User talk:Zoe

Archives
User_talk:Zoe/Archives

Latest on you

Hiya, you're an idiot. No offence like, but you go around telling people what to add, edit, publish on issues that you have no real interest in. Why squander the will of others to spread the word and the info on certain subjects by deleting full topics?? Most of the time with bad grammar anyway. As someone rightly pointed out to you "articles have to start somewhere".

And by the way you "WRITE" with a pen, "RIGHT" is the opposite of left, numptie.

---

Archives

/Archives

---

Pro-Lick's user page

While I'm no fan of him, I am curious as to why you keep removing the link to his blog. JoshuaZ 04:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but taking out the link doesn't deal with that all. The user should probably be indef banned by an admin, but taking the link out doesn't help matters at all. Like when Gastrich made wiki4christ.com, it was just as disruptive whether or not he had a link to it is basically irrelevant. JoshuaZ 04:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Indef-block for an editor with at least some history of good contributions is usually only done by reference to ArbCom, in my experience, unless they do something very extreme. I am not sure this case warrants an indef-block, although a block is unquestionably in order and an RfC would be entirely reasonable. Just zis Guy you know? 15:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

He called for large scale vandalism and POV pushing on his blog and detailed how to do it. Nor is he at all repetant. An indef block seems completely reasonable to me. JoshuaZ 17:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You Deleted My Work in Progess

Hey: I'd appreciate if you'd not delete my Atreides Family Tree; I'm not used to the "code" for family trees yet, which is why it didn't look right. Thanks. :) Zidel333 16:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, was working on article writing, then got interrupted, and had to volunteer for 6 hours. This article is using the Family Tree of the Greek Gods, Solo family, and Skywalker family as guides.

However, could you have possibly waited before deleting it again? Seriously. It would be nice you'd try to warn the last contributor before deleting. It sounds like common sense, or even plain courtesy, but would be quite helpful for people who might need a little help (i.e. like me), and can be taken very badly.

Zidel333 02:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You know, you just proved my point from above. And articles have to start somewhere.

Zidel333 03:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hoary's sig

File:1000000eme.jpg

Yet another sysop rolls off the conveyor belt, thanks you for your help, and excuses himself for a few days while he practices his new abilities. Back in action soon! -- [signed:] Hoary 09:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hoary signed it. I hope you will consider changing your vote. Cheers, from Hoary's former Wikistudent.--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Zoe!--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC) This was preceded by Hoary placing his signature on his Rfa page, which let to Zoe's change of vote from neutral to support.

Pro-Lick

Hi, Pro-Lick just mailed me complaining that he was unfairly blocked. I've blocked him a few times myself for a 3RR vio but don't really know what he's been up to. I couldn't find any discussion on WP:ANI on blocking him indefinitly. Could you give me a pointer? Cheers, —Ruud 17:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know anything about the situation, so I'm not going to unblock, but I do think you should post this on WP:ANI. Cheers, —Ruud 17:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Lick

Zoe, hi.

I've been in touch with Pro-Lick, and I'm ready to support an unblocking, and to unblock the account myself if nobody opposes, based on what was said in email, where the user expressed an understanding that their behavior had crossed lines, a willingness to adapt and change, and a desire to participate constructively, as well as evidence of better-faith editing shortly before the block. I don't want to do anything without contacting you, the blocking admin. I'm also posting at the AN/I section. Please let me know if you have any concerns I can address regarding this matter. Thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. If he continues to be disruptive and you reblock, I won't object at all, and I'll be the first to admit I was wrong. Let's give him this chance though, and not assume it'll go badly. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't keep track of what his blog site was and I'd like to take a look at his updated recommendation. Do you remember what the website was? JoshuaZ 03:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Emo Rangers deletion

Holy shit! Why the hell did you delete my paper?

