User talk:Jimregan
(JTD wrote: One night it all came to a head. Zoe, 172, myself, Tannin and others decided "fuck it. We have had enough."
So, as now happens to Michael, we waged total war. Everything Adam in the name of his latest troll touched was reverted on sight.)
- And now Zoe has learned and applied that same trick to me, so rather than being tricked into appearing the same as the vandals I have waited until I spotted her selectivity elsewhere. Now I can show people a track record of misbehaviour - thin so far, but real - I hope without (as she has) becoming what she fought. You don't believe it? She requires a certain level of proof from others, as in "fanny", yet lets through stuff she has no problem with. Selectivity, which adds up. All I ask for is decent equitable criteria, evenly applied. (And once we have established that, look at the internal evidence in what I gave that she suppressed. Then we can give it a fair go for deciding how to word what ought to go in, rather than just suppressing what doesn't fit preconceptions.) PML.
I moved your comment here, the page was getting too long. I hope that's enough of a quote to put yours in context, though I have to say, I think it's fairly rude to start a reply in the middle of someone else's message. Now that we've gotten off to a bad start, to my reply. I'd have to say that valid or not, it's really not a good time to complain about Zoe. Many other people seem to have gotten the same idea. Maybe Zoe really is the nastiest thing since... whatever the polar opposite of sliced bread is, but if all she's asking you for is proof, what's the problem in providing it? Maybe she does have a double standard, but she's only human.
If you want to be treated the same way as everyone else, why don't you create an account? By having just an IP in a page history, you are waving a red flag at everyone who has an eye on RC. Wikipedia does have a hierarchy, and by not logging in you are choosing to stay at the bottom of that hierarchy —if you're not being treated the same as everyone else, you've only yourself to blame -- Jim Regan 05:32 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- I was trying to anchor things to a related context (now missing - you shouldn't have guessed you left enough context). As for "...if all she's asking you for is proof, what's the problem in providing it?" - that's exactly what was shown by the context against which I put the comment (now missing). She was not doing that, any more than the usual suspect vandal was "only" doing this or that. She made out that that was all she was after - but she cut regardless, only giving the appearance of making a reasonable request in a way that might fool people coming in in the middle (possibly unintentional, but just like that earlier vandal), and she wouldn't accept spelling things out in the post as proof or accept that prima facie obvious stuff put the burden of proof on rejecting it (at least show what's not prima facie about it!). So I decided to give her plenty of rope and wait for her to be out in the open before again raising the area (the sale of the Danish Virgin Islands) as part of a wider whole (bias), in the hope that eventually it would get an impartial review so we could get an agreed phrasing in - which is why it is a good time to complain about Zoe, or more precisely about what she does, now she's exposed and will find it harder to hide the fact that she has a pattern of bias we need to offset. Reworking the Danish Virgin Islands may take a while before we get around to it, but I can't just wait for the pressure to be off her - she'll make out that it's me that's biassed (as she just now has, falsely stating that the point related to being NPOV). As for why not create an account - I have already given reasons for that (it's work related); and matters should be judged on their form and content, not author. Apologies for rushed mind dump phrasing there. PML.