Jump to content

User talk:Zoe/archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nandesuka's RFA

[edit]

Zoe,

Thanks so much for nominating me, and for your willingness to take a chance on me for admin. I'll try to live up to your expectations. And thanks for being such an assertive and straightforward editor. Some of us really appreciate it. Nandesuka 00:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you here

[edit]

Zoe! I hadn't realized that you've come back. I'm so happy to see you.

I see you're working on Jeff Merkey -- it looks like a brewing mess, good work.

Just to be clear on what's going on, is this accurate: someone (looks like Merkey) removed a personal attack, you reverted it, thus putting back in the personal attack, and then reverted yourself (taking the personal attack out again). Just a mis-click?

I am recommending to Mr. Merkey (tomorrow, by email, when I have time) that he get a single identity and use it, rather than using ip numbers sometimes. Part of the confusion around these articles seems to stem from (a) Merkey having a lot of detractors who say a lot of very vile things about him and (b) Merkey himself taking action under anonymous ip numbers in a way that tends to agitate people.

I hope you'll continue to keep an eye on this area -- it needs the cool hand of a solid oldtimer. :-) --Jimbo Wales 01:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie Test New users who discover the "Edit this page" button want to know if they can really edit any page, so they write something inside just to test it. This is not vandalism! On the contrary, these users should be warmly greeted, and given a reference to the Sandbox (e.g. using the {{test}} template message) where they can keep making their tests. (Sometimes they will even revert their own changes.)

I'm a newbie to Wikipedia - not to computers in general. It's obvious seeing th elittle "talk" link by your name in my messages bow. Then you have an edit and there was a link in your message to the word vandalism - so - what's so difficult about all that? Pretty intuitive, I'd say...

OK, sorry! I am John's Dad. I thought this got stored as a sort of homepage on our local computer and I wanted to "surprise" my son the next time he logged in to see his name on the list of birthdays. P.S. He is indeed quite good on the piano so, perhaps, someday you will allow him into the real encyclopaedia???

MagicSpeller

[edit]

Yep, I'd appreciate if you'd make the block, I just want him to leave me alone. I'm not going to go crazy like Jtdril, but the whole wikistalking things is a bit creepy when you live in the same small city as the guy. Thanks. --nixie 05:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Merkey

[edit]

Sorry about this guy. It wasn't my idea to inflict him upon wikipedia. Somebody on the Yahoo SCOX board decided to do it. I will at least do my bit to help clean up the mess.

As it seems you have been doing some work on this, I want to tell you that it seems Jeff's new nym is 'mike martin' and he is putting his vanity edits into Novell, which is the source of much of his angst on the net.

Either by Jeff's own fault (which is what most people think) or by 'clerical error' (which is what Jeff claims), the settlement from his lawsuit against Novell was released, and the findings of fact from that by the judge are very detrimental to Jeff. In any case, mikemartin has been putting this into Novell. I have reverted it, but I suspect another one of Jeff's revert wars will spring up. Vryl 06:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Pages

[edit]

Please don't remove other people's comments from Talk pages, as you frequently point out to other users ( This being one example amongst many others). Removing user comments from talk pages is considered vandalism, as you well know. Please practice what you preach. Regards --81.79.183.17 10:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Submit your comments on the relevant talk page then, rather then launching your RPG in violation of WP policies and guidelines that you repeatedly remind other users to observe. Regards --81.76.59.143 11:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake color articles

[edit]

Because of the complexity of the vote at the above AfD, I have attempted to break down the individual votes on the AfD talk page. If I have misunderstood your vote with respect to any of these, please correct it. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 12:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why I Am Not a Painter

[edit]

Very sorry! I should have checked. I assumed, bad idea. I'll alert Wikisource. Kushboy 23:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast Intelligence Network

[edit]

Thanks for the info, If they'd been really mainstream then Ryan Mauro might have been marginally notable - as it is I'm happy to stick with my delete'. Dlyons493 07:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Maria Pia de Saxe Coburg Braganza

[edit]

There are people in this page that change the authentic and original baptism name of the duchess Maria Pia of Braganza and insert as title of this page the name Hilda Toledano. Hilda Toledano was only a pseudonym name that she used when she wrote some of her novels and also a pseudonym that she used in particular in salazarist period for political problems (You can see also in this web page : http://www.projectedletters.com/vault/maria-pia/maria-pia-3/ ). Don' t exist other documents where we can see the name Hilda Toledano. She was knowledge as Maria Pia Saxe Coburg Braganza and in all the official documents of this woman the only used name was Maria Pia Saxe Coburg Braganza.(see http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/html/pater.html ). So the attempt to change her name is only a fool the portoguese historical truth ! And this is also illegal . I ask to reintegrate the name Maria Pia Saxe Coburg Braganza as title of this article and instead Hilda Toledano redirect to Maria Pia Saxe Coburg Braganza.

