User talk:Zhoban

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Rauf
I never said he was dead - the article says he was reported dead, which is a fact, regardless of whether the bastard is alive or dead. That should not be removed. I don't know about the reliability of the source you cited, that would have to be discussed on the talk page there. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I Do Believe He Was Speculating That Sa'ad Was Not Confirmed Dead
It would be interesting to add if I could find such an article. His website has a search page that is used to look up archived articles. I also didn't reply to your earlier message because I don't feel that Wikipedia is a place for chit-chat. If such talk involves researching this, I would love to talk about it. If such a discussion involves just simply chewing the fat, however, I would rather not respond.75.72.35.253 (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Rashid Rauf Is Most Definitely Dead
The Long War Journal has claimed he is alive with baseless arguments and obvious attempts to attract publicity and draw in readers. I also never said you were chewing the fat either. I gave you a heads up on my views of discussions on Wikipedia and informed you why I didn't reply earlier, but I wasn't completely sure if you were chewing the fat or not. I feel it is a waste of valuable time to immediately reply when I'm not sure whether others are chewing the fat or not. 75.72.35.253 (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Just reviewing the facts.
Sam Fisher's Twitter says he let the cruise ship detonate, which would mean Emile didn't kill Enrica.

Double Agent was written by two people.

The only game that had Cybil was the first game.

None of the games Ito worked on without Toyama mentioned Cybil.

Ito didn't work on Homecoming.

Cybil wasn't mentioned by name in Homecoming.

Who says Cybil didn't go into hiding?

Toyama and Ito don't agree over what happened to Cybil.

Miyamoto's "conformation" of the chronological order the Zelda games went in differs from the official timeline Nintendo created.

That is all. Bluerules (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Derailment
I don't care if Cybil is dead or not. This isn't about what happened to her. My point is Toyama and Ito do not agree on her status. Along with Sam Fisher's Twitter account and Miyamoto's incorrect explanation of the Zelda timeline, this proves that one person alone does not decide what is canon in a franchise. Who's the next character you're going to accuse of being dead without any credible information to back you up? Maria Latore? Nicholai Zinoviev? Kate McReary? Batman? Bluerules (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Jump-To-Conclusions
I never asked you what happened to those characters and you ignored everything else I wrote. Changing the subject is not how you win. Bluerules (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I Have Completely Agreed That The Long War Journal Is A Bad Source
I also agree that this not chewing the fat. The Al Qaeda will likely not eulogize al-Shihri until he has a successor. It recently took a while for Al Qaeda to eulogize Abu Yahya al Libi. Some of those papers made for audiences in the Middle East and Asia are also not reliable because they are more political and sensationalistic than they are neutral. Sources in both Pakistan and India even claimed Kashmiri was still alive before the Al Qaeda eulogized him. Sensationalism exists even in many news sources in the United States, but it is not comparable to that of countries with weak libel laws that allow political and sensationalistic stories to rule their news articles. Even Britain needs to improve their libel laws because their strict laws against general journalism has opened the way for tabloids to rule the country's news.75.72.35.253 (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Your edit summary
This is completely unacceptable per WP:NPA. I will block you if I see any kind of further disruption. Take the advice, stop debating the article in edit summaries, use the talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The Yemeni official may have lied or may not even exist. The newspaper likes to promote pro-Saudi Arabian propaganda in a similar manner like that al-Arabiya. We're currently paying these Middle Eastern governments good sums of defense money as long as the war continues and I wouldn't be surprised if Saudi Arabia is playing a double game similar to that which Pakistan has played. Killing off Al Qaeda figures speeds the end of the war, as well as the end of this defense payment. Here's an interesting story about Pakistan's double game75.72.35.253 (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism articles
Hello, Zhoban. There are a few things I felt would be necessary to discuss that I feel should be articulated to you. First of all, I wanted to say that I'm grateful for your contributions and enthusiasm in regards to the Islamic terrorism scene; it's good to know that there is such dedication to the integrity of those articles.

That being said, I feel it's only right that I note to you some details with related matters. I've noticed that a lot of your contributions include the removal of critical elements, most often without a replacement or even an explanation. I'm sure there's a methodology behind this, but without the edit summary, other editors may have the perception that you're going against consensus with edits that fit your own agenda. I do believe that you have a reason for this, but just to ensure that others don't question or revert your edits, I'd suggest that you consult the talk page for these articles and be diligent with your edit summaries. These summaries in themselves aren't fitting for discussion proceedings and nowhere is it appropriate to resort to NPA, but that's already been covered by The Rambling Man.

Once again, I'm just giving a word of advice, because I'm sure you mean well, but others may not see it that way and you could potentially be in danger of receiving a petition against you at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks for your time. D arth B otto talk•cont 22:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for telling other users to "fuck off" or "screw off" despite being warned. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Fragments of Jade
After going through a discussion here and taking a look at this user's contributions, it's reasonable to conclude that it is a sockpuppet of the banned user. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)