User talk:Fakir005

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed that you've been watching and editing the Zedo article. I think you might be misinformed about what Zedo is. The information you're editing out is actually accurate. Zedo is software which lets an ad network act as a broker between advertisers and publishers. An advertiser would be a site like MySpace and a publisher would be a company like Publisher's Clearing House. Zedo doesn't actually create any of the ads you see, or even put them on the pages.

What you're putting up doesn't seem very neutral and has a pretty negative slant. Also, it is inaccurate. You're taking issue with Zedo, which would be like taking issue with a company which publishes a client relationship manager like PeopleSoft because one of the companies that uses their software does something you find unethical.

I suggest that if you still don't feel this is the case and you want to keep editing that article, you should dispute the article and we should get someone neutral to arbitrate. I noticed that you didn't respond to my comment in the talk page on the article in question. We should start a discussion on this if you're still not satisfied.

--DoGooderJohnnyD 16:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zedo[edit]

Edits such as this [1] are disruptive and against policy. If you persist, you will be blocked from editing. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAKIR"S REPLY

THE FOLLOWING IS A VERY ACTIVE DESCRIPTION OF ZEDO.

WIKIPEDIA HAS BECOME A SHAMELESS PROMOTION OF ADWARES LIKE ZEDO THAT PROMOTE THEMSELVES SHAMELESLY AND OF PRODUCT VENDORS WHO PROVIDE EXTENSIVE LINKAGE TO THEIR OPERATIONS AGAINT NPOV POLICY. WIKIPEDIA HAS NOW BECOME AN EXTENSIVE FRAUD. THESE BUSINESSES ARE PROBABLY PAYING WIKIPEDIA HEAVILY FOR LETTING THEM MAKE THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS. IF SO THESE CONTRIBUTIONS SHOULD BE ACKNOWLEDGED AND AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT SHOULD BE MADE THAT WIKIPEDIA IS A PRODUCT PROMOTION DE BY PRODUCT PROMOTERS AND THAT IT IS NOT AN INDEPENT SOURCE OF PRODUCT IFORMATION.

WIKIPEDIA SHOULD NOT ISSUE BLCKAGE THREATS AGAINST TOSE THAT MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS NOT LIKED BY FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTORS TO WIKIPEDIA.

ALL THE SEARCH ENGINES WILL ATTEST TO THIS FACT. NO ARTICLE WILL DESCRIBE ZEDO AS A RESPECTFUL ENTITY. ONLY ZEDO SITES WILL DESCRIBE ZEDO AS RESPECTABLE SITES.

DO YOU REALLY WANT ARBITRATION? TELL ME YOR CONNCTION WITH ZEDO AND LET US GO TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND STATE OUR CASE. I'LL SUBMIT THE SOFTWARE ON MY COMPUTERS. HAVE ZEDO MAKE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT ASKING PEOPLE TO COME FORARD IF THEIR COMPUTERS ARE AFFLICTED WITH ZEDO WARE.

DON"T FORCE ME TO SEEK THE ATTENTION OF MEDIA, LEGAL AUTHORITIES, STATE ASSEMBLIES, CONGRESS.

NPOV[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHO ARE YOU ZIMZALABIM: WHO ARE YOU? WHERE DID YOU GET THE INFORMATION ABOUT ZEDO? ARE YOU ZEDO? STATE YOUR CONNECTION WITH ZEDO. I"LL TELL YOU WHERE I GET THE INFORMATION ABOUT ZEDO. DO A SEARCH ON ZEDO IN ALL THE SEARCH ENGINES. ONLY PRO ZEDO ARTICLES ARE FROM ZEDO SITES. THERE ARE A LOT OF ARTICLES HAT DESCRIBE ZEDO AS A SPYWARE, ADWARE AND THERE ARE SITES THAT DESCRIBE HOW TO REMOVE ZEDO FROM YOUR COMPUTERS.I PERSONALLY AM A ZEDO VICTIM. I HAVE SEVERAL COMPUTERS THAT ARE AFFECTED BY ZEDO SPYWARE, ZEDO ADWARE AND CAN'T BE USED>

STOP THREATENING ME UNLESS YOU WANT TO FORCE ME TIO START AN INQUIRY INTO OUR AFFAIRS> STOP INTERFERING WITH MY WORK.

IT IS NOT NPOV POLICY TO USE WIKIPEDIA FOR SELF PROMOTION. YOU WANT MEDIATION. LET US PRESENT THE MATTER TO JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. LET IUS TELL THEM WHO WE ARE AND LET US PROCEDE FROM THERE.

YOU WANT TO SETTLE email me at fakir005@aim.com and tell me what you have in mind. Let me have your email address. YOu must start with your connection to ZEDO

Category:Internet advertising and promotion[edit]

Hi Fakir, I've reverted your edit to Category:Internet advertising and promotion because Category pages shouldn't contain article content. Especially not essay-like content. Thanks! Marasmusine 20:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption warning[edit]

Greetings, it appears that you have disrupted Wikipedia to illustrate a point on User talk:Fakir005. If this message is in error please accept my apologies but if not then please use an article or project's talk page to make your point. Thanks! From: 17:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edits could give other users the impression that you may consider legal or other 'off-wiki' action against them. Please note that this is strongly discouraged under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats are often blocked indefinitely until their legal case is withdrawn or resolved. Please try to keep a cool head and work positively with other editors. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No legal threats, please[edit]