The name of Maria Pia de Saxon Coburg Bragança is reported:

Now please, can you inform me where can I see a document that identify this woman as "Hilda Toledano" so also I can understand your pretension to leave in this web page the name Hilda Toledano. In the contrary case this is a tentative of mystification of the historical truth. I attend your answer.Thanks. Manuel, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Jimbeaux

[edit]

I am assuming good faith and not blocking this new user on sight. They have not yet done anything, but the name is suspicious. Probably a good idea to keep an eye on this person. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should hope not (blocking on sight - what gives you the authority, as distinct from the ability, to do that anyway?). What is suspicious about this name? --209.43.25.154 10:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Blocking policy says "Usernames that are designed to impersonate legitimate users may be blocked immediately and indefinitely." What is suspicious about the name is self-evident to anyone who knows the name of the founder of Wikipedia. That being said, his edits so far seem innocuous, so perhaps it's just a coincidence. Nandesuka 23:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way that any right minded, reasonable user could consider that a user with the name of User:Jimbeaux is trying to impersonate User:Jimbo Wales. To suggest this is an attempted impersonation is just ludicrous. BTW, best to let Zoe reply for herself Nandesuka, this is not trolling as she seems to think from reading your talk page, just a legitimate question as to why she would consider banning this user "on sight". We have enough trouble keeping good users in many situations, why ban one before they have even started? --formerly 209.43.25.154 14:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Zoe is right - responding to you was a mistake. There clearly is a way that right minded, reasonable users could consider that a user with the aforementioned name might be trying to impersonate Jimbo Wales. The proof is that many right minded, reasonable users did consider it. I won't bother responding to any more of your personal attacks. Have a nice day. Nandesuka 16:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on user Zoe

[edit]

How did Ta bu and I make this list? - brenneman(t)(c) 00:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ask him? No, I'll pass, I've already exceeded my suggested maximum dosage of capital letters. Oh yeah, I saw this a bit late, but I am also about squeamish about transwiki meaning send to any bloody old thing that has wiki in the name. TW stuff tends to hang around long after everyone has said "we don't want it here" already. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism threat

[edit]

Hi. User:LevKamensky has issued a threat:

"So my suggestion is to delete all my contributions. And to abort my participation at Wikipidia. Otherwise I’ll come back with other Ips and haunt user:mikkalai, user:zoe and others, whose behavior I consider immoral according to my standards. I will vandalize every contribution that they make."

Please be aware that he may attack you or your edits. - Tεxτurε 22:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also be aware that he appears to have made edits to his talk page [1] after your notice that he had been permanently blocked. -WCFrancis 00:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your Vote on Davien Crow

[edit]
  • You quoted his "trademark red hair" and the picture showing it black. That is why there was a dateline behind that. That does not change the fact that they meet the requirements, please consider changing your vote.


  • Look the point summarized is I am willing to work with you guys on why these were deleted but until now noone has given us any feedback and has even lied about stuff trying to get it deleted. All 3 of them meet the sufficient amount of requirements for WP:MUSIC, the guidelines in WP:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies, Wikipedia:Importance, Wikipedia:Notability (the fact that suicide girls, gidget gein, and marilyn manson are involved and can be verified in those links should proove that) , Wikipedia:Fame_and_importance mainly the part stating "There is clear proof that a reasonable number of people are or were concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community)" If you can't tell the community of Myspace.com and Livejournal.com alone are enough to meet this criterea you are blind. If you do google searches, go to forums and search their names, or visit internet archives you can find un-disputable information on the band from reputable sources, first hand accounts that are years older than these discussions, and intangible archives kept by internet archives. IF you want more detail read my above rant, your right I do sound mad about this, because I can't see how you can say they do not meet criterea or that this is a vanity page. Please accept my apologies for anything you have taken to be rude and please re-consider changing your vote. What Harm could it do ? BTW I am not trying to bully anyone, I can show you the location of the people threatening to come here and vandalize the hell out of Wikipedia. But I do not want that to be part of your decision at all.

