Jump to content

User talk:Zoe

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pielover87 (talk | contribs) at 21:56, 9 January 2006 (edit summary). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archives

/Archives

bestsiteever.xoaonline.com

Hey, just to let you know, the vandalism I mentioned wasn't you I don't think. You just took out the creator part, I was talking about other parts where more of the article was taken out. Sorry if there was confusion. User:VanillaX

Bigfoot

What in the hell is going on over at Bigfoot? Trying to figure it out is like stepping into a puddle only to immediately be immersed up to the waist. --Cyde Weys votetalk 19:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, Beckjord keeps reverting, looks like it's time to 3RR him.

Ohh, and I see that you stole the "Please leave a new message" sign from my user talk page. That's okay though, because I stole it from someone else :-P Cyde Weys votetalk 19:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, you did end up blocking him. I especially like the way he tried to sneak that last revert under the radar: correcting a correction error. LMAO. --Cyde Weys votetalk 19:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From my talk page: Beckjord thinks they're transdimensional beings who can move between dimensions.[citation needed] I've tagged that with {{fact}} because I'm interested in hearing more about this ridiculous claim. Cyde Weys votetalk 19:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why ridiculous? You ever seen Bigfoot disappear on you? I have. There are no dead bodies, btw. beckjord~

Did he actually seriously try to put that on the Bigfoot page at some point? Cyde Weys votetalk 19:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, see Talk:Bigfoot#there_are_few_accepted_facts. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

beckjord~~ We have a couple of editors who claim to have seen Bigfoot, and are unable to accept the possibility that other people don't believe them. When skeptical information and references to skeptics are included in the article, they insist on deleting it. Beckjord thinks they're transdimensional beings who can move between dimensions. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I keep getting people adding their comments to the talk of the page and I have to hunt through the whole thing to find them, I thought stealing your message link might help.

If he has reverted again, after my warning, I'll have to block him. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, like we're supposed to believe somebody who scorns consensus with "amateurs". User:Zoe|(talk) 19:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 

BEFORE you make edits? You seem contempuous of the topic.   beckjord~

BJAODN --Cyde Weys votetalk 20:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am NOT ...

I am NOT ruling anything. I am trying to prevent a Edit war. If I have to do it as a Admin. , I am. Martial Law 21:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what is the protocol used to become a Administrator ? As stated, I am trying to prevent another Edit war, NOT "Rule" anything. Martial Law 21:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the info.Cheers Martial Law 21:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC) :)[reply]

Islamic scholars

You voted to merge and redirect to Portal:Islam...why...if anything it would be a merge and redirect to Ulema...freestylefrappe 22:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We Hate Tech

Hello Zoe, Im Anticitizen_1, the creator of the We Hate Tech Wiki page. I would like to discuss why you have recommended the page for deletion. Please extrapolate as to why the page should be deleted, and please offer reccomendations if possible.

Look, I have no idea how to use Wikipedia, and have found it to be rather frustrating.

I added a biography for Joyce Jones, and got a message saying that I needed to look at the page for music before resubmitting the page. I read it over, and she meets all the qualifications.

She's been on international tours, produced records and CDs, written books, and has done more concerts than any other musician I can think of. Not to mention, she's known by practically every organist alive.

I don't understand why the article was removed considering Dr. Jones' credentials?

If you read the article again, it does mention her accomplishments, such as the awards she's recieved and some of the concerts she's given.

However, this apparently is not a website I care to continue dealing with, due to how hard it is to use, and its frustrations, so I simply won't.

Have a plesant day.

NPOV tag on A Small Boy and Others

I don't understand why you've put an NPOV tag on this article. The summary is a fair, balanced account of the book. Please clarify what, if anything, you find unacceptable about the summary. Casey Abell 00:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kenton Keith: withdrawal from AfD by the nominator

I've withdrawn the article from the AfD. Thanks for your work in expanding it towards an acceptable level stub. BACbKA 10:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Disputed Tag

Infact the tag already existed on the page but it was lower down and merging with the text so I moved it higher.

Nice to be back

Thanks for both your notes, coming and going.

I'm considering myself admonished, by the way. We bite-prone deletionist vandals tend to respond really well to finger waving, don't you know. In fact, I'm waving a finger at someone right now...

brenneman(t)(c) 17:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

talk of block re Bigfoot

I have been told you or others may block me if I revert the Bigfoot page back to a more resonable and just version.

