User talk:Zarbon/archive3

Archived
I have archived my last talk page. Zarbon (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You should be aware ...
... of the discussion at TTN's talk page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've responded there. Thanks for letting me know. Zarbon (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you watching the page? I left you a reply. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I know. I responded. If I don't get a chance to respond sooner, please be patient. I am rather busy. Thanks again. Zarbon (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a question of impatience, just wanted to know whether you watchlisted the page or not. Cheers! Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know if my contribution is welcome since TTN deleted what I initially wrote. I don't think he wants my opinion, so maybe I shouldn't write on his talk page, but thank you very much for letting me know. I am more than happy to explain further here if you would like. Thanks again my dear friend. Zarbon (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor
Things like this are not minor, so please don't mark them as such. If you like, see WP:MINOR-- Koji †  Dude  (C) 22:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I won't mark the responses as minor. Thanks for the advice. Zarbon (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image
The problem with the image is precisely its nature, fair use images are prohibited in userspace, including userboxes. This is because there is no way to extend fair use into user pages. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  04:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Then how are other userboxes using images particular to their designated shows, such as Star Wars. They are using lightsabers and this in itself is a simple gif comparison. Well, the wolfenstein image in itself is actually a sprite gif, not even a screenshot. It's actually a very small gif, so I don't think it creates a problem or major defect upon the rules. Help me out here, I really need a similar gif for the userbox. I appreciate your help and time. Zarbon (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The work is still derivative, that is the reason it keeps getting listed as a non-free image. Some of the lightsaber images have been deleted for being too close to the source while others ake kept because they have several differences, nevertheless characters are more strictly copyrighted, their entire likeness is usually copyrighted, thus it doesn't matter if the image's colors are alterated. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  16:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand, but much of the image is altered to such an extent that only the actual bone structure of the image is left intact, therefore enabling for it to be kept. I only hope that this time, after this heavy alteration, the image will remain intact. Zarbon (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:FPS.PNG
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:FPS.PNG, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC) --J Milburn (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Obvious Sockpuppets
Suggest filing a CheckUser case and see how things go. I'm not going to be really watching the Dragon Ball-related pages anymore because of this nonsense, so, I don't care much to get involved. Might do tweaks and vandalism reverts if I happen to stumble upon it, but won't vigourously watch the pages per lack of interest. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the first inclinations given by Collectonian and yourself in that entire collossal amount of deliberations you just mentioned there, in this argument. I would much prefer to go along with the original names, and I find that entire argument of "more popular" to be nonsense. It appears that the majority has won the argument regardless, which is inherently unavoidable. So I'd assume names like "Artificial Human" will be converted to "Android" just because of the English dubbing. A lame counterpart excuse. The original is Japanese, therefore the names should be kept in their original counterparts, because the initial show is Japanese, not English. The show was released and subtitled and dubbed in over 50 countries or so...it would be nonsense to go by all the names of the dubs. The only REAL names are those of the Japanese because they are original, they are the first, hence derived from the manga. I agree with you on this strongly, but what can we do?