You're going to have to tell me the page name, I can't find any article by that name in the list of articles I have deleted. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a new concern, Zoe

You might want to take a look at the deletions, contributions, and creations of this user [1]. I was particularly concerned with what he/she has done with [2]. There are several items that he/she seems to have been actively vandalizing. Kukini 00:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Rikki Lee Travolta

Hi, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_advertising_scam and consider whether the users involved should be blocked. Thanks Arniep 02:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Censorship

A watered-down version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you knidly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much. Loom91 10:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

A new concern

Please take a look at the combination of multiple AfD additions on sexually-oriented articles as well as the blanking of content by the following [3]. Thanks much, as always, Kukini 15:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:English_Civil_War#North_America

Please tell me what your take is on the issues. I'm just as interested, with my own input as well. IP Address 04:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

<<::Read The Cousins’ Wars: Religion, Politics, Civil Warfare, and the Triumph of Anglo–America, by Kevin Phillips. His thesis is that the English Civil War, the American Revoultion, and the American Civil War are all one long drawn-out war with the same combatants. -- Zoe>>

What are your personal views on it? Have you read this? What's your thought on that as well? IP Address 00:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I am uncertain how I think about these books. They overinflate the Protestant heritage and conveniently ignore the Catholic colonists also from the UK. They basically glorify the Nonconformist/Dissenter sects/churches, while frowning sour on the Anglican/Episcopal side and not mentioning the Catholics. White slaves and servants were most often Celtic Catholics, but who cares about White Niggers sent in death ships? I am particularly incensed that the Evangelical lobby used to and still does on occasion, continue to blast the Greco-Roman immigrants from Europe. That flies right in the face of the American Revolution, which was supposed to reinstitute the (neo) classical form of civilisation and which obviously sourced from the Greco-Roman cultures of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It should be plainly apparent, that Protestant heritage is Celtic or Germanic Barbarians and Vikings. One can go to Canada for such focus. IP Address 02:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you inferring on scholastics about historical-political-ethnic heritages in these books? IP Address 03:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you inferring that the Republican politics are related to the analysis of materials and writing of history with certain biases, especially for Puritans and against "Papists"? IP Address 00:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

So, this means you basically agree with the identification of Republicans as descendents of Puritans? That's what Albion's Seed says. IP Address 01:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Wendy Curry

It would be helpful if you'd discuss your reasons for reverting this article to the redirect on the article's Talk page. Thanks. — ciphergoth 08:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Members of BiNet USA have created bios for many people involved in the organisation, including Luigi Ferrer, Gary North (journalist and activist), and Sheela Lambert - are these articles OK? — ciphergoth 15:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The Sheela Lambert article is extremely long and detailed about someone whom I, personally, feel is nn, and I'd like some info as to what Gary North has edited. His labor work might make him weakly notable. The Ferrer link is red, is there another article title? User:Zoe|^(talk) 15:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

we were just about to ask where the rest of the this discussion was prior to it being reverted.

just a few points, while Ms. Curry is indeed a member of BiNet USA (she is an officer of that organization) I and several other people who have been adding /updating bi (+ general NYC related LGBT) articles are not members and have no affiliation with it other than knowing of it's existence. If you were under that impression and that coloured you reading of our work we are sorry if we somehow gave you that mistaken impression.

We are not doing anything at the behest of anyone, we are just random bi people who are computer literate and very tired of being told we don't exist or having our accomplishments, community, institutions or our very persons erased, nullified or attributed to others.

we can see that the Sheela Lambert article is not correct, but if you will notice it is the first article a new wikipedia editor User:Snoopy753. He is in the middle of cutting it down severely and then making sure it all was properly referenced to meet standards. Obviously he has not accomplished this task yet. We have been e-mailing him about this, (& I only know him via e-mailed help requests).

The Wendy Curry article was likewise not in proper format, we noticed this to and e-mailed someone who knows her, but the article a was reverted before anyone could make a move to fix it.

It would be more helpful if people spoke to us and guided us rather than making unwarranted assumptions about who are, why we are doing things or just deleting articles without giving anyone a chance to bring them up to standard and to prove 'notability'.CyntWorkStuff 17:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I should have mentioned - Ferrer was deleted as NN. I'm just giving you some of the history. If I could only go back and see my edits to deleted articles, I'd be able to point out more such instances. Thanks for helping with this - I've been trying to get these reviewed, for which I've been accused of saying the people involved didn't exist, and of an anti-bisexual bias. For the record I've been a bisexual activist for well over a decade. — ciphergoth 16:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that Ms. Curry, a person who I only know via general bi moment Internet contact, made those intemperate comments.