Is this legal? Is it Wiki? Is it your plan? (I'm getting pretty disgusted with Wiki--- where people who do not read the lit get to make "consensus".... snort!)

http://beckjord.com/bigfoot/ebsuit.jpg image click on it.See who I am.

beckjordBeckjord 20:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

image

made ya look....... big smile

-)

beckjordBeckjord 07:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights

Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights is a proposed policy / guideline that has been supported by Wikipedians who are concerned that the long term neutrality of Wikipedia depends upon input from minority viewpoints. Continued input from minority viewpoints, in turn can be assured only if the actions of admins and ArbCom are applied fairly and with an even hand. Although the proposed policy / guideline is under active discussion [1], [2], there have been attempts to close the discussion on the grounds that "there is not a snowball's chance in hell" [3] that such a proposed policy / guideline will be accepted. One editor was sanctioned [4] for an allegedly "disruptive" edit, of removing a "rejected" template while discussion was ongoing [5]. Your input on this matter would be greatly appreciated. (The current version of the proposal appearing on the page is a semi-blanked version which was semi-blanked by opponents of the proposal.)[6] --BostonMA 14:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from Internet Hell

This is Piecraft from the other side. Just wanted to say I know how to be civil, but it is hard being civil to the uncivilised. So I think I´ll stay where I am. Good luck with this failed attempt for a project, you guys will need it...

Bruce Benderson

Apparently Bruce Benderson continues to pretend that he is not Bruce Benderson but some other author by the same name. Or else, someone is pretending to be Bruce Benderson. It's all pretty silly. In any case, this person continues to change the article on Bruce Benderson to make him eight years younger. This interview with Bruce Benderson, along with this author's profile, confirms that the author of the new book The Romanian is the same Bruce Benderson who wrote Toward the New Degeneracy as is profiled in the Wikipedia article. Is there anything you can do to stop this person's destruction of the Wikipedia article? — Walloon 20:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

omar

yeah im sorry

Cut and Pasting

If I get permission from the Historical site to "cut and paste" may I enter the info then.

Seems silly to rewrite the whole bit of information when they did such a great job. All I was trying do was link a site that Wikipedia had listed to "Fort Jesup" but then had no information or history there about the site. Why do the highlight or make it look like a link then you go there and there is nothing but a request for more information? Nothing I cut and pasted was in total anyway and I don't even think it was copyrighted. When you write about facts of Historical nature it's pretty difficult to be an "original author" or else you become a revisionist. Don't want that either. Dennis

help on Bigfoot edit

Please look at my edit and see if you approve.

Thanks and Happy New Year.

beckjordBeckjord 07:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Van Eyck

I'm concerned that your harsh revert policy will discourage qualified new editors from contributing. Why don't you just correct the bits you object to? Karl Stas 07:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Qudell

Stop Quadell stop the Coolie. VOTE AGAINST HIS BUREAUCRATSHIP!

Revert

Thanks for the revert of my userpage! Triona 04:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHT Deletion

I am trying to fix up the page. There are many pages about the various podcasts and as a member of the We Hate Tech community I would like to put one up on Wikipedia.

Can you please tell me what is objectionable about the page so that I can fix it?

Otherwise can you tell me why this page must be removed and why TWiT's wiki page is allowed to exist?

Thanks

Don't worry about Fplay...

He's probably busy off reading the Britney Spears guide to Semiconductor Physics to fix up your true nature problems with Epitaxy or whatnot.

Since he seems to be a sulky, pouty cat (pun intended), I left him a dead bird of a haiku in the sandbox. Maybe that will entice him back. -- Pinktulip 05:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

biased removal

I believe the deletion for the We Hate Tech podcast was plain and simply removing information that one does not like. When Inside_The_Net can have a podcast page, which has less listeners than We Hate Tech, then this is censorship. All of the reasons on here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wehatetech are about the content of We Hate Tech and do not actually give real reasons as to why this article should be deleted.

Wikipedia is a true sham. With these Gestapo tactics, users are starting to delete what they disagree with . . .

