User talk:Zoe

Nandesuka's RFA

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

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

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

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

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

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! -- BDAbramson ^talk 12:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why I Am Not a Painter

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

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

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:

in the definitive sentence of Sacra Romana Rota( http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/portugues/srr1.htm ):The Apostolic Tribunal SACRA ROMANA ROTA declared the Dom Duarte Nuno request to cancel the name of HM the King Dom Carlos I, Maria Pia rightful father, from the certificate of Baptism of the Princess illegitimate and confirmed the complete validity of the act of Baptism and the paternity of Donna Maria Pia.
This woman was ALWAYS called as HRH Dona Maria Pia de Saxon Coburg Bragança from Important istitutional Person as for example HM the King Alfonso XIII,king of Spain and and the Prince Alfonso Jaime de Borbon( http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/html/alfonso.html ),by general Humberto Delgado( http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/html/delgado.html ),Mario Soares ( http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/html/letters.htm ),by gen. Francisco Franco and later by Felipe Polo Martinez-Valdes ( http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/html/franco.html )and very other authorities...
See these scanned images of parts of some books undaubtably confirming the identity of Donna Maria Pia as Royal Princess of Saxon Coburgo Gotha de Bragança, and her title of XXI Duchess of Bragançam and her role in the history of Portugal( http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/html/testim.html )
Dona Maria Pia died in Verona in 1995 as Maria Pia of Saxony Coburgo Gotha and Bragança and this is reported in the document demographic services in the city of Verona(Italy):( http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/media/docs/batesimi_2526certificati/cert-morte.jpg )

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

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

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

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. - Tεx τ urε 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

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

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

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

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"?

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]

Lakewood Boulevard

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 Sidaway ^Talk 22:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Lost" page move

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

So time to create the category Libertine Wikipedia Editors ??

Oh my volatile friend...

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

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 ??

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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. -Splash^talk 02:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Systemwars.com

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. - Tεx τ urε 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

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:Mys e kurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]}_{18:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)}[reply]

hi there!

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

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

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

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

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 Sidaway ^Talk 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

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, R adiant _>|< 12:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I heart proxies

Oh, bombgirl,

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

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

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. -Splash^talk 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

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)

- I noticed it was already on TFD, so I removed the DRV discussion. R adiant _>|< 01:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sidaway

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]

Archives