User talk:Z00r

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Z00r! I am Cirt and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Cirt (talk) 09:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

Sorry, all links to ED are banned for any reason. Read the remedies. Insert it again and I will guarantee you will get banned. Will ^(talk) 11:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and seeing as ED is a wiki itself, it can't be used as the source. Will ^(talk) 11:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can't use wikis as sources anyway. Will ^(talk) 11:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Village pump

Re Village pump thread

I wish you had notified me about this thread when you started it, or at least at the point when you referred directly to me. Cirt (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad! Z00r (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Sorry, but that image you had added, Image:NeverGonnaGiveYouUp official photo.jpg, is only fair use in the article Never Gonna Give You Up. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ack damn. Z00r (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's pretty funny stuff. :P If you find any other secondary sources that I didn't yet cover about rickrolling/scientology phenomenon, let me know. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah haha We might be able to do even better... On 3/15 a bunch of people rickrolled a college basketball game as part of chanology. [2] I think we just might be able to get the creator to release a still image from the video under GPL. Z00r (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That event was covered in a secondary source, LAist, so that would be appropriate. But in the meantime I am going to add this Image:Anonymousexposed rickroll.JPG to the article. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got a response from the creator. He's interested, said he will get me high-res stills w/ license. Z00r (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best to have him upload those images directly to Wikimedia Commons, and then send an email about that with the file locations to WP:OTRS. Cirt (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I recommended this to him, but I'm not going to push the issue if he doesn't want to.Z00r (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no prob. Cirt (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright he sent me higher-res versions of the the images with his logo removed and released them under CC-BY. Email has been sent to OTRS. Here are the images [3], [4], [5]. Here is a collage I made showing all 3 images: [6]. Z00r (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap, dude - this story hit The New York Times! Cite below (I'll add it to the relevant articles):

Nussenbaum, Evelyn (March 24, 2008). "Media Talk: The '80s Video That Pops Up, Online and Off". The New York Times. The New York Times Company. Retrieved 2008-03-24. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Cirt (talk) 06:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added that cite and info to the article Never Gonna Give You Up, thinkin about the best way/place to integrate this info into Project Chanology. Quite something that it was picked up by The New York Times. Cirt (talk) 06:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(-: Z00r (talk) 06:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Bball rickroll collage.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Bball rickroll collage.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tag added. Z00r (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - You added these images directly to Wikipedia. You should delete them from here, by placing {{db-author}} on all the images, and instead upload them to Wikimedia Commons, and do the OTRS thang from there. That way all other language Wikipedias could use those images. Cirt (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I already send an ORTS, and they haven't responded yet. Should I wait for that? Z00r (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to say, the whole media upload system, WP vs commons, requirement to register, OTRS, quick deletions on technicalities or unintentionally omitting a tag, etc, seems as if it was specifically built to prevent people from uploading legitimate things. Z00r (talk) 06:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually built to foster people uploading stuff to Wikimedia Commons so it can be shared across multiple projects. Cirt (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project Chanology internet actions

We have discussed this multiple times on the article's talk page, I really don't think that splitting this article off just yet is justified - I would much rather keep all the info in one article for now. Cirt (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot has gone on since the last time. I gave this to a few friends (who are not familiar with chanology) to read, and the response was consistently 1) its too long, 2) there are too many facts condensed, and not enough summary. This is the right thing to do. Give me a minute to be bold and do my updates, then you can revert them and we can discuss on the chanology talk page. Z00r (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss this first on the article's talk page, please. Multiple editors don't think we should split this off into other articles, and have already expressed that on the article's talk page in other previous recent discussions. Cirt (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to, you can draft your sub-article(s) first, without removing content from the main article, and we could discuss that on the main article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the split-off discussions btw? Z00r (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the thread I was referring to was at Talk:Project_Chanology/Archive_2#Possible_need_to_split. Personally, I would much rather work to condense this main article to be more succinct, rather than splitting it off into more detailed sub-articles. Cirt (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So first, that discussion was written over a month ago. In the meantime there has been a worldwide protest, many major developments, and several news sources written that have allowed us to add in info that would have previously been OR. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the article is significantly bigger than 74kb (what it was at that discussion) now.

As for condensing vs. sub articles - no harm in both condensing the article AND making sub-articles... The writing is currently very dense, and so condensing the article would necessairily mean deleting information. Additionally, the overwhelming majority of the information in here is relevant, and so such deletions would be a net damage to WP's coverage of the subject.

Another point i would like to bring up is the distinction between historical arrangement vs. thematic arrangement. The article has split personality disorder - the macro-scale organization is thematic whereas the organization within sections is historical (this happened, then that happened, then next the other thing happened...). At first it was a practical necessity that we use historical format, but now that there is so much information, I think we should be shifting towards thematic format. Z00r (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im' working on this: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Z00r/Chanology_internet_summary Z00r (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should have a larger overall thematic organization, and then chronological within each subsection. As for subarticles - I just don't think they pass WP:AfD muster enough on their own as subarticles, as opposed to a main article. I would much rather forgo this subarticles idea, and focus on condensing the main article. Cirt (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the sections ripe for moving to smaller articles are the internet actions, and the feb 10 and mar 15 protests. Under any reasonable system those each ought to be notable given the amount of coverage, but there are a lot of anti-anonymous zealots lurking around AfD, so you may be right. Have a look at the changes I've made. I haven't removed that much info - basically just getting rid of statistics overload, moving things around, and rewording. I think it is much easier to read now, I'll start a discussion about this on the talk page after after a couple more edits. Z00r (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline image

Please comment about this at the article's talk page, I'd like to hear your take on why you added it to the article. Cirt (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acronyms beginning with 'E'

I think it'd be a good idea for you to use your actual account and not this account - while legitimate to edit about Scientology on a different account, it looks like you support 4chan.
Sure, ER me, but keep the ED stuff out - my dickishness in that area is more than understandable for a stalking victim. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would somewhat reveal my identity. Z00r (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Hello, and thank you for your support at Cirt's RFA. I noticed that you chose to support on an account other than your main account, and as one of Privatemusings's mentors (as well as one of Cirt's conominators) it would be remiss if I did not post a concern that this treads--at least--rather near to a finding from the case. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings#Sockpuppetry and consult with a bureaucrat regarding the appropriateness of your vote; I don't wish to see either your support or the candidacy tainted in any way and I'm really not sure what call they would make in this instance. With respect, Durova^Charge! 06:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have only interacted substantially with Cirt on this account. Z00r (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. If you contacted a bureaucrat proactively, it might avoid any potential challenge. Durova^Charge! 06:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not worth the trouble. RFA's going to pass anyways. Z00r (talk) 06:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: Gatekeeping

If you edit an article long enough and bring it up to a good standard, there is natural tendency to become a gatekeeper - controlling everything that gets added or removed and basically locking the article into roughly a single state. After all, you and others worked hard to get it where it is, and you don't want n00bs coming in and messing it up. We both know that this is not what the wikipedia philosophy is about. Please be careful not fall into this trap of becoming a gatekeeper. Z00r (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but without knowing specifically what this is in reference to I am not sure how best to respond. Cirt (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just something worth remembering every once in a while during your wikipedia career. Z00r (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, without knowing exactly what you are referring to, this sort of message is pointless. Cirt (talk) 09:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:3 15 bball rickroll 1.png

File:3 15 bball rickroll 1.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:3 15 bball rickroll 1.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:3 15 bball rickroll 1.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:3 15 bball rickroll 3.png is now available as Commons:File:3 15 bball rickroll 3.png. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]