BsAs
+That is a downright lie and you know it!  I read those guidelines, and the site does NOT qualify as personal.  It is not about me, nor does it have a resume or anything like that.  It contains a LOT of information about the game-a LOT more than what is in the wikipedia article, including FAQs and in=depth anylasis on everying people have pointed out in the game.

THC Science

Bringing Science to the Cannabis Conversation!

Trichome

Revision as of 18:07, 18 March 2007