User talk:Zip1010

Welcome
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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Synchronism (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

March 2009
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a different title by copying its content and pasting it into. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Synchronism (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

April 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Glenn Rosewall has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Banaticus (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Curious
do you have a connection to Glenn Rosewall? LibStar (talk) 06:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been wondering the same thing. This account seems a bit suspicious, this editor's interests and style bear a remarkable resemblance to that of User:Ansonrosew. What's up Zip1010?Synchronism (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I am a colleague of Glenn Rosewall. I am assisting Ansonrosew in correctly citing Glenn Rosewall and BBY Group. Is there something wrong with that?

Conflict of interest
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam); and,
 * 4) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. LibStar (talk) 07:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read the conflict of interest guidelines, WP:COI. LibStar (talk) 07:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. LibStar (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * your edits are consistent with someone acting as if paid to edit here. stop or you will be reported for Conflict of Interest. You are also a single purpose editor WP:SPA with no intention of editing other articles except as directed by Glenn Rosewall. reconsider. LibStar (talk) 07:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

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. Synchronism (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Synchronism (talk) 07:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you were not warned upon the initial creation of this particular case. You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/Ansonrosewfor evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspectbefore editing the evidence page.Synchronism (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Case closed

 * This case is closed, I am sorry to have falsely accused you.


 * You and the people you know in real life that edit this encyclopedia need to be aware of its policies on how the type of collaborative editing that you have been conducting should be viewed by the community, most importantly:


 * 1) Consensus in many debates and discussions should ideally not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors.
 * 2) In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion.
 * 3) For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has ruled that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity.


 * You are all apparently good editors; you are skilled at wikisyntax and the pages you have created are about somewhat notable things. My personal advice is to expand your work to the rest of wikipedia and let the pages you created evolve to avoid the appearance of highly subjective editing. This will help lend credibility to your voices during vote like occurrences, should you wish to participate in them.


 * One more thing: you can have your user page where I accused you deleted, redirected to your talk page, or you can create something better there Just ask someone, or me if you don't already know how. Best wishes, Synchronism (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Another warning
Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. LibStar (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Might I add if you continue down this path of promoting BBY you will be reported to WP:ANI for conflict of interest. Suggest you edit a variety of topics to learn more about Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 07:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

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. LibStar (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Final warning
Please stop assuming ownership of articles. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. LibStar (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * you don't seem to heed the warnings, I will be reporting you. LibStar (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You have been reported at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard LibStar (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Caution at BBY Ltd
Hello Zip1010. Though you haven't violated WP:3RR yet at BBY Ltd you have been edit warring. Your edits do seem to violate our WP:Conflict of interest guideline. If you would like Wikipedia to keep this article, it might be better to start cooperating with regular editors. The article lacks reliable sources at the moment, which testify to the importance of the firm. If it has influential, we imagine the press would have commented on the firm's importance. So far we have the Sidney Morning Herald saying that somebody took a job there in 2004. We have a Business Week profile, which resembles a press release and contains no analysis by a real reporter. We have an article that quotes Glenn Rosewall's opinion on the stock market but says nothing about BBY. We have a victory by BBY in a yacht race! Are we getting serious yet? Is there really nothing better? EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur. LibStar (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:GAR Newsletter to Source Material.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:GAR Newsletter to Source Material.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)