I have posted this, I hope that some of you will consider looking for my information and reconsider your vote for now. A lot of people are simply responding to the rudeness of user:sin-thetik and some things I said are being misconstrude as threats. I am simply upset because of all the time it took to write these 3 articles, knowing they fit the guidelines, only to have somone delete them with the proof and verifiable facts right in front of them .. just their un-willingness to read them. Please think it over, I appreciate your time. I'm just a fan girl trying to be the first to get an article up about them since I have been running a fan site about them for almost 2 years now. PLEASE THINK IT OVER G4DGET 04:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am translating a series of articles about Cookies -a music band in Hong Kong

[edit]

So please dont add the notenglish in the articles created by me at this moment. Thx a lot! Sorry about this, then may you remove the notenglish in Stephy Tang, I nearly finish the translating. Also, I will create Theresa Fu, Kary Ng, Miki Yeung, and translate them in a moment. Itsmine 08:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gorden and Gordon

[edit]

I noticed your reversion of User:GordenWatts who attempted to attribute a quote to User:GordonWatts on Terri Schiavo. The former should be indefinitely blocked. Marskell 09:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rktect arbitration

[edit]

Since you left a statement, you may be interested to know that there is now a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rktect/Evidence. -- Egil 13:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is bizarre about "all that has to be true for a theory to exist is for it to be stated somewhere"?

[edit]

After all, all a theory is is a particular explanation for something--thus, by stating it, is it not brought into existence? Kurt Weber 18:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You confuse theory with hypothesis. Sieckanddestroy 17:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lakewood Boulevard

[edit]

I just noticed this question in the closed AfD:

So what if you've heard of it? I repeat: Voting "keep" because you've heard of something is no more a keep criterion, than voting "delete" because you haven't heard of is a valid delete criterion. And there are lots of streets in London that I've heard of, that doesn't mean they deserve articles.

The simple answer is that I've heard of it so I'm likely to want to know more about it. And yes I do think that there should be articles on Oxford Street, Regent Street, Piccadilly Circus, Whitehall, Berkeley Square, Tottenham Court Road, Threadneedle Street, Cheapside, The Strand, Upper Street and many other streets in London. For precisely the same reason. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Lost" page move

[edit]

Hey, Zoe.

A while back, you expressed some support for moving Lost (2004 television series). There's a vote on now to move it to Lost (TV series) (a previous request to move it to Lost plain and simple failed to meet the 60% approval mark). If you'd like to come to Talk:Lost (2004 television series) and cast a vote, it'd be great!

Thanks —Josiah Rowe 05:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Major Nagin and the Bush on Holiday Scandal

[edit]

So time to create the category Libertine Wikipedia Editors ??

Oh my volatile friend...

[edit]

Fell like having a chat with a spammer? 24.54.208.177 doesn't think he qualifies, what do you think?
Cheers big ears,
brenneman(t)(c) 02:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PetitPanSquash.jpg

[edit]

There's an effort underway to clear up legal rights to all images in Wikipedia, either under fair use or by getting an explicit release under a compatible license from the copyright holder. Images of unknown copyright status have been tagged and are allegedly removed seven days after the warning is added, although I think sometimes the tag stays there longer before someone gets around to removing the images. Apparently Jimbo is behind the effort from the top, though, so they are eventually going away.

Anyway, I just found Image:PetitPanSquash.jpg in Squash (fruit) and decided to add it to Pattypan squash (which may need to be renamed; apparently these are two variants of the same name), but in the process I noted that it had the warning tag.

Could you please consider adding an image copyright tag so someone won't delete the image?

You may also want to check to see if somebody's planning on removing other images you've uploaded.

Thanks, Jdavidb 21:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rats; I was hoping we could keep it.

I ran this google search and seemed to find it, though, so I'll try to track down and tag status. Jdavidb 01:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Personal View Points ??

[edit]

Hello, I don't know you and the first time I've heard of you was from a curious post on my talk page (uninvited I may add) where you falsely accused me of posting 'Personal View Points' in articles. I would expect you to promptly cite an example of this or else immediately apologize and desist from such harassing behavior (against me or anybody else with whom you have an axe to grind) in the future. Thanks and have a great rest of the day! Big Daddy 08:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ps Calling a far left winger a 'far left winger' is not a 'personal viewpoint.' I would refer you to the Bill Clinton article where critics are often (and with great vigor) labeled 'far right.' Perhaps you should start your lecturing circuit there. I'm curious as to why you haven't. Could you explain? Thanks! After all, goose...gander...you know. Big Daddy 08:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's just a tiny example of articles you let slide (presumably for months if not years) while singling me out within seconds. (Not to mention the greater sin of straining at the gnat of me rightfully calling Eric Alterman a left winger while swallowing the camel of a slime piece in the Coulter article linking her to domestic terrorism.) I sense a double standard in your evaluation as affirmed by your 'noticing' some long discredited phoney baloney rfc yet ignoring the personal vicious attacks made by others on my (and their)Talk page within the last 24 hours. How does one become this myopic?

