User talk:ZombieSlayer54
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in The Zombie Survival Guide. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --McGeddon 13:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Notice[edit]
Additionally, please stop adding nonsense to that particular article. This is your final warning; if you continue to vandalize the article, you will be indefinitely blocked. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Is it nonsense if there is no proof of Max Brooks saying he doesn't believe in zombies, yet plenty of proof of him saying that does, so therefore having no evidence to say his book is false? And if I will have to be banned indefinitely to support my beliefs, then so be it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZombieSlayer54 (talk • contribs)
- That... that's really too ridiculous to actually take seriously. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Nice to know you think I'm a clown. You believe what you want to believe, and I believe what I want to believe. Just don't impose your beliefs on Wikipedia just because you're a mod, ok? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZombieSlayer54 (talk • contribs)
- My status as an administrator has nothing to do with the fact that Wikipedia is intended to be a serious project. Adding nonsense is not looked highly upon, and edit-warring even less so. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I still say that it is not nonsense. If there is no evidence against, but some, albeit highly debatable, evidence for it, I can only conclude that it MAY be true. That is why I put supposedly. It is apparently your belief that that is not true, and therefore you call my edits "vandalism", even though I'm simply putting the facts down. No evidence against the truth, so... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZombieSlayer54 (talk • contribs)
- The publisher marketed it as "fiction" without Brooks complaining, and he also went on to write a zombie novel set in the future, rather than doing anything to seriously alert the world to the zombies that really exist. I agree that it's fun to pretend that zombies are real (I'll be at the Fleshmob zombie walk tomorrow), but a factual encyclopaedia isn't an appropriate place to pretend stuff for fun. --McGeddon 17:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
You do realize I believe in the existance of zombies, right? And Brooks only didn't complain so as to actually sell the book. If he had the chance, he'd change the genre to "Documentary", or the such. And he wrote the novel in order to give people a sense of what to expect in a Class 4 zombie outbreak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZombieSlayer54 (talk • contribs)
Further Notice[edit]
This is your final warning. The next time you edit the article to read as "supposed fiction", I'm blocking your account for good. I'd love to see you make some constructive edits in the project, rather than continuing to undermine the purpose of the encyclopedia.
If you feel that this block is unfair, feel free to use the {{unblock}} template for another administrator's opinion on the matter. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
And indeed I shall.
ZombieSlayer54 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
As there is no evidence that this book is fiction, yet while there is minor, and albeit debatable evidence that the book is true, it can only be theorized that the book is fiction. The author himself admits his belief in zombies, and I have seen no reports what-so-ever of him saying that he was just joking when writing the book. And is it not constructive to add other persons beliefs, while still, in a sense, maintaining another persons beliefs on a top that is highly debatable?
Decline reason:
I'm speechless. It is clearly a humor novel, per the publisher. I'm sorry you feel otherwise, but please consider reading more about our policies at WP:RS and WP:V during your block. Once it expires, you are welcome to contribute verifiable information to articles and to work constructively with other editors. Kuru talk 23:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
There is no verifiable information that the book is fiction, is there? And if I can find it, I will show you an article wherein Max Brooks, the author, said that the only reason it was labeled as "humour" was because the publishers needed to keep their respectability intact.
- The verifiable information that you're looking for is right on the back cover: it says "humor" twice (once beside the price at the top left corner, and again right above the ISBN in the bottom right). The books is again classified as humor on the copyright page, in the section about the Library of Congress Cataloging ("1. Zombies—Humor."). Brooks' insistence that it is part of the gag. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
You do know that Brooks has said over and over again that he was forced to label it as humour in order to get any publisher to publish it? If he wrote it off as a serious documentary, no one would ever publish it. Until I see an article where he says "Zombie's aren't real." or "The Zombie Survival Guide was a joke.", I'm believing in the Zombie Survival Guide and zombies.
- By all means; I'm not telling you that you can't believe that the book non-fictional. I'm telling you to stop pushing your personal belief in the ZSG Wikipedia article, because it is fairly obvious to everyone else that it is a piece of fiction. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, whatever. Don't blame me when zombies are biting into people's flesh because they wouldn't read the ZSG because they thought it was "fiction".
- Zombieslayer, if you have evidence that this book is a work of non-fiction, then out with it. Give us a web link or citation to a written interview with Max Brooks saying that. EVula is totally in the right, and if you want to be taken seriously then provide a reference. It's that simple. A Traintalk 21:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Believe me, I've been looking for it.
You tend to play the role of concerned citizen and "zombie expert" pretty straight at public events. I think that it's brilliant, but do you ever run into anyone that takes your work a little too seriously? How do you handle that?
Every now and then I meet someone who says “Hey, Dude, just want you to know, the compound’s almost ready, and when it comes down, we got your back.” I just smile and thank them for their diligence. Maybe they know something I don’t.
so either you are taking this too seriously or you know something the author doesn't... --Fredrick day 22:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that seems pretty clear to me that, in his heart of hearts, he doesn't consider his own work to be a serious piece of non-fictional literature. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
And it seems pretty clear to me that either:
A. That interview is fake. I don't think Max Brooks would go to an interview for every back-water horror blog out there.
B. You're misinterpreting it. I don't understand how that part you quoted makes it seem as thought Max Brooks doesn't believe in zombies.
Oh, also, I'm not putting on the page "The Zombie Survival Guide is truth", or something along those lines. I'm only saying that it is only "supposed fiction", as in it can only be theorized that it is fiction.
MAX BROOKS: Oh yeah. A lot of people in the beginning were like, "Dude! Where's the jokes?" I'm like, "Well, I think if there is a joke it's that I had the free time to write it."
QUINT: The biggest joke is that you take the entire thing 100% seriously.
MAX BROOKS: You have to take it completely seriously or it doesn't work.
http://www.aintitcool.com/?q=node/30038
It's not real - he does not really think zombies are about to eat us all, it's fiction. --Fredrick day 15:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- You know something that's interesting? I see all these interviews with Max Brooks on the web, and for some reason he has a completely different personality in each interview. Just sayin'.
- Also: Not every back-water blog.
Contributions[edit]
Thank you for your constructive contributions you have been making lately. Keep up the good work!
P.S. if you'd like to start with a clean slate, I'd recommend you archive your talk page. SalaSkan 11:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
December 2007[edit]
In a recent edit to the page Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000), you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.
For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.
In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, just ask anyone on Wikipedia and they will help you. As Games Workshop is a British company, articles about its products use British spelling. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I could see, the only changes you made were converting English spelling to American. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 14:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Agents of the Law[edit]
Reply is on my talk page. - Philippe | Talk 02:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Agents of the Law (album)[edit]
A tag has been placed on Agents of the Law (album), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. tomasz. 14:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)