But you do remember that part of our previous discussion was that you had approved an initial Speedy delete of various articles (with no contact or discussion) on the grounds that you were a bi activist and didn't know them . . . yet you are a bi activist in the UK and the articles were in reference to USA people. It might be natural then, meaning no disrespect to you, your position in the UK Bi Movement, etc. that you might not be up on all things bisexual world-wide.

Additionally, you may remember that, you, I and User:Paolo Liberatore had an extensive discussion regarding the notability of Luigi Ferrer (see links [4], [5], [6]). As a result that article is being rewritten off line to meet standards and will be reintroduced. CyntWorkStuff 17:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In response to your query on Talk:Haikouichthys

What does "Luo, Hu & Shu" mean? -- Zoe

   Names of its discoverers, listed after the species name. Freederick 11:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Gnome (bot)

Thanks for unblocking it. Below is a link to the bot's operation criteria. If you are interested, please look it over and see if there is anything else wrong with it. (I want to try to avoid a second block:-).

User:Gnome (Bot)/Help/CleanupCriteria

P.S. If you find need to block it agian, go right ahead!!! Just please give me a better idea of what it is doing wrong, and an explenation of why what it is doing is wrong. (I want to program a useful bot!!)

Eagle (talk) (desk) 17:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Agian, please let me know if there is something wrong, (when I run it). But most important please tell me where and why what it did was wrong. (i.e. what article). My bot gives me a output on what it sees on every page, and if it does something, it tells me why it did what it did, (what criteria the bot made the edit under). Thank you.

Basically what I am saying is, if it makes a mistake, block it. but please tell me why what it did was wrong, and what edit it did was wrong. (I can than fix the code)Eagle (talk) (desk) 19:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Pertaining To 'Change History'

Well you could email me [since they haven't instituted the option to delete your account, made their own licence, or the GNUL hasn't changed yet, I haven't signed up]. Or if your wondering what I mean by reply, I just mean, please leave a comment.

Thanks.

24.70.95.203 21:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're talking about. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

e-mail

Assuming you have your user preferences set to something besides /dev/null, you should be receiving an e-mail about a particular issue on which I'd like your opinion. Please reply at your earliest convenience. — Apr. 9, '06 [03:41] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

disappointing

Apparently a few people disagree with me on the issue, some of whom imply it was unreasonable to even consider such a possibility. Backstabbers, AGF'ers, I can't tell the difference anymore. — Apr. 10, '06 [16:13] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Apparently WP:NPA is relaxed for admins.--Pro-Lick 19:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of that edit

That was probably my younger brother. He probably did it as a prank when I forgot to log off earlier today. I should remember to log off more. :-o

BTW, I didn't even know he did it until I received this.

Perma-block User:Vkasdg

Please perma-block User:Vkasdg, for he has admitted to using open-proxies to vandalize that article. See this as well. Netscott 23:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a bit of a pity really... no one seemed to take my original WP:AN report seriously... but now it'll just be open-proxy shutting down time... he'll be back using open proxies... and they'll just have to be quashed one by one... too bad he wastes everyone's time (including his own). Thanks for handling that. Netscott 23:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Check the e-mail account you have on file with WikiPedia if you haven't already. Netscott 23:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Testing times

{{test1}} :P --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: "vandalism"

The truth is, I can't stand those who look politically correct and all that jazz, but are just brash and insolent under the hood. --JackLumber 20:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC) I'm talking about you, not the Aussie. Who do you think you are to tell other people what they're supposed to do the way you're doing? Please, quit talking back.