From the Bill Clinton page:

"Clinton was viewed with intense personal dislike of his policies and character by some on the far right. Several unsubstantiated accusations were leveled by conservative talk radio... Some talk show personalities even fomented conspiracy theories about Clinton ...The deadly Branch Davidian standoff near Waco, Texas in 1993 fomented further far right hostility" Big Daddy 08:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I've previously advised you, emotionalisations based on value judgements, such as 'far left' or 'far right', are not considered useful in Wikipedia articles: see words to avoid. --Ngb ?!? 08:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then I'd suggest they be eliminated from the Clinton article. Which begs the question. Why haven't they? Big Daddy 08:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Be bold and fix it! --Ngb ?!? 09:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. maybe he just likes to see his user name: "Big Daddy." I think a more accurate term would be "Little Baby." It suits him to a T. What a pathetic troll. Eleemosynary 08:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. I've indicated to ngb that there was a POV stalker following me, but this post makes it unnecessary to have to prove my point! lol! Big Daddy 08:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, Little Baby! There are also some "stalkers" right outside your door in white coats. They have a pleasant little room for you, with soft walls and nice bars on the window so you won't hurt yourself falling out. Go with them, and you can build pretty collages celebrating Karl Rove to your heart's content! LOL! Eleemosynary 08:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Half of the people involved in this would do well to read WP:NPA. But Zoe's talk page isn't really the place to be thrashing this out, so I suggest all of us leave it alone here and let the arbitration process run its course. --Ngb ?!? 09:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

[edit]

Thank you for doing that. Why did he arbitrarily do that? --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 22:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you're a great woman, Blackcap directed me to you. How can we list Snowspinner for desysopping and loss of admin privs? --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 22:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snowspinner

[edit]

Sounds great, just let me know what you need me to do. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 22:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can wait, I'm patient. In the case he doesn't change, just let me know so I can sign on. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 22:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

[edit]

Hammer-fest Hi. I've deleted your article because it's a copyright violation. We cannot repost newspaper articles, it would be illegal. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Action against Snowspinner after his deletion of pages

[edit]

Hello, Zoe. I have asked Snowspinner to give up his adminship priviledges for several months due to his deleting AfD pages without any backing policy here. As you were involved in the dispute, and seemed to disagree with his actions, I'm asking that you do the same. It'd be nice to know that I'm not the only one who thinks that this can't be allowed in our admins, for one thing, and I'd also like to have tried to have him freely do this himself without an RfC, for another thing. Kindly let me know what you think. Thanks in advance, yours, --Blackcap | talk 04:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A note: I have left a similar message with Calton, here. --Blackcap | talk 04:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After a brief conversation with TBSDY, I've created a RfC. It's here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner 2. I'd appreciate your certifying it, if you so choose. Thanks, --Blackcap | talk 06:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this true?

[edit]

I was being harassed by RandomJoe the other night and he claims that he has been "permablocked" by you. Is this true? If so, when was this done? If it was done before this recent trolling episode, you might want to conider a more serious consequence. Thanks.Gator1 14:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gator1, it appears you are unaware that I have been permablocked by Zoe. This still allows me to edit my Talk page. At first I just stopped by to tweak you with that one little edit; you pretty much deserved that. To my surprise, you made it way too much fun, so I kept on. My god, is this your first time on the internet man? Don't feed a troll. Now, grow a pair of balls and put your user page back. It's ridiculous to take that down on my account. At least leave the pictures up: you have lovely pets, and I enjoyed their pictures. My wife actually spent a while deciding which was cutest. I'll leave you alone, since you must be truly upset to take your user page down. (PS. Artist was meant metaphorically)RandomJoe 02:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RandomJoe"

Thanks, just confirming. I will be from now on (removed him from my watchlist yesterday). I appreciate you stepping in.Gator1 12:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

[edit]

Hi. You were involved in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU which looked to establish a Deletion Review process in place of VfU. There is now a discussion about how we might construct the mechanics of such a process. The current proposal suggests that debates be relisted on AfD if there is a majority of editors wanting to overturn the debate (usually on procedural grounds) and that the alternative result be implemented if it is supported by three-quarters of editors. Please call by Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion/Deletion review proposal when you can to discuss. Thanks. Titoxd(?!?) 02:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanics of deletion review

[edit]

Hi. You were involved in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#The scope of VfU which looked to establish a Deletion Review process in place of VfU. There is now a discussion about how we might construct the mechanics of such a process. The current proposal suggests that debates be relisted on AfD if there is a majority of editors wanting to overturn the debate (usually on procedural grounds) and that the alternative result be implemented if it is supported by three-quarters of editors. Please call by Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion/Deletion review proposal when you can to discuss. Thanks. -Splashtalk 02:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Systemwars.com

[edit]

Hi. Can I get your opinion of Tony's latest recreation and relisting of a valid VfD deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Systemwars.com (second version). Thanks. - Tεxτurε 15:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me. --169.139.177.49 18:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MattDamon.jpg has been listed for deletion

[edit]
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:MattDamon.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

-[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 18:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hi there!

