User talk:Zain Ebrahim111: Difference between revisions

Archived conversations

Please note that conversations started here will be continued here, while those I start on other users' pages should be continued there. Thanks.

Hear ye, hear ye!

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Do you not have an archive page? I couldn't find an instance of you being awarded this!!! Da da! Here it is. Well deserved Fribbler (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow - thanks, Fribbler! But there are many others (such as yourself!) who do a LOT more work on the RDs. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting

It will be interesting to see your proof that Boyce is not Dawkins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.246.75 (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I do not expect a reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.246.75 (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't claim that he's not Dawkins. But why would that give you the right the to vandalise User:RichardDawkins? The admins may not agree but we both know that you edited that userpage in bad faith. Please stop this. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Reference Desk

The purpose of the reference desk is to educate users by answering questions with sensible answers that help the questioner. Deliberately misunderstanding the question and posting nonsense can be considered vandalism. I am certain that most questioners would not appreciate it if their questions were treated flippantly and responses consisted of nonsensical answers deliberately designed to confuse. Such responses do not encourage new questioners to use the service and indeed can have the effect of encouraging malicious users into also responding to genuine questions with false responses designed to deliberately confuse the questioner. This defeats the purpose of the reference desk. The contribution I removed does not help answer the question and only served to discourage anyone answering the question with a serious answer. As I am the person who asked the question I think I am in a reasonably good position in which to judge whether the response was helpful. I would appreciate it if you did not restore the comment again. If you want to be helpful research the answer to the question. If you don't want to be helpful please don't disrupt the page. Thank you. Jooler (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

How did it "discourage anyone answering the question"? It wasn't deliberately designed to confuse, it was designed to be funny. Did it offend anyone? Was it controversial enough to spark unnecessary debate? No. I'm sure you can imagine how quickly things would get out of hand if we allowed OPs to remove any responses that they thought were unhelpful. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The simple fact is it wasn't helpful or even funny. If you want to continue the debate I've posted on Wikipedia talk:Reference Desk Jooler (talk) 07:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I say it was funny. Again, I have to point out that we can't have a rule stating that OPs are allowed to remove responses simply because they feel it isn't helpful. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not that I feel it wasn't helpful. It plainly wasn't helpful. It was plainly nonsense. And nonsense in Wikipedia article is vandalism. Jooler (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The reference desk guidelines state "Please don't start adding jokes just for the sake of it, and don't let humor get in the way of providing a useful answer. Some people (for example children and non-native English speakers) may not understand the joke, or, worse, may mistake a joke for a serious answer. 'In-jokes' can make outsiders feel confused or unwelcome. Sarcasm can be especially hard to detect in a written statement." Jooler (talk) 07:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(Rm indent) Okay I don't feel that strongly about this so I won't revert you again but I will defend my position here. If somebody posts in bad faith in an attempt to get attention or to start a debate then we should mercilessly remove. But removing this comment was imo inappropriate. If you have a problem with a user's post you should query on their talk page. Some comments:

• You still didn't explain how this comment got in the way of a useful answer despite asserting so again. If someone happens to know the answer to your question, they will write it out whether this comment is there or not. Your treatment of people who have tried to help you so far would be a muuuch bigger deterrent to prospective answerers.
• The reference desk is not a WP article and there is no way I agree that this is an example of vandalism as defined in WP:Vandalism. Nor is it nonsense as defined in Nonsense or WP:Nonsense.

You feel like you own that thread and so have the right to do as you will with it. You don't. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there

hi there and thanks for your mesage, i have a query regarding a page i produced that was deleted and im not sure how i communicate with the person that deemed it advertising? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgah (talk • contribs) 14:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you're welcome! :) I see you edited Channel U TV, Ballers and We Fly High. Which of these are you referring to? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I see you asked the same question on the help desk at Wikipedia:Help desk#How do i communicate with an administrator for deleting my contribution. Looks like you got a useful response from User:Zzuzz who presumed you were referring to The Ballers Show and pointed to User:Number 57 as the deleting admin. Go to User talk:Number 57 where you can leave a message. If you don't get any luck with him/her, you should go to Wikipedia:Deletion review where you can appeal the deletion. Hope this helps. Happy editing! Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

31 h

It's a saga. ---77.56.99.133 (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC) (Sluzz not signed in)