Rhetoric, huh? Look who's talking. What do you think your "pleases" are good for? Spare me your PC. --JackLumber 20:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zoe (or should that be Zoë?) - I think you may have initially come across a little strong to JackLumber. Among the many guidelines in this wonderful experiment of ours, there's the phrase "Don't bite the newbie", and also "Assume good faith". My reading of what you wrote was pretty much, "I'm an admin, do what I say, or else", which has unfortunately antagonised the (relative) newbie JackLumber. Now, there's no excuse for being impolite, either expressly, or by implication, so I also think JackLumber's last edit above was de trop. Might I suggest you both back off, take a few deep breaths, count to ten, then aim to achieve mutual understanding, possible consensus, assume good faith on both parts, make no personal attacks (expressly or by implication) and simply make Wikipedia a friendly place to produce ever-improving articles? (fx:Head popping back under parapet) WLD 08:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit that at first I couldn't figure out why you had it in for me, but then (just this morning) I checked out your talk page and I saw things like "You are an idiot," "you have posted some of the most offensive, abusive, comments that I have ever seen," "you persist in your degradation of other users and their edits," "shame on you," "why are you so mean?", yada yada yada. Therefore, the problem is you, not me. And I am utterly and completely comfortable with that. So, let's just get out of each other's way. And I apologize for waxing smart-alecky, but my WP Userpage is clear in this respect. Let's just... respect each other, huh? Best, JackLumber 12:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

deletion of Mescalinum_Music_Research

Hi, I don't know what the criteria for notable record labels are, but I think it would pretty much suck (not offensive, but I just spend a couple of hours to write that discog) to delete it, just because it's not well known. Yes, it's underground, but it's known in Germany's "underground" electronic scene and you can get a fair amount of reviews for their releases. PhilippN 21:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Admins and harassment

I think you may have malapprehended my meaning on AN/I, for my part in which I apologize. I have posted further there to clarify my views, but I readily recognize that the noticeboard isn't the place for the discussion, so I welcome any further comments you should have at my talk page. My views are perhaps colored by my beliefs apropos of personal attacks (not of the Gator1 sort, but of the "Jahiegel, you're a stupid jackass" sort), scilicet that, while I don't make personal attacks, neither do I abide the blocking of users solely because of such attacks; it is altogether difficult for me to believe that collaboration is impaired by the making of personal attacks, inasmuch as I can't imagine why anyone would take to heart or be seriously upset by a personal attack levelled against him/her; I believe, though, that even irrespective of my own views on WP:NPA, admins should react differently to personal attacks (especially those levelled against them for their administrative actions). When I vote at RfA, I try to evaluate a candidate's bellicosity and willingness to avoid conflict even where he/she is clearly in the right, and I think admins must be more liberal than simple editors in the sorts of attacks they allow to made against them on talk pages and the like. Surely, though, I don't think what happened to Gator1 was appropriate, and I don't think that my statement was akin to the suggestion that "a woman deserves to be raped because she's asking for it". No one becomes an admin without his/her consent, and, even as almost everyone becomes an admin for the good of the project rather for his/her own good (after all, "Wikipedia admin" probably doesn't mean all that much on the ole resumé), he/she is imbued with extra powers (even as these powers are used to help Wikipedia) and becomes, right or wrong, the "public face of Wikipedia" for many users; with that, I think, comes extra responsibility (I think, btw, that almost every admin is sufficiently discretionary in this respect; admins do tolerate on their own talk pages more strident criticsm than they would tolerate on the talk pages of other users). Joe 21:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Six "Dear cunt" e-mails is surely over-the-top; I'm referring more to the "You speedily deleted my e-mail. You're so stupid. How could you not know that 'List of pets that Joe ever owned' is notable?" sort of correspondence, where a user leaves one personal attack--of the sort that might result in a block or warning if left on the typical user talk page--and doesn't continue the discourse. Perhaps I simply have a poor grasp on the extent of the harassment suffered by admins; I must say that many of the discussions on AN/I of late have made me think that, even as I think ever more admins are needed to deal, for example, with speedies, I might never want to go for adminship. Joe 21:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we're probably of the same mind on this. When I write of harassment, I definitely don't mean to include the sort of conduct of which you write, and, frankly, I'm not certain that I had an accurate grasp of how often your talk page, for example, is vandalized. When I spoke of the police, for example, I meant that, if someone walks by an officer and says, "Man, I hate you pigs", we generally expect that the officer isn't going to fight with the individual, even as those words might incite another to fight; I don't mean, though, that the officer must sit idly by while an individual berates him for four hours and then proceeds to smash the window on his cruiser. There is, I think, a giant difference between, "Zoe, you speedily deleted my article; you must be dumb" and the harassment that you describe, and I'm certainly sorry that admins have to experience that sort of harassment. Joe 22:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