[edit]

Just to let you know you're efforts in keeping wikipedia clean are appreciated :). I also apoligize for the whole school vote thing a while back (I've changed my attitude on that a while ago) :). Anyway, try not to burn out and take care! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

[edit]

Hey there. Quick question. I was looking for a site about Evemerus, couldn't find it, so I started it. Little did i know that the name was also pronounced Euhemerus. Therefore I would like to a) cancel my new page for Evermus, and b) redirect Evermus to the Euhemerus page. Thanks. JoshMahar 08:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zoe

[edit]

I'm don't consider myself very good in self-advocacy. Can you have a look on Talk:24 Hours of Le Mans just in case we need someone to cool down the discussion, thanks. Ericd 19:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslim Athletes Redirect

[edit]

Under the redirect edit your message summary reads: List of Muslim Athletes moved to List of Muslim athletes: Moving to correct case, but this should probably be List of United States Muslim athletes, or something like it. Why on earth should that be Zoe, just count the number of non US people on the list? --81.79.221.76 07:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Earth to Zoe - anybody home? --81.79.27.197 16:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion comments

[edit]

I think comments of the form "Tony Sidaway strikes again" are tremendously unhelpful - it makes it sound like he's a vandal, instead of a well-respected administrator. Snowspinner 00:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Those people should take appropriate disciplinary action instead of making snippy comments. Snowspinner 00:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Zoe, if you really believe that this article must be deleted, fine, but why the gratuitous personal attack?
By the way, you don't really believe it needed to be deleted?
Do you?
I mean, you actually read it, and everything? --Tony SidawayTalk 00:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ug, don't listen to Tony, Zoe. He's just doing his usual stuff. Snowspinner is also the last person you want to appeal to at this time also. Take care and don't let them ruin your day :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Far out man, just when my blood pressure finally returns to normal, shit like this happens. As far as I'm concerned, this is vandalism.
brenneman(t)(c) 03:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

[edit]

Hi there! I have openend an RFC on Tony Sidaway's frequent incivility and poor response to criticism. I would appreciate your opinion on the matter. If I understand correctly from his talk page, you have recently tried to discuss this very issue with him, and it didn't really resolve anything. I hope that an RFC may be more fruitful. Yours, Radiant_>|< 12:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P-P-P-Powerbook

[edit]

Done. I didn't add your comments, because you can probably be more eloquent than me. Joyous (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scatr99

[edit]

I heart proxies

Oh, bombgirl,

[edit]

Although I now probably do qualify as both a deletionist and a vandal, I am so glad that you're around.
brenneman(t)(c) 05:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. - brenneman(t)(c) 08:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Able and Baker comment you deleted

[edit]

I saw you deleted a comment Snowspinner made on the Able and Baker AFD. Rather than delete it as a personal attack, I restored it and replied to it with a quote from the linked article refuting his comment.

I don't see it as a personal attack, really, myself, and I feel it should be refuted instead of deleted.

All that said, if you feel very strongly that that was a personal attack, feel free to delete it again, just make sure you delete my reply, too. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Your reply was spot on. Worth keeping. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind, I try to keep conversations in one place, per my talkheader.
I thought so, and I noted he didn't reply. Speech should be countered with speech, you know? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But all deletion IS vandalism

[edit]

You shouldn't delete something because it calls a spade a spade. Kurt Weber 23:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure that if the article Spade said only "A spade is a spade", I would have not the least hesitation in speedily deleting it. -Splashtalk 02:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So if we trick Sam into saying "Sam-I-am" can we delete him, Mxyzptlk-style? - brenneman(t)(c) 02:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


WP:TFD#Template:Twoversions

[edit]

Is there something I'm missing here? - brenneman(t)(c) 04:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has moved to a proper location now that the WP:IAR actions have been reversed. -brenneman(t)(c)

Of course it's a bad thing, I was simply upset that David G felt that he could just go and delete it without consultation, even in the face of an existing TfD that said "keep". I did say "delete" in the TfD that's going on right now, after all. Must stay true to form!
brenneman(t)(c) 06:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sidaway

[edit]

Zoe, I know we haven't seen eye to eye before, and our previous encounters have been less than pleasant. However it seems we both agree Tony is acting irresponsibly. Would you like to help file an ArbCom request against him to force him to rectify the situation? If you have checked the RfC lately, you will see his arrogance has won out and he is refusing to even read it any more, let alone answer the charges. Agriculture 01:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an alternate suggestion on how to handle the issue? Agriculture 01:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
:(

good job on RC patrol :-p

[edit]