 * About the recent vandalism, I'd really appreciate that a fellow contributor such as yourself didn't decrease your activity, it's best to always maintain a friendship in these articles so that we may put a stop to vandalizers and their overall annoying schemes. I'd assume that the ip addresses will check out, and if not, I have maintained a collection of ip addresses in connection to that same vandalizer at this point, since the same person has been following my contributions and either reverting or causing vandalism to the same pages. Your initial help prior has been strong and although my voice has been halted in the past along with many other fellow contributors alike. Please help me keep track of this sockpuppeteer's activity. I'm sure that if we all work together, we can put a stop to this vandalism. Zarbon (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the encouragement, but I really have no motive to update those pages anymore (already took them off my watchlist last night).
 * About the various socks you're dealing with, try asking User:Daniel Case to block them. He'll do it, given the edits are obvious of course. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I will of course follow your advice. He has apparently created another sockpuppet, this time King Zarbon to try and frame me. This behavior is what disgusts me. Zarbon (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Believe me, I can relate. There's some cyberstalker named User:JJonz who has it out for me, as well a plenitude of other disrupters which follow me around the wikis too. Of course, there's nothing a good CheckUser can't dish out right? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but this same person has been doing this for over three years straight. What possible course of action can I take to stop him? I understand that you know how I feel, and I sympathize strongly with you. He's created over 150 sockpuppets right here on wikipedia, and that is seriously not an exaggeration, as well as approximately 100 sockpuppets on wikiquote. He has gone on revert wars just to have me break the 3rr rule in order to get me banned through my anger. He's doing it still. I don't know how to combat this disgrace, this disgusting menace. He even goes as far as to use and abuse our user names in order to vandalize. Frankly, he's most likely done it to all of us...who the hell is DanCSeshmaroo...it's him...and if it's not him, it's someone just as disgusting as him. It's these same disgusting pattern vandals. Anyone who goes against his revert warring and sockpuppeteering becomes a victim. He has abused almost every constructive wikipedia editor for no apparent reason including me and you just because he feels like it. If it were up to me, I'd have him court-martialled and shot execution style, literally. But sadly, it isn't. You'd think that more than three years of this would have tired him, but instead, he continues to do what he did even more severely. Zarbon (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, no matter how much they instigate me I don't let it get to my head anymore, you shouldn't either. Vandals like Prince Zarbon, Wrestlinglover420, BlueShrek, and JJonz pissed me off a lot, but now I get over it quicker. Just make a CU case and he'll stop. It'll likely be a temporary relief, but at least you'll have some leverage. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Prince Zarbon is my name on my forum. He stole my name from there as well. I go by the name Prince Zarbon on most of my submissions. However, on that dbz wikia, it's him, the same exact pattern vandal. He is exerting and abusing my name wherever he pleases, and he has used the same user page layout trying to pin all his stupidity on me. I went through the same process on wikiquote, where I had to prove that he was the vandal the entire time, since he ripped off my name like fifty times. There should be a way to ban submissions from his entire zip code, that way he wouldn't be able to vandalize anymore. I don't know how you have the patience to deal with jerks like that. I'm serious. Also, I brought up some of the recent names to Daniel Case as you suggested. Lets hope he pulls that checkuser soon, because it can be tiring having to watch someone use and abuse your own username. Zarbon (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Been wanting to know, who used Prince Zarbon and Zarbon987? Also during my investigations, I honestly thought you, Wiki-star and Recoome were one and the same person. Couldn't really piece it together. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's probably him again...Wiki-star has created over 200 names that I have tracked down here on wikipedia alone, which I can list. I'm positive those are sockpuppets of his...since he used those same names on wikiquote. Recoome is not a sockpuppet of anyone actually. He's another member all by himself, as I am. I know this because that same user is a member of my forum and he is a good member who doesn't exert any forms of idiocy. He is from a different country overall, New Zealand or something of that nature. However, the slew of names associated with Wiki-star is disgusting. I originally created one confirmed sock, for which I honestly admitted, in order to combat wiki-star's stupidity 2 years back, and I named it "Dodoria", but it was ineffective since he in turn created over 200. Well, anyways, I was banned and paid the price for his stupidity and he continued to create well over 200 sockpuppets and pretty much ruin all the pages. I am not someone who lies. Frankly, I am disgusted by this person's behavior. And the checkuser has proven that my only user name is this one. That is why I want as many checkusers done as possible in order to terminate all the sockpuppets of this vandal. If you would like, I can pretty much list all the names associated with this pattern vandal, since he has been following my contributions around and either reverting or vandalizing anything I contributed to. It would be a very long list though and I'm in the process of locating all his sockpuppets on wikiquote... Zarbon (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * List all of the suspected accounts here. Do you know the CU steps by now? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really. I don't know the process and I don't want to get mixed up with it. On wikiquote, all I do is list the numerous names under a vandalism section in order for the administrators to run the checks. Most of the attributed names to his vandalism have already been banned...but he keeps creating more apparently. I'll list here as many as I can and I'll only mention the usernames associated with his stupidity, not the ip addresses, otherwise it would be over 500. Most of the names associated with his idiocy have been blocked while there are still some that haven't...


 * Wiki-star
 * Frieza-Bomber
 * General Cui
 * Count Raznagul
 * Myer Link
 * Krinzad
 * Lord Frieza
 * Dragon Emperor
 * Chessmaster xz
 * Darakuba
 * Daskoshus
 * Dog lord
 * Dragoneti
 * Eruki
 * Farikarnika
 * Fat buu
 * Four legged demon
 * Galic gun
 * Gongahuyi
 * Jim Alans
 * Juskar
 * Power Of Buu
 * Potaru
 * Pokuru
 * Poiuj
 * Poilk
 * Nathan Chang
 * Lokjuna
 * Mega Monster
 * Lijna
 * The man of might
 * King bat
 * Uilp
 * Yuiopm
 * Tyuba
 * Ki user
 * Sutle
 * Scudtchyuiop
 * Roma Tuga
 * Rockorak
 * Red buyar
 * Quintus Curtus
 * Tojira Ikonoka
 * N-Mopa
 * Creami
 * Recoome 2
 * King Zarbon
 * Zarbon The Great
 * Dasnedius
 * Poies789
 * Dragonball1986
 * Gooden
 * Frieza and Vegeta Forever
 * Count Magnus Lee
 * George M. Acklom 1870
 * The Return of the Dog Lord
 * Gohan The Avenger
 * Chibi Gohan
 * Super Vegetto
 * Andrew Von Forkins-Methanaize
 * Namekian Lord
 * Hero 004
 * Blazing Avenger
 * Uglyguy2006
 * ShadowFrieza
 * Vardak
 * Karzack
 * Salzarb
 * Sarzad
 * Zadsat
 * N UV the year
 * 71.61.116.66
 * 71.236.93.96