This is your last warning. If you continue to make legal threats against other users, you will be indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. This is in relation to comments like these: [2], [3], [4] [5]. Please desist immediately, or else you will be blocked indefinitely. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 20:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for violating our no legal threats policy. You can request an unblock by typing {{unblock}} on your talk page or by emailing any administrator. See evidence and links from here--MONGO 20:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin noticeboard[edit]

There is a discussion relating to this user at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Review_a_block_I_made_on_User:Bimzalazim. --Yamla 18:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock}}--fakir005 17:13, 10 November, 2006

The above notice by Mongo is a total news to me. I was not able to reach this section because it was totally blocked because of the Talk page becoming totally protected. Otherwise I'd have settled the matter then and there on 7 November, 2006. Any way Sean Barett asked me to withdraw the threat of legal action publicily. That threat was made by me because ZimZalaBim told me in my talk page that he'll block my computer if I don't give up calling Zedo an adware. There is an ample evidence that Zedo unleashes the deadly trojanhorses to initiate pop ups to serve the ads of his clients. So I was forced to issue my legal threat. I withdraw that threat publicily.
--fakir005 17:24, 10 November, 2006

{{unblock}}--fakir005 17:28, 10 November, 2006

{{unblock|User has withdrawn the legal threat, see above. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] 22:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)}}

I have sent an email to the blocking admin notifying them of your unblock request. --Yamla 22:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing... please read WP:NPA before making any more edits. I have every reason to believe there will be no more personal attacks will be made (and this would include accusing a person of being employed by Zedo and misusing administrative authority to further Zedo's goals), but if a personal attack is made, I suspect the block would be swift. Note: This is entirely separate from a hypothetical situation where you look at, say, my log of edits on that article and correlate it with my blocks of other people who edit the article, and discover that there's cause for concern. In that case, it would be reasonable to request that I be investigated given, say, all of my edits to the article have been blatantly pro-Zedo and I have blocked twenty separate people who posted reasonably sourced anti-Zedo statements to the article. If the differences are not clear, refrain from any edits until you have had this clarified sufficiently. --Yamla 23:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning DoGooderJohnnyD
Refer to your messages to me that started 9, 0ctober Regarding Zedo, several messages there after until 7 November, 2006 and the above message by Yamla. Since I don't know who is who at Wikipedia can I fearlessly ask if you two are the same persons" I'm not going to make personal attacks but the section on Internet - adservers is totally erroneous. I've presented evidence on Zedo to almost every Adminstrator that Zedo is an adware. This includes hundreds of thousands of listings on search Engines (yahoo, Google, AOL, Iwon.....) showing the way Zedo is producing its revenues. Who ever is creating Wikipedia Zedo accounts is also promoting Zedo on the search Engines with listings titled Zedo-Wikipedia and Wikipedia- Zedo. Further the List on Adservers is totally erroneous. All of the companies (with the exception of Zedo) are public companies and the description of their nature and work description is public knowledge. Their inclusion in Ad server list only serves to discredit Wikipedia as knowledge Encyclopedia. Would you advise me how to handle this matter? Please reply in private by emailing fakir0005@aim.com if it is possible. Thank you very much. Greetings.'
--fakir00510:08, 13 November, 2006 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear, I have only one account on the Wikipedia. Very rarely, I edit using my IP address instead of this username because Wikipedia has logged me out and I did not notice. But I hereby promise that I have no other user names at this time on the Wikipedia. My interactions with you have been to the extent of investigating your legal threat and sockpuppet usage and in dealing with your request to be unblocked. Whether or not Zedo was adware was outside of the scope of my interactions. An appropriate forum for discussing this would be the discussion page for the article you are trying to change. State your point as well as you can and try to keep it short. Provide citations from reliable sources (see WP:RS). To make a significant change, you must achieve consensus. --Yamla 15:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx to Yamla

I was not accusing anybody of anything. I don't know who is who at Wikipedia So I asked. I've gone over my talk page over and over Again and I find a message not only from DoGooderJohnnyD but ZimZalaBim asking me to stop accusing Zedo of being an Adware or I'll be blocked. I offered to resolve the point in private if somebody would email me. But no body emailed. Search Engines are crying Foul. "powered by Zedo" is listed on the search engines (these are the keywords) as shameless Trojan Horses. Yet somebody is shamelessly promoting Wikipedia-Zedo as an Ad server. Obviously There is an Editor from Zedo. 'Is there any?' How are we go to resolve the matter? Could you look at Google, Yahoo search Engine Listings Keywords "Zedo -trojan horses -819 listings", "removing zedo 23-400 listings", "Zedo- cookie -14,500 listings", Zedo Cookie - Adware - 1210 listings", "zedo - Adware- 16,400 listings", "Zedo popups - 3,400 listings" Zedo Pop Ups 3,400 listings", Zedo-Virus 27000 listings". All of these keyword listings relate to Yahoo search Engine. Yet Wikipedia continues to promote Zedo as an Ad server - "wikipedia - zedo 1910 listings". I do I resolve the matter?
--fakir005 13:38, 13 November, 2006 (UTC)

I was not asking you to "stop accusing Zedo of being an Adware" but to ensure your edits comply with the various rules and guidelines at this encyclopedia, especially those regarding adding content with a neutral point of view. If the Zedo article lacked (verifiable) information about Zedo being adware, it should be included. However, many of your edits (ie, [6]), unfortunately, didn't comply with these rules. If you look at the article now, you'll see that I've added a neutral and properly cited mention of the connection between Zedo and adware [7]. As it stands, I don't think the current article is a "shameless promotion of Zedo as Adware." If you have specific issues with the article, perhaps you should bring them up on its talk page. Let me know if I can be of further help. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]