That's twice I've tagged an article for deletion and you've speedied it within about ten seconds. Hee! — ceejayoz talk 05:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of Tony Sidaway's Misconduct

[edit]

I am currently amassing evidence of the misconduct demonstrated by User:Tony Sidaway and would appreciate your help in the matter. If you would please post any contributions you may have to User:TheChief/Evidence I would appreciate it very much. TheChief (PowWow) 23:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Western Sahara Infobox/Option 2

[edit]

Hi, This page was created after a suggestion made by Anthere who is mediating in a dispute about the Infobox in the Western Sahara page. Daryou 23:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created Talk:Western Sahara Infobox/2nd Option, Is it OK? Daryou 00:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Thanks for your support during my time here, unfortunately it seems Tony is very well placed. Undoubtedly due to my support for his RfAr, I am now falsely accused of sockpuppetry. Radient was good enough to unblock me, but given the users participating it is clear Tony and his ilk run Wikipedia. Quite frankly, this sort of abuse of the system and blatent mob style tactics is the last straw. I am leaving for good here. My only purpose in coming back was to fight this sort of thing, but given those involved, it's a battle that cannot be won. Goodbye and goodluck. Agriculture 16:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:SQuast

[edit]

Yeah, I can see that now! Somehow, when I first left a message for him I accidentally left it in his userspace. I had thought I was leaving a message on his user talk page, so it appeared to me that there were no comments. Then when I realized what I'd done, I moved it over to the talk page and realized that he'd obviously been warned. Oh well. He definitely has now. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe, why are you such a stupid skank bitch? I thought you quit the Wikipedia; maybe you should quit again, cuz very few people think your editing is worth a damn. Gooddayz

Please refrain from using personal attacks. There are plenty of ways to state your oppinion and resolve a dispute without being mean and vulgar. Also, please date the time of your post (a very distant second). If you have a problem with Zoe's editing, please bring it up at the appropriate place, which is not on her talk page. Thank you, and please be more civil. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 04:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe, why are you such a stupid skank bitch? Oh, and thank you. - brenneman(t)(c) 12:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh2, and look at this. What a great idea! </sarcasm>

I tride the third time around. I hope it is fine, Did some reading. shot for a Stub, Thanks for the message. ps. your fast


User:Rafterman

[edit]

Greetings... Just letting you know I'm shortening your indefinite block of this user to 48 hours: not all his edits are vandalism and he's asked for another chance; ran across him on my watchlist with the Hitler photos but he's done some decent format and spelling corrections mixed in as well, so I believe the shorter block and a Don't Do This Again are warranted unless he repeats this sort of thing. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; I left him a message to that effect, and hopefully it'll take. Mindspillage (spill yours?)

hey

[edit]

why did you revert that? The history article needed to be split into a separate article, and I was shortening the section to a reasonable size. --Revolución (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well now you have your explanation. --Revolución (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grrrrrr

[edit]

Why you dirty... I am going to take care of this situation myself.

If you tell me to shut up about Charlie Dog, one more time, then you angrily deny it after that. You are the intolerable person, but! But, I end up being told to shut up and yammering about Charlie Dog and others? Who knows! I am talking about cartoon characters. He is too obscure. They will think I am a fool or psycho-path, but since you STARTED all of this and ruined my life forever. You have two weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.155.52 (talk • contribs)

Oy, you crazy kids and your performance art. Or is this one a flash mob? I get so confused by all this post-modernist Da-Da stuff.
brenneman(t)(c) 03:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On the plus side, someone is 50% less angrrry. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spiced Ham

[edit]

203.125.73.142 (talk · contribs) looks pretty spammy to me. Sadly, I have to roll on. Feel like whac- I mean gently guiding him to the path of righteousness? - brenneman(t)(c) 05:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FrankandJames.tk

[edit]

Okay, I read the topic on Vanity.

So may I complete the article, not make it sound like I'm promoting it, and try again later this week?

It is actually getting quite popular, and there would be many who would edit the article to expand it.

So I'll spend a few days working on it and try again.

Thank you.

Out of Process Deletions

[edit]

I am concerned about some of your deletions - among your deletions in the last few days, I notice Grimsley High School Ultimate Club, which you speedied as "vanity" (Vanity is not a speedy criteria), Jolanta paterek, where no clear deletion criterion was listed, Kitten rash, for being a neologism (Again, not a speedy criterion), and Southern Ivies, despite the fact that it was not recreation of deleted content but an entirely new page, since the AfD did not address the inclusion of the subject matter, but rather of the unverified information. And this is only in the last two days - I see that you are doing a lot of deletions, particularly speedy deletions. Perhaps you should back off or slow down so as to avoid mistakes like this? Phil Sandifer 07:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I found another - you deleted Ernie Dingo as copyvio, but the page was over a year old, and the threshold for speedying copyvio is 48 hours. Phil Sandifer 07:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also surprised at the speedy deletion of Ernie Dingo. Andjam 07:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I bet not as suprised as he was. brenneman(t)(c) 21:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little concerned about the Ernie Dingo case, because we don't go around deleting articles without good reason. Although the article in question was a mess and turned out to be a copyright infringement, it should probably have been listed on WP:CP because it didn't qualify under WP:CSD.