Must be nice

To have a little power in cyberspace. Napoleon_complex meets the Internet == Zoe

I think you actually mean Power complex.
As Max Weber observed:
By power is meant that opportunity existing within a social [relationship] which permits one to carry out one's own will even against resistance and regardless of the basis on which this opportunity rests.
Have a nice day all. --84.68.176.27 10:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

? user

Been here only 3 mo. Anything I should know about the indicated user ? Is this user a comic ? Martial Law 04:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You power-mad bitch

Please do remember to complete the appropiate paperwork when cruelly eviscerating the helpless peasants. The puce form goes to accounting, and the indigo to sadism central. - brenneman(t)(c) 04:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your opposing remark...

Hello Zoe,

My reply is "User:Tony Sidaway, User:David Gerard, and the departed User:Ed Poor spring immediately to mind; I consider declaring, "I been around here so long that I can get away with this", or similar words, to be such a self-classifying statement. Xoloz 19:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)"

Frankly, I find your views enigmatic; I understand that you are a veteran here, and probably have a more nuanced opinion of particular editors, but you seem to dislike Mr. Sidaway's unilateralism as much as anyone. Even if you don't think Ms. Martin's actions are of the same stripe, surely you can see why someone (me) might. I have no gripe with any individuals; I oppose unilateralism by anyone, and I only argue to persuade people that it is unwise. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever her intent, she overstepped CP issues. She deleted templates rather than altering them, and caught several where no violation existed. Furthermore, as has been pointed out repeatedly by many, the manner in which she defended those deletions, "Screw Process", etc., smacks of a unilateralist attitude, and is something I can easily see Mr. Sidaway (or his dear comrade Snowspinner) saying in an indelicate moment. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you have also misread my comment at DRV. You may wish to read it again. Also, note that, in the R-f-D now ongoing, I have voted to delete the thing. I will now advise you what I have had to remind Mr. Sandifer and Mr. Sidaway of. I deliberate carefully before posting my views, and strive for dispassion and accuracy above all; please read my remarks with due care, and respond only with due thought. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFC/KM

Hi Zoe - thanks for message :). I can see you get the usual nastigrams still :). I'm not sure whether this is a personal thing or not, but I'm of the opinion that in this case it just wasn't covered by policy for speedy deletion - could be wrong though. I'd change my opinion about it on the rfd if there was a statement somewhere from kelly decreeing that (s)he thought it was hurtful etc. (As tony et al. have even made redirects to their own rfcs etc.).

As a side note what do you think about this userbox thing and the future of wikipedia?

Thanks for cleaning up the cruft :).

WhiteNight T | @ | C 21:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes/copyvios

I agree with you except I think it would have been much less controversial for kelly to just edit those images out and replace them with text. Then, I think, she would have a lot more support from her fellow admins. As is I can see the argument that kelly is using one completely unrelated thing to justify another. I could be wrong though. WhiteNight T | @ | C 22:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism?

what do you mean? i did not vandilize anything.

General Simonds

Sorry about that. I was not aware that it was a copyright infringment. I recently finished reading a number of sites on him and when I found there was nothing in Wikipedia I just revisted those sites and took a little from each site. I met no harm but I thank you for the direction.

Regards,

Colin

Your vote

You recently made a vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A wife confused for a sister stating "must be considered original research until author deigns to provide sources"

I would like to ask:

  • Did you first read the references section where the sources are given?
  • Did you first read earlier parts of the AFD where the sources are given (repeatedly)?

--User talk:FDuffy 02:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

thanks a lot for reverting vandalism on my user page. i didn't even notice that it had happened until i looked at the history today. thanks again :-) Alhutch 16:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heya,

I just thought that i'd let you know why this link was deleted. We over at the Dog Project have debated this issue for all dog articles in general and have determined that links to rescue sites are not apropriate for linking on individual dog articles due to conflicts with numerous wikipedia policies and the non-encylopaedic value of these links (local, advertising, etc). That's why we revert them (if we let them stay, each dog article would become a link farm to regional rescues). - Trysha (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it's been gone for a while looks like someone who isn't part of the project removed them as part of a cleanup... I agree, they should have left a comment, but it looks like this person rarely-if-ever comments.  :-/ Oh well, these things happen.  :) - Trysha (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FictitiousUser

I only created these as places to try out possible templates, Zoe. --Sunfazer 22:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too lazy to deal with this

