User talk:Zola~enwiki

Two links on all of Wikipedia for a site I own that is a legit Big O fan site. There is a private dispute with the owner of paradigm-city.com and it seems that it's spilling out where it doesn't belong and someone just took away the link and claimed "spam". It's been there for more than a year--how is it suddenly "spam"?

Not sure of how to handle this, honestly--could definitely use guidance. spam would be adding my site to every big o related link you have, and I wouldn't do that, only put it in the two places it seemd pertinent as a legit outside link.

• Big O oldid=4744384 has the original link addition. Second one added recently, again, it's pertinent as PCF isn't the only place Megadeus gets discussed. How should I best proceed?

Update: Megadeus has been resolved.

Hello, Steve Caruso here from the Association of Members' Advocates in response to your request for Advocacy. Looking over your talk page, I must ask if this issue been solved or do you still require the assistance of an Advocate? :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 16:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Steve. the Megadeus page has been resolved, Ned Scott was very nice. So far the link on the Big O has remained, but given that there is the situation with the other site, my concern is that it keeps disappearing due to partisanship. What I would like advice on is the best way to handle it. Should I simply put it back and report again if it happens too many times? Should I comment about it or just ignore it and put it back? I figured it was wiser to get assistance from you folks before I did anything more because you know, the whole thing is a stupid Internet fight and it doesn't belong here!

Re: Google Directory

Hi

Yes I'm sorry, the information can be added. I was more concerned that it wasn't really that relevant for a summary, but considering the article has been merged into just the product listings. Feel free to put it back. Once again, sorry about that - only trying to do things for the better. Mambo Jambo 23:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Roger the Negotiator episode page

I have never even looked at the episode summary on your page before. I have plagiarised nothing. If you're going to make accusations, prove them. Given that both pages are summaries of the same information, there are bound to be similarities, but nothing was lifted. You think that you're the only one who can write a coherent summary of the episode, or own the exclusive rights to do so? The page has been reverted. I have no desire for conflict with you as we're both fans of The Big O, but please try to be more reasomnable.-CWD 13:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Two editors have now looked at this and both have removed the article. Please don't copy from my site. Observe there are no complaints about the other synopses at all and won't be because people wrote their own articles. We have no corner on the synopsis market, anyone can write their own, but expanding on the original is still plagiarism.Zola 16:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't give a damn what two people have done. They're both wrong. I did not, repeat DID NOT copy from your page. This is ridiculous. They're both summaries of the same episode, scene by scene. There's no way they're not going to be similar, but I can't find a single line that's the same aside from diologue quotes. I did write my own summary and will continue to do so. -CWD 16:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Two Wikipedia editors, who have final say. Just rewrite it yourself in your own words and it's the end of the matter. That an editor did it means they went and checked out my original and agreed, you're being told by Wikipedia staff, not just some random person who happened to wander in off the street.

Only one of them seems to be an admin, from what I can tell. In any case, both removed your copyright violation box. Looks to me like they're steering a neurtal course. I wrote the article in my own words to begin with and I defy you to show proof that I did not. I will not rewrite the article and make it worse just for the sake of making it look more different from your version. This is you word against mine, and I guess we see what kind of fan you really are in that you'd rather have there be no page at all than so much as give my the benefit of the doubt. -CWD 16:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You win

Upon further reflection, I've decided this isn't worth the time to me. So you win: There'll be no episode summary from me, nor will there be any others, though I had planned to eventually do the whole series. Maybe you'll take virtual pen in hand to make one? I doubt it. In fact, I won't edit any Big O-related pages. You can have them as your personal feifdom to prosper or rot for all I care, assuming nobody else has the patience to fight with you. I may not edit any wikipedia pages anymore at all. Editing anime pages on Wikipedia is something I do for enjoyment and to contribute to the fan community. There's no enjoyment in a futile struggle to make you see reason, and there's no point in trying to contribute when everything you work for can be wiped out by self-centered bullies in the blink of an eye and you get called a thief and a liar and you just have to take it.

In closing, I will reiterate once more that I copied NOTHING from your episode summary. I had never seen it before. Any similarities between the two can be attributed to the fact that they both cover the same material in the same fashion. We have both a set of eyes and a set of ears to recieve information and brains to process that information and if we're both asked to faithfully recount a certain set of information it's not surprising that we process it the same way. I already know there's no point in trying to convince you of that, though. No matter. I know the truth, my conscience is clear. I have that, and I gain nothing by wasting further time and effort on this struggle. Best of luck to you. -CWD 23:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason they removed the copyright violation box was because the matter was handled by deleting the article because they went and looked and saw enough similarity to agree. I've already taken pen in hand, and all the episode synopses can be found at www.savebigo.com, the site you plagiarized from. I actually don't handle Big O at all here--my biggest contribution so far was to expand the "Roger Smith" stub way back in the day. I leave it to the folk who have the time to do a really good job of it, which describes just about all the Big O Content here.

If the best you can do is call me names, it doesn't make your assertion that you did nothing wrong very credible. But I agree, article is gone, case closed. Best of luck to you as well. Zola 02:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, Zola. Maybe once we get all of the episode synopsi written, we can post them here ourselves..... ....JetBlack...

Your edit

My question is not spam and is far from irrelivant. Wikipedia IS biased. The question as to whether that bias is by design or by mistake remains relevant. --Filterbypass (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

@Zola: I gave my thoughts here. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Personal question?

Sorry if this sounds weird, but: are you the same Zola who was a tracker and wrote those guides to Impulse Tracker and ModplugTracker for the compleat idiots? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.149.149 (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

yes, I amZola (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I wanted to ask something, but I think it's better if I do it by email. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.149.149 (talk) 08:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: Nevermind, I tried to use the contact form but it seems to glitch out. Here's the thing I wanted to ask: I'm considering doing a cover of one of your songs ("Be With Me"). Would you be okay with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.149.149 (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I would just want a little more info about who you are and what you're going to do with it--"Be With Me" is one of my originals. If the form doesn't work, use zola at zolaweb dot com to contact me.Zola (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I abandoned the idea of covering it without even trying to think about what I was going to do with it. Sorry for the bother. - 9:42, 23 July 2012 (GMT+2)

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Zola. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Zola~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

03:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

20:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)