The High School club is apparently heading for a merge right now, which speaks for itself. More to the point, it would have been easy enough to merge the article into the High School article, which has been around since July.

It's also a little worrying that you're apparently treating distinct articles as if they were attempts to recreate earlier deleted articles. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The following deletions to the Scripture-channel article are considered vandalism. Blanking large portions of an article under discussion violates Wikipedia guidelines. 

03:02, 8 November 2005 Zoe (redeleting vanity) 
23:40, 6 November 2005 Zoe (delete vanity list of channel members)

Endomion 15:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one who recreated Ernie Dingo. Please look into your accusations before making them and try to assume good faith. Phil Sandifer 05:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give some comment on this situation? I find it very troubling that you speedied an article without checking the history like that. Phil Sandifer 00:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie Dingo again

[edit]

Can you take another look at the Ernie Dingo article again. I have looked through the Special:Undelete/Ernie_Dingo page, and it looks like the copyvio version was added November 7. The versions previous to that don't look like copyvios, although it may just be me not finding the source. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still concerned

[edit]

I glanced at your deletion log today - I'm glad to see you restored Ernie Dingo, but I'm still concerned about out of process deletions. GURPS Humanx does not seem to me to be a speedy - it's just a POV stub on a perfectly notable roleplaying supplement, and the deletion of Cheapskating seems to me to be a unilateral overturning of an AfD of the sort you usually ostensibly oppose. With two votes to redirect and three to delete, a redirect seems to me a sensible decision - that's certainly not a 2/3 consensus to delete the article entirely.

I hope that you'll take the time to answer these concerns. Phil Sandifer 19:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I glance at your deletion logs every day, it's often all that gets me through my long, long lonely nights. I'm also very disturbed that you're going around deleting articles without a single "keep" recommendation. Where will it go from here! Oh, and why are you such a stupid skank bitch?
brenneman(t)(c) 01:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way

[edit]

I've continued to randomly replace Kurt's "fight against deletionsit vandles" with WP:NPA. Is it bad to enjoy enforcing policy, because if this is bad I don't want to be good.
brenneman(t)(c) 01:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Who do you think you are, "Catboy" destroyer?

[edit]

MY GOD! WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!? FIRST TEXTURE DELETES IT, AND NOW YOU! WHAT DO YOU SEVERELY IRRITATING PEOPLE HAVE AGAINST CATBOY? Why are you all doing this? What did I do wrong? I don't understand anymore! Now I'm crying inside...

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MONGO

[edit]

Make of it what you will. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel de Ceriz

[edit]

Hi Zoe, you might be interested by the fact that a new batch of articles about Emmanuel de Ceriz has been created, then deleted. Would you please also have a look at [2] ? Is there something that can be done to stop this problem ? Ze miguel 10:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the American Civil War

[edit]

Could you please revisit the discussion, read my comments there and consider changing your vote?

I think two reasons used to delete this are faulty:

  1. This list includes information which would be lost if categorized. Categories cannot list the date and manner of death in a organized manner as lists do. Categorizing would lose the info.
  2. Wikipedia is not a memorial doesn't apply as that rule is for people who do not deserve an article. These people played major roles in the American Civil War and therefore do not fall under the memorial clause of WP:NOT. They already have articles, and lists listing closely related people should not be deleted because they happen to be dead.

Thanks for your attention. - Mgm|(talk) 10:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush

[edit]

Hi. When you protect a page, you're supposed to list it on Wikipedia:Protected page. Otherwise, people don't notice that it's been protected. Since it's been a couple of days, I'm going to unprotect it now. Let's hope the rampant vandalism doesn't return. But then, it's probably the most vandalized page on the 'pedia, we can't just keep it permanently protected. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, little to nothing was gained from this article being unprotected. This article exemplifies precisely why Wikipedia needs to institute some sort of semi-protection measure, such as the one discussed previously at Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_33#Semi-protection_again. If you will review the edit history since you removed protection on November 13, 2005 at 7:20, you will see that over 95% of the changes (170 edits total) to the article were either vandalism or the removal of vandalism. We as administrators need something more effective than {{vprotect}} for high traffic articles such as these. I respectfully disagree that we cannot keep this article permanently protected; some degree of protection is needed, obviously, but on that same token we should not limiting editors who are in good standing. Will you join me in my proposal for a semi-protection capability? Hall Monitor 17:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Butanone