And thought you might be willing to destr... umm, evaluate something. GATEkeeper (talk • contribs) pretty much only adds links to his own site. Of coure I could be wrong. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll honestly say I think my articles are valid contributions to the pages I'm adding to, and that my site is more than reputable enough (site news is picked up by Google News, and The GATE is accredited media with the Toronto International Film Festival, Juno Awards, Canadian Music Week, North by North East, and various other events/companies). I'll also say that I think that the pages I add to are lacking in details, and that outside sources should be welcomed, not feared. --The GATEKeeper 03:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, while I'm here

We've actually disagreed on something! WP:RFC/KM. I didn't see the harm in it, but of course by the time I used "what links here" nothing did, so I may have missed the party. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah2

I've pulled my head in and taken my admonishment a bit more seriously. Do I still get to be part of your bomb-thrawing, rip-snorting, tooth-and-claw cabal? - brenneman(t)(c) 04:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TINC? Good, I wouldn't be in any club which would accept me, anyway. - brenneman(t)(c) 04:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E&E

Thanks for that redirect! I was just updated two pages that were already online.

)

My goodness

Shwoooosh you cleaned a georgereevesproject rant off my talk page... how did that happen? Are you a spirit? Herostratus 21:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trekphiler

They contacted me and remove all the images I listed. I'm not totaly certian I got all of them and there are a couple of images that will removed from the project completely shorty however the user has been entirely coperative.Geni 22:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mariah Carey3 Edwards Dec 1998.jpg is PD of all things. Yes I know that is not what you would expect but I suspect I got everything that was fair use. There are a couple of things that need to be remobed from wikipedia completely left but that is a seperate issue.Geni 22:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Dip.jpg and Image:Kari wuhrer.jpg both lack a copyright status. They will probably end up being labled fair use (although I would disspute that claim) however at present they are not. We don't have a policy on images that lack proper copyright lableing in the user namespace. Remove them if you think we should. But as far as I can see that is all that is left. The rest is militry stuff so is probably produced by the US goverment.Geni 22:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then remove it or ask Trekphiler to. Then go and find a relivant policy page and update it. I'm not happy that this area is not covered by policy.Geni 22:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use?

The problem was corrected before Fred Bauder red Bauder|Fred Bauder]] started interfering with the page. All the images left were, & are, public domain. I checked them all. Maybe Fred Bauder should have before calling in an airstrike & starting over. Trekphiler 22:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kari?

Looks in dispute to me. Why don't you look? I don't care. It's gone. Trekphiler 22:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source...please put that back in the current events.

U.S. Raid Kills Family North of Baghdad Iraqis Say 12 Slain in Airstrike; Americans Believed Targeted Farm Was Shelter for Insurgents

By Ellen Knickmeyer and Salih Saif Aldin Washington Post Foreign Service Wednesday, January 4, 2006; Page A12

Kukini 22:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Page

Well, it's a new page. You have to give it some time. I mean I would've voted to bring it off myself, but now it's starting to look better. And now everything is cited.Tcatron565

Kukini's Block Unwarranted

Zoe, I'm trying to figure out how his reversions are vandalism. It doesn't seem like it fits into one of the types of vandalism. Which one did he commit? And you warned him at 0339 6-Jan-2005 GMT, the same time he made his final revert. Maybe he didn't receive your warning before he made that last revert. I honestly think you should give him another chance because he has made some serious, useful reversions to correct POV on the main current events page. It doesn't appear he was intentionally trying to meddle with the 2006 article and it doesn't appear like he knew about the 3RR beforehand. joturner 03:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still wonder why you felt strongly about removing the story of the accidental murder of the Iraqi family, yet you do not feel this should be removed from 2006:

  • Around 130 Iraqis and 7 U.S. soldiers are killed in a series of explosions throughout the country.

Kukini 20:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help me understand why the deaths a few days later have more historical significance. Is this due purely to a larger number or what? Are they not similar listings to the deaths of the family by US soldiers a few days prior? It seems that Iraqi press and the BBC see them as in the same ballpark. I won't remove the deaths to which I refer above, as I feel they are part and parcel of the choice to go to war in Iraq in the first place. I seem this event as significant. As I see the event of the loss of the Iraqi family a few days prior. It seems to follow NPOV policy, both perspectives of events are important and ALL lives are equivalent. Kukini 21:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Zoe, but why delete the one I added and not delete this one? I really do not understand. Respectfully, Kukini 21:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK...so out of curiousity on this issue, I went to 2005 and found many examples of equivalent reported deaths that could be deemed as NPOV for the war. Here is an example:

  • April 18 - Five people die in ethnic clashes in Iran's south-west Khuzestan province.