This can go on forever...I'm too tired to continue searching for his stupidity. This should be sufficient for the time being. Zarbon (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, listing them here isn't going to solve anything. Head over to WP:RFCU and start reading.-- Koji †  Dude  (C) 18:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * How is this hard to follow? The instructions are right there Zarbon. If you really want to ban this guy, it's worth learning the CU steps. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

User Category for Discussion
 A category created by you or to which you have significantly contributed is being considered for deletion, rename, move or merge in accordance with Wikipedia's Categories for Discussion policies. This does not mean that any of the userpages in the category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the User categories for discussion page. VegaDark (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

FPS image
Editing an image, even substantially, constitutes a derivative work. Since the original work is copyrighted, so is yours. I've redeleted the image again, please don't reupload it. BJ Talk 01:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ecliptor1.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Ecliptor1.JPG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Finster.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Finster.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 06:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Havocgeneral.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Havocgeneral.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mattbevil2.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Mattbevil2.JPG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 03:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Rygog66.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Rygog66.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sigzarbonmade.png
I've changed the licence to a fair use licence, because even it's your own work it's some kind of derevativ work (exactly: it's fan art). Moreover I placed the tag to avoid that this image gets uploaded to Commons where it will get deleted immidiatelly for bbeing a fan art. I hope that I don't have to explain what fan art is. --D-Kuru (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, as long as I can keep the image on my user page. Zarbon (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the image, non-free images have a strict usage policy (WP:NFCC) and vanity user page images violate just about every part of the it. BJ Talk 03:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: reliability help
Not sure. You might be better off asking User:Collectonian. She'll probably think of something. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I will ask Collectonian. Zarbon (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem
Thanks for your uploads. You've indicated that the following images are being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why they meet Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page an image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.


 * File:Mysticforcenecrolai2.jpg
 * File:Mysticforcenecrolai3.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --18:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Pomelo
Hi, I reverted your edit at pomelo because it is unreferenced and because it is very unclear. How does Zardon = Pomelo? I'm not sure this is an encyclopedic tidbit. 05:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
NJGW (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

action
give one reason why an anime charcter is a more illustrative action figure than gi joe, the toy that coined the phrase —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.116.49 (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

there is no need for a gallery. sorry, the page has been cleaned and in uniform. there's no reason to keep adding unnecessary images to it. One image depicts it fine, two reason why it's better: first because it's an action figure with a fullbody shot and second because it's not an action doll, see Toy Biz v. United States for the difference. If you really want to add these images, you can compile them all in wikimedia commons and have a link on the bottom for people who want to view them, but the one image that's been on the page for quite a very long time now is fine and doesn't need to be altered. - Zarbon (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

there's nothing forbidding having a gallery other than you wanitng a pictur eof your favorite charcter at the start of the page. i made the gallery for your benefit so that your zarbon could still be shown. the page covers action dolls and action figures, and gi joe is more illustrative on both fronts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.116.49 (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you already made three consecutive edits. You are breaking the 3rr rule. You can put the GI Joe on the bottom, but that image is staying there. - Zarbon (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

so have you. the difference is that i don't have a history of ownership issues when it comes to zarbon. you can put the zarbon image at the start of the galley, but that image is staying there

I have also created a wikimedia commons link for your gallery. All you have to do is add substantial images that you want to wikimedia commons and they will be linked to the page through the wikimedia gallery link I have placed for you. This helps maintain a less image-cluttered page. This has been happening on many wiki pages and the best way is to limit one image as a representation. I'll bring down your GI joe image to maintain two images on the page, but even that's a lot. Now you can upload any images you like to the wikimedia commons gallery (that's the wiki resource for images and image galleries). - Zarbon (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

toy has 17 pictures. board game has 8. figurine has 4. you're using poor excuses to justify having zarbon in the lead