MC POON DOOM misunderstanding

I recently got a message from you claiming that my addition to the article on the rapper Kane and my subsequent creation of the page for rapper MC POON DOOM were considered vandalism:

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Pages designed to attack others will be deleted on sight. Recreation will lead to you being blocked from editing. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wolverine3486"

I’m afraid that there has been a misunderstanding here and would ask that you please allow me to continue the creation of the MC POON DOOM page and allow the corrections made to the article on Kane to remain. If you would like to get in touch with Kane about the corrections to verify that they are legitimate please do so. This is not an attack on anyone and as a result should not be deleted now or in the future. As for my article on MC POON DOOM, please keep in mind that the reason it does not read like a serious article is because the history and aura surrounding POON DOOM is intentionally sarcastic and, to a degree, condescending to the rapping universe. Creating an article in full seriousness would go against everything that fans of POON DOOM and his music represent. Please get back to me as soon as you can so that I may begin recreating what was deleted. Thank you.

afd of cool

Would you mind changing your vote for delete into merge with cool (aesthetic). I've been working on both articles, and what I've come to understand is that Cool (african philosophy) is basically representative of a certain type of opinion on cool, which could be more accurately and briefly addressed within cool (aesthetic). Currently, the existence of this article seems to suggest that the opinion that cool has african roots is somehow objective fact. So I agree with you that the article should be removed, but I urge you to change your vote to Merge based on my knowledge and time spent on both articles.--Urthogie 00:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Punk'd

Hi. Sorry to bother you, but I'm having some trouble on the Punk'd article. An unregistered user named BigBang19 keeps re-inserting material into the article that is irrelevant, poorly worded, etc. I've tried posting a message on that article's Talk Page, but he has not responded. Because he had no User Page, my message to him was the first one on it. If you could check out the bottommost section on the Talk Page and chime in with your two cents on his revisions, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Nightscream 05:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

RFC started on Merecat

I noticed you have met Merecat and therefore I would like to inform you that in light of recent events (not discussing disputed edits, disruptive behaviour, edit warring and making personal attacks) this Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merecat has been started. I trust should you want to contribute, you will be an objective bystander. If you do not want to comment that's OK. Sincerely Nomen Nescio 18:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Why again?

Zoe, what's wrong with you? You deleted my page again? What' s wrong with it? I have plenty of information for the Manhunt article. What is wrong with you?

sports team

ok Ive changed Virginia. Regards, -- Astrokey44|talk 00:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Abney Park Chapel: How do I reverse a redirect ?

Dear Zoe,

You might be able to assist - yesterday I began transferring information from the architect William Hosking to 'Abney Park Chapel' (one of his notable designs) because Wikipedia advised that the architect's article was rather too lengthy for the normal standard. By preparing a separate article about the chapel, this would go some way to heeding Wikipedias advice. However somehow the system then tried to redirect the new 'daughter' article back to William Hosking ! I seemed to be able to ovecome this and ensured the section in William Hosking's article was deleted so it couldn't happen again... but it has happened again !! Can you help me ?

regards,

David

Happy Spring celebration / Easter (as your preferences and beliefs dictate)

Here's hoping that if the bunny leaves you any beans they're this kind! ++Lar: t/c 15:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Meditation XVII

I saw that you had edited the page on John Donne's Meditation XVII so I thought i'd to go you with my question. I'm pretty new to wikipedia so i'm unsure if this is the correct avenue for change. Anyway, in other copies of this meditation i have seen the word "Catholic" not capitalized. In other words implying that Donne used it simply as a synonym for universal instead of saying that it was the Roman Catholic church he was speeking of. To me, it makes more sense for the word to not be capitalized because Donne was a member of the Church of England when he wrote this particular Meditation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.98.112.226 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 16 April 2006.