[edit]

Good catch. I was just copying the morsel of info into the Butanone article when you deleted it. Reyk 04:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, I did get the information. If you see this person do the same thing again, you should probably copy the info as well. It's relevant information, but not worthy of an article to itself. Reyk 04:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I Have A Dream (song)

[edit]

A while ago you put this page up for deletion. There have been 5 keep votes, and no delete votes (unless you count nominating the page for deletion as a vote). Is it about time the page should be removed from the list of articles for deletion? Street walker 11:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie dog, deletion, etc...

[edit]

Hi. While checking around today, I ran across Special:Undelete/Zombie dog, which was an article that I found via recent changes. While the previous content was indeed rather nonsensical, I decided to redirect it to Zombie, because it's a perfectly logical search term (and I think the article may have been attempting to describe the zombie dogs in Resident Evil). Could you explain under what speedy criteria you deleted it under? Thanks.--Sean|Black 06:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi (again). I don't really care if the article is restored or not, but could you explain under what speedy criteria you deleted it, instead of just ignoring me?--Sean|Black 21:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it was rude of me to accuse you of "ignoring" me, and I apologise. However, I don't understand: It wasn't nonsense: I redirected it because I thought it was a logical search term. If you disagree, you ought to take it to WP:RFD, not just delete it out of process. Thanks, and I apologise again for my rudeness.--Sean|Black 03:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

[edit]

I don't know what you are talking about. Figaro 03:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have just read what you have written. When I removed the photo (which I had donated to Wikipedia in the first place), I did not supply an edit summary (I would indicated "removal of photo", had I supplied an edit summary). At the time that I gave the edit summary, stating that I was removing a dead link, I was genuinely removing a dead link.
I removed the photo at 03:39 17 November, with NO edit summary. The edit with which I gave the edit summary "removed dead link" was at 13:55 16 November, at which time, as I have already remarked, I was genuinely removing a dead link. This can be easily verified if you go to the history page, and click on "last" for the appropriate edits.
The only reason for the removal of the photo is because of sarcastic comments and complaints about an excess of photos which I have donated to Wikipedia, and supplied to articles on Wikipedia.
You owe me an apology. Figaro 04:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Figaro 04:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Return of Clapperboard under different IP #

[edit]

The link spammer (Clapperboard) who you warned at User talk:81.108.128.192 has returned to spam again as 139.222.6.104. E.g., please see 

   * 06:21, 17 November 2005 Cinematography (→External links)  (top)
   * 06:20, 17 November 2005 Filmmaking (→External links) (top)
   * 03:58, 14 November 2005 Screenwriting (→External links) (top)
   * 03:56, 14 November 2005  Filmmaking (→External links)

Can anything be done? --Jeremy Butler 16:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BelAmp

[edit]

Why had you deleted that page?

There was not any advertising, and I did not any "blatant vandalism". If just added a link to BelAmp page to 'See also' at Winamp, so why do you think this is advertisement and vandalism?

Can you restore that page? --Andrew O. Shadoura 18:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was asked about this too (as I was the one who originally userfied this.) I'm as anti-advertizing as anybody, but I can't see that this does any harm as a user page. Nothing links to it from article space. Anyway, I've restored it, per user request. I'm not trying to cram anything down anyone's throat here, so if you disagree, please do let me know. Friday (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

troll in sandbox

[edit]

Re: User:Like Meat I Rot From The Inside Out Look what he's putting in there!

What about his name?

DRV for Mimi Yu

[edit]

While I expect that this would not survive an AfD, I'm doubtful about the speedy. You are AFAICS the only admin who looked at this page and said the particle was non-notable. Is it really the case that it contains nothing that could be regarded as a claim of notability, or do you mean that in your judgement the claims are not credible (which should mean it goes to AfD). --- Charles Stewart 14:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your vote on Guanaco's RFA

[edit]

So you'd be opposed to jimbo's adminship then? Phil Sandifer 03:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFD/Da Pupz

[edit]

I guess I didn't list it fast enough. I hate dialup. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 22:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Checkerboard Nightmare

[edit]

Zoe -
Feel like contributing to a discussion about a totally non-notable webcomic that Snowy thinks good stuff?
brenneman(t)(c) 05:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P*U*S

[edit]

I've changed my vote on this AfD to keep, based on evidence of radio play, record releases, and tours that leads me to believe that this band is sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. BD2412 T 02:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Cox

[edit]

NA would mean not applicable since the article was deleted already. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zoe/archive_17&oldid=1089916565"