User	Talk	Awards	Contacts	Notes	Templates/Tools	Bookmarks	My Sandbox	v t e

This isZackmann08'stalk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text.Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome!Learn to edit;get help. Assume good faith Be polite andavoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seekdispute resolution if needed

Archives:1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17Auto-archiving period:30 days

536,480+ This user has made more than536,480 contributions to Wikipedia.

This user is one of the54 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Hey friend, ummmm... guess what?1933 Chatham Cup,1932 Chatham Cup,1930 Chatham Cup,1929 Chatham Cup,1926 Chatham Cup,1925 Chatham Cup,1924 Chatham Cup. What have you got against the football!? Kidding, hope you're well :)Jessicapierce (talk)04:09, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't understand you sometimes... Why would you waste a perfectly good opportunity to serve me a plate ofTROUT!Facepalm no but seriously... Thank you for catching that, fixing it and letting me know! I've corrected my REGEX. Hope you are well!Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})04:12, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, didn't warrant a trouting. I was quite entertained this time... I did my regular infobox-error search, which usually turns up 1-2 errors per 500 results, and did an actual audible, theatrical gasp when I saw how many results popped up. But then immediately saw it was your edits, not some ne'er-do-well. All good :)Jessicapierce (talk)05:41, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I would describe myself as not being ane'er-do-well but I appreciate it. Again, thanks for fixing em and letting me know!Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})06:15, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Side note... What is yourregular infobox-error search? Might help me catch my errors next time...Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})15:01, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jessicapierce: Mind if I get in on this as well? I'd like to do more parameter cleanup, and knowing what you do will help me keep from bothering you with more issues. (With apologies toZackmann08 for barging in on this conversation.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.}15:47, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao HowDARE you...^[sarcasm]Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})15:48, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: Ask around - I dare a lot more than I ought to, sometimes... --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.}15:50, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your contributions, rights, etc. I think you could be a goodRfA candidate. Im surprised from all these factors you aren't one already! I think that if you nominated yourself or someone nominated you, you are very likely to become the next new admin, and if you do, I'm definitely going to support you. What I'm saying is that you are a good RfA candidate and future admin.Theeverywherepersontalk here10:20, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the suggestion, but zero interest. Too much responsibility and power that I'm not interested in having. I prefer to focus on the more technical side of editing and leave the bureaucracy to the experts.Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})15:50, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Replying here rather than there, since I think it's a tangent better left off of that thread.

I haven't gone through an edit-by-edit timeline or anything, but I did check both of the AnI threads that you started regarding Logoshrimpo, and in fact I participated in the latter. I checked the former again just now (including the diffs) to make sure I wasn't missing anything egregious, but if you think I'm mistaken, feel free to tell me. My opinion remains that Logoshrimpo has not demonstrated they are incapable of collaborative editing. Maybe they will show that they are not sufficiently capable, but for now they just seem somewhat clueless.

Furthermore, while I'm sure you ultimately mean well, I think you've done a great deal to confuse this editor and to make yourself their perceived enemy. I think you needed to do better than citeWP:BRD, because the essay is more targeted towards content disputes that affect content in a single article. I also take particular issue with the reversion you started the first AnI thread over:[1]. "concision" is a wonderfully succinct edit summary explanation of that edit. Maybe "unit analysis" would be better than just "analysis", though. But your edit summary in the reversion is just clearly incorrect, and it likely gave Logoshrimpo good reason to believe you were reverting their edits without actually looking at what they are.

Thatis just a single edit, though. Nothing too big to worry about, and again, I'm sure you mean well. Let's just watch how the discussion at WikiProject United States plays out, and see if Logoshrimpo's proposed changes gain consensus.MEN KISSING(she/they)T -C -Email me!09:06, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you have fewer than 1,000 edits here, I take your rant with an enormous grain of salt. Appreciate your opinion in this matter, but as aFAR more experienced editor, I completely disagree with your analysis. Nothing more to say in the mater.Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})16:42, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zackmann08,I noticed that you reverted my recent contribution to the Samastipur article where I added details about local digital media ("Samastipur News").I understand that Wikipedia has strict guidelines regarding reliable sources and notability. I added this information because "Samastipur News" is a functional local news outlet serving the region.Could you please clarify if the removal was due to:Lack of secondary citations (references)?Formatting issues?Conflict of interest concerns?I want to improve the edit rather than spam. If I can provide independent news coverage proving the significance of this outlet, would it be acceptable to re-add it?Looking forward to your guidance.Thanks.Samastipurnewsedit (talk)17:13, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You inexplicably inserted non-standard spaces which broke the page without any explanation.Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})00:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, a number of your edits to various Georgia Senate district templates have introduced duplicate parameter errors. Could you clean them up please. They're listed atCategory:Articles using duplicate arguments in template calls. Thanks -X201 (talk)08:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm On it now! sorry!!Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})14:49, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleMarko Filipović is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marko Filipović until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Svartner (talk)07:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]