I'm not using excuses. The page has been like that since 2006. I'm merely preventing it from getting cluttered. The representational image doesn't have to be important, it just needs to be a full body-shot. I simply prefer the character, it has nothing to do with that. it's just prevalence. I'm not arguing that GI joe isn't important, it is. that's why i kept it on the second section for you. if you want to upload any images to the commons, please make sure to add citations and other information regarding the photos taken as I have for the zarbon image. it's also important to note that many of the images you wanted to link to the wikipedia page aren't from wikimedia commons. about those other pages, "figurine" seems fine. "toy" needs to be fixed and is probably already under high consideration, and the same goes for "board game". I am preventing the same from happening here. - Zarbon (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

zarbon is only in the lead because you have gone to lengths to have him there. the only criteria for the lead image is that it is an action figure or action doll, and gi joe is the best choice
 * 2004 - a lord of the rings picture is added
 * 2006 - you replace the lotr image with the zarbon image
 * feb 2007 - an edit war over if zarbon or a soccer player should be in the lead. the soccer player wins
 * mar 2007 - someone puts zarbon back

I'm sorry. why are you tracing the history of the page back...? I didn't deny that. and yes, i do think that a full-body image of a figure is better representation than a face-shot. - Zarbon (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

to show that you don't care how long an image has been there since you replaced an image that had been there for two years. your only reason is that you want zarbon on the page. you didnt even want gi joe there until i said you also broke 3rr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.116.49 (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Final warning: If either of you revert one more time, I will block you for edit warring. --Deskana (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I will retain the page in its original fashion, baring in mind that i am not edit warring, but trying to maintain the page's format. - Zarbon (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe bold text will make it clearer. If you revert one more time, I will block you for edit warring. --Deskana (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

can you please protect the page so neither of us can edit it? i'm willing to compromise by having in the lead. it's a full body shot like zarbon wants, shows the entire body unlike the zarbon image, and there isn't a wrapper getting in the way —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.116.49 (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

this is the only page i have tried to maintain a simple resource for a long time. please help me keep it the way it was prior to this unknown ip tried to add a slew of images to it. i would not want to enter an edit war and i'd need your help to maintain the page in its original format. please, please allow me to edit it once more so i can bring it to its format prior to all the edits. also, the page has been like that since 2006. this person just simply wants to create an edit war where there isn't one. please don't block. - Zarbon (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Italics too then. If you revert one more time, I will block you for edit warring. --Deskana (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You have been blocked for one week for edit warring, despite very clear warnings that if you reverted, you would be blocked again.--Deskana (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I will not revert any more. I just noticed. But please take into account what I said. Please help me keep an anonymous ip from adding numerous photos based on their own preference and nothing else. I had kept the page in uniform for a very long time (a full body image). I will not revert again, but I hope you will help me maintain the page. - Zarbon (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 06:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ''Someone who was given another chance to edit Wikipedia (under this particular username no less) has absolutely no reason to be demonstrating such behaviour. Stop it now.'' Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, I didn't break 3rr. I only reverted twice. I'm sorry I reverted to begin with, but you know how important that was to me. I feel like I've been washed and left out to dry. - Zarbon (talk) 07:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're edit warring. That's enough to get anybody blocked, especially someone with a not so good past. Zarbon, level with me for a moment will you? I honestly think you have great potential as an editor. You just need to improve on a few areas. We can show you how man, if you'll let us. Just take it easy. It's never too late to become a better person. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take your word for it. I dislike edit warring myself. I don't think it's worthwhile getting banned for it...so yes, I concur. I also remember how supportive you were back when I set a plea in motion, so I trust your judgment. - Zarbon (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Frieza Zarbon Dodoria.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Frieza Zarbon Dodoria.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Zarbonbanpresto.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:Zarbonbanpresto.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Minor" edits
Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.'  --Icarus (Hi!) 01:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the DBZ discussion...
I just weighed in with a few points, and there will be more to come. I just have a sever case of Monster induced Pseudo-ADD right now, so you can expect responses sporadically. Just thought you'd wanna know why I only responded to 2 so far. Sasuke9031 (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I greatly appreciate your response as I've brought this up a few times, since I had found that many more important people were fused with the other section than those who have been kept in the secondary. But take your time and I'm glad you're honest, thanks again my dear comrade. - Zarbon (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Ep67 06.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Ep67 06.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. –FunkyVoltron talk 23:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Ep67 06.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Ep67 06.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image which is not under a free license or in the public domain and it has not been used in any article for more than seven days.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. –FunkyVoltron talk 00:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Zarbon! Zarbon!
hiii!!! i hav been trying 2 talk ta ya on ur domain but it is locked. This message us now archived