Kukini 21:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kukini, why can't you just let it go? joturner 21:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fear that an unitentional bias may be developing here in Wikipedia. Instead of "letting it go" or battling to improve it by including documentation from more than one perspective, I am trying to open dialoge to improve us all over time. Is this bad witiquette on my part? Kukini 22:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent sprotected

Hi. I noticed you recently protected both Maureen McCormick and Susan Olsen. FYI, five other pages were vandalized the same way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/64.26.116.205. --Wknight94 (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales

That doesn't look like a dynamic IP (on its own edit timescale, at least) so it can be blocked without needing to protect the article. -Splashtalk 04:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'm starting to see a pattern where admins are semi-protecting in preference to blocking. Perhaps it's a sort of "new feature"-itis, when the old feature is still the better route. Of course, since most IPs are dynamically assigned or refreshable, sometimes blocks won't do the trick, and I think (personally) that a semi-protect for a few hours is better than a range-block. -Splashtalk 04:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey, listen to my edits

I sent in edits, you got this page all wrong. lol if ur not gonna listen then why do you even have the option of editting for people like me who aren't admins or whatever you call them? not to be rude or anything, i'm just curious lol

Plagairism?

From the talk page of USS Nautilus (SS-168): Maybe I misunderstood something. I wasn't aware lifting directly & exactly from DAFS was OK, yet that's exactly what the article is doing. I pulled this from the DAFS site:

"At 0755, 4 June, while approaching the northern boundary of her patrol area near Midway, she sighted masts on the horizon. Japanese planes sighted the submarine at the same time and began strafing. After diving to 100 feet, she continued observation. At 0800, a formation of four enemy ships was sighted: 1 battleship and 3 cruisers. Within minutes the submarine was again sighted from the air and bombs began to fall. Two of the cruisers attempted to close for a kill and nine depth charges were dropped at a distance of about 1000 yards."

And this from the article:

"At 07:55, 4 June, while approaching the northern boundary of her patrol area near Midway Island, she sighted masts on the horizon. Japanese planes sighted the submarine at the same time and began strafing. After diving to 100 feet (30 m), she continued observation. At 08:00, a formation of four enemy ships was sighted: one battleship and three cruisers. Within minutes the submarine was again sighted from the air and bombs began to fall. Two of the cruisers attempted to close for a kill and nine depth charges were dropped at a distance of about 1000 yards."

Hmmm... I think Leno calls this "Eerie Similarity". I'd call it plagairism. Trekphiler 07:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell me "public domain" makes that okay. Or do you mean to suggest I can copy works of Dickens & pass them off as my own? Trekphiler 15:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plagairism?

You've evidently missed my point. It's the not crediting that troubles me... Trekphiler 16:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maureen McCormick

Sorry. I just noticed why you sprotected it. Problem I have (and this isn't your problem. it's in the software) is that there is no easy way for us admins to see in the history itself that some edits have been cleared. I only finally noticed it when I saw the "restore 3 deleted edits?" in the corner. Anyway. I re-sprotected it. Apologies. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah!

YES there is! If you look right under Singles (Chart). It has a 4, 5, and 6. Those are the sources. Tcatron565

Capitalization of titles

Sorry to bring up ancient history, Zoe, but back in 2003 you moved Orlando furioso to Orlando Furioso. Given that the title in Italian would be Orlando furioso, there's recently been some question about that. User:Kleinzach changed the instances of the title within the article to "Orlando furioso," which I reverted on the grounds that the article title itself still had the other capitalization. But as he points out, titles of operas are capitalized according to their original languages, and there's no particular reason why literature should be different. I've posted a question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style about this, but I wondered if you were interested in commenting. Thanks. Chick Bowen 01:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez.

Lighten up, Scalia.

I was just trying to help with those lyrics. User:Senor

Huh?

Yo, Scalia, why haven't you called out the use of the picture on this page, or the "Mr. Pibb/Red Vines = crazy delicious" caption???

If the lyrics are copyrighed, isn't a use of a line from the lyrics similarly copyrighted? Isn't the picture of Parnell and Samberg an unauthorized use of their likeness? If you're going to edit based upon your notion of legal authority, please be consistent.

I think the David Letterman argument is fine, however one must ask whether to highlight particular disputes at all is