Gracias...

Thanks for taking an interest in my notice at WP:AN/I. It's admittedly a minor incident, so a minor resolution was all that was needed... however hard it was to get. I appreciate it. Tijuana Brass 18:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Your message

Thanks for confirming that you hadn't actually read what I wrote before reacting to it. Given the sarcastic tone of this message, though, I'll decline to discuss the issue with you. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Donne message on my talk

Hi, regarding your message on my talk page.... I think the Donne message was from someone else (who didn't sign, but I've tagged it as best I could tell from history.) All I left you was the easter/spring jelly bean collection. ++Lar: t/c 23:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Travolta articles

Hi, I would appreciate your opinion on the notability of these further family members Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salvatore Travolta, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Travolta, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Travolta and various other relatives of notable people at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_16#Category:Famous_people.27s_relatives_who_committed_suicide, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_16#Frederick_A._Kerry. Thanks Arniep 01:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi I see you voted keep on Sam and Annie Travolta. All their roles seem to be minor and nearly all bar one or two were in movies starring/directed by more notable John or Joey. Surely if they were really notable they would be able to get parts in movies not connected to their brothers? Arniep 02:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think that you can judge notability by number of roles when nearly all those roles were extremely minor (bordering on extra, probably only credited due to her name) and only in films starring their brother? Arniep 02:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi I have listed all her roles on the afd page, can you have another look at them as I just want to be sure that we want to include actors with those kind of roles, (also comments at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_.28movies.29.3F would be welcome). Thanks Arniep 02:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

rollback

Why are you using rollback on my edit? What about it do you consider vandalism, or not worthy of an explanation? Guettarda 01:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

? Guettarda 14:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Open proxy vandal

Please just perma-block User:148.81.117.224, 148.81.117.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) open proxy using vandal removing images on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Thanks! Netscott 03:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It's really easy just take the IP , in this case "148.81.117.224" and search google with it. 9 times out of 10 Google will come back with *tons* of hits for Proxy if the IP address is indeed one (as it is in this case). Netscott 03:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The last abuser just got blocked for Open Proxy (they seem to come in swarms) see and click on "open proxy": 200.30.140.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) open proxy Netscott 03:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Once you block for open proxy be sure to place a block notice via {{subst:open proxy}}~~~~ on the user and talk page, like I've just done for both of the above cases. Netscott 03:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• You're welcome ;-), we're all learning here! :-) Netscott 03:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

One last piece of advice: just because Google may return hits on a given IP address doesn't necessarily mean that that particular IP is an Open Proxy, you've actually got to dig into the results (unless they are blatantly obvious as these two above cases were) to be sure that you don't indef. block a regular IP address. Alternatively you can search the IP in quotes plus the word "proxy" or "open proxy" to narrow down open proxy results. Netscott 03:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hi, I listed a 3RRvio, but no one replied. Would you be able to do the block? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 03:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, he sure is fast. —Khoikhoi 03:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

India travel

Thanks for re-rediring India travel to Tourism in India instead of India - much better choice. FreplySpang (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Miss popular

• 23:51, 18 April 2006 Zoe deleted "African aesthetic" (recreation of peviously deleted content)

Gosh, that's going to go down well. Let the fireowrks begin! ^_^
brenneman^{L} 00:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've unprotected and undeleted the page. I will be adding an AfD tag shortly — when Wikipedia stops dicking me around :) — See you at the AfD. - FrancisTyers 00:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool (African aesthetic)

I noticed that you protected Cool (African aesthetic). As an editor who was one of the edit-warring parties, it is inappropriate for you to protect the page, and doubly inappropriate for you to protect the page after having reverted it. As per guidelines on page protection I have reverted your revert. If you feel the need ot return it to your prefered version, feel free to unprotect the page. But do not use page protection as a tool for winning an edit war. Guettarda 18:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I was not edit warring on the article. I never edited that article. I was merely carrying out the consensus of the AfD. And do you really want to talk about "inappropriate"? How about editing a protected page? User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No, you were edit-warring about content. Merging was actually the view had had least support, so it's incorrect to say that it was the "consensus" of the AFD. As for editing a protected page - undoing your policy violation seemed preferable to wheel-warring. Guettarda 01:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

So what's with your continued policy vioaltion? Why do you feel you have the right to community norms regarding acceptable behaviour? Your continued contempt for your fellow editors is highly disturbing. Please either undo your revert or undo the page protection. Guettarda 01:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Don't edit protected pages.
2. This is already on deletion review, comment there.
3. Don't edit protected pages.

brenneman^{L} 01:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the "vote" which had the most supporters was deletion, does that mean I can just go ahead and delete it, then? User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

To begin with, you did delete it, despite the fact that the AFD was correctly closed as "no consensus". Please stop violating the norms of acceptable behaviour, please stop showing contempt for your fellow editors, and either unprotect the article that you protected while edit-warring over content, or revert to the version that was there when you chose to improperly protect it. I see a pattern of abuse here. Please desist and try acting like a member of the community. Guettarda 03:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are you such a skank? (I was going to write "Dear Cunt" but I chickened out.)

Your race-based deletion was clearly out of order. My cabal calendar shows that this week Sean Black is the neo-nazi. You're to be anti-Semitic until the 23rd, and pro-circumcision after that. Please do try to keep it straight. - brenneman^{L} 07:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps because I've just been editing List of Seinfeld episodes, Aaron's subject header brought to mind episode 94, in which Jerry is perplexed as to the meaning of quotation relayed to him, viz., "Why would Jerry bring anything?" (with emphasis on either Jerry or bring). Here, of course, "are" is properly emphasized, but I imagine alternatively we could emphasize "you" or "skank". In any case, I'm not an admin, so I'm not on the calendar, but may I could just insert some subtle pro-Taiwan bias somewhere.  :) Joe 03:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Aw man, I came running over here ready to hit rollback and leave a "don't be a jerk" warning, but I see it's just you meddling kids. *shakes fist* Friday (talk) 03:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Ekmai

Can I ask you, why did you revert all edits by this user? They seem to be quite reasonable. Even if he is Wik (is there any evidence?) reverting useful edits is a form of vandalism in itself.  Grue  07:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Zoe and some other admins (notably Slim Virgin and Jayjg) have lately taken the attitude that all edits by a (supposed) banned user must be blindly reverted, even though I think the policy only says they may be reverted. In almost all the articles Zoe reverted here, she reinstated blatant errors or vandalism (most notably at Piet Mondrian). But who cares, at least she's giving Wik a lesson (never mind that he was banned over two years ago and, if all those users who have since been accused of being Wik, are indeed Wik, then it should be obvious by now that no number of reverts and blocks will make him "get the message" and go away, so it's by any standard completely pointless to revert good edits by "Wik"). Akmie 08:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Banned editors should stop editing, period. They aren't tolerated. If they stopped editing like banned editors, then they wouldn't be noticed, would they? You know this. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is also not to vandalise articles, and it's much more important. By vandalising the articles you do what trolls like Wik want: you disrupt Wikipedia.  Grue  08:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Your persistent rudeness

One tends to respond in the same vein as the way one is treated. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

So everyone is exceedingly rude to poor old you, which is why you are rude to everyone? So everyone abuses admin privileges against you, which is why you use page protection on pages on which you were edit warring? Everyone deletes "your" pages out of process, which is why you delete pages when people dare to challenge your authority? Your "explanation" is laughable. Guettarda 03:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you really have no concept as to what "edit warring" means? I had no edits on that article whatsoever. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The page history says otherwise - you were clearly edit-warring. So, based on your previous comment that you "respond in the same vein as the way one is treated"[7]...are what part of my comment do you consider a falsehood, in order to justify your falsehood? Guettarda 03:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda is a known uncivil user. He routinely removes edits from his talk page with comments like "white supremacists unwelcome here". It's sad really. Justforasecond 17:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Not routinely, just when the come from admitted white supremacists. Guettarda 18:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The Game (game)

Hi. The article you deleted, The Game (game), went under an AfD a couple of days ago, and was kept as a result of no consensus. Could you undelete the article, and possibly bring it up for deletion again within a reasonable interval if you believe it doesn't meet WP:V? Thanks. ~ PseudoSudo 03:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey; I see your comments on the admin noticeboard, I assume the discussion will continue there. ~ PseudoSudo 03:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You've probably noticed (or will notice) the link from WP:AN, but just in case you didn't, there's currently a review of the deletion of The Game (game) at WP:DRV.-Polotet 05:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If you disagreed with my closure of the AfD, you should have contacted me rather then deleting it. Prodego ^talk 15:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey; the {{delrev}} template on the article reads "While the review is in progress, you are welcome to edit the article, but please do not blank it"; please adhere to it. Thanks. ~ PseudoSudo 04:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, I'm having trouble understanding the timing of your actions. In particular, I don't understand if you thought (as you announced in the AfD) that the article did not and could never meet WP:V why did she wait for the AfD to be over to delete it? I'm confused in that you waited for the AfD to be over and decided as a no consensus to delete the article. The only good faith conclusion I can make is that you happened to not decide that the article was so egregious as to require deletion until after the AfD was completed. Or am I missing something here? JoshuaZ 04:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not sure I understand. Are you saying that you intended to delete it regardless of any outcome or discussion in the AfD? JoshuaZ 04:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

So the possibility that there was disagreement over whether or not the Belgian source was sufficient was irrelevant? JoshuaZ 04:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I see, and you didn't discuss this with Prodego why? JoshuaZ 05:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Presumably we won't know since you didn't talk to him. I'm still strongly puzzled by your insistence you must have the correct interpretation of the relevant policies and are so certain of that that you can delete the article after another admin closed it. JoshuaZ 05:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The newspaper site requires registration, but someone has taken a photo of the article. Kernow 11:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:NLT

I suggest you reread (or perhaps read for the first time) the applicable Wikipedia policy, which deals only with actual legal threats made against other editors. Nothing in the policy addresses statements directed to Wikipedia or to the Foundation, except the portions which specifically allow such comments when related to copyright claims. Nothing in the policy forbids (or even discourages) discussion of the legal consequences the project may face in particular circumstances, or as the result of its actions (or inaction). And, unless you believe Wikipedia and the Foundation enjoy some blanket exemption from civil rights laws, you should keep in mind that such laws in many, probably most if not all jurisdictions, make retaliation against those who raise civil rights claims to be an independent violation, even if the underlying claim is ultimately rejected. Your comments come perilously close to advocating that Wikipedia enforce a policy which is forbidden by law in most American jurisdictions, aside from the crude attempt at intimidation that seems to have been your original intention. Monicasdude 13:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Seeking out conflicts

Zoe, I've noticed your admin actions and your comments over the course of a year or so, and it makes me feel that you generally seek out conflicts and escalate them. It's like you have a knack for saying or doing exactly the thing that will get both sides of a dispute angrier at each other. I wish you would stop and consider your actions more. This isn't good for Wikipedia. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:PP

I responded on village pump to clear up a serious misunderstanding.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 06:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Why?

Zoe, why don't you discuss your reasons for tagging African aesthetic on the talk page, like we ask all other editors to do, rather than reverting, accusing other editors of vandalism, and basically being a bad example? Please - there's a better way. I regularly remove tags that were placed without concurrent talk page discussion, as do you, I'll bet. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

And now you're flirting with 3RR? I will not hesitate to block you for revert warring over those tags. Your impatience and boredom with the dialogue do not exempt you from having to work well with others. Now, that article seems pretty well sourced to me. If you make specific, actionable complaints, then editors can work, on those. Just play the game; stay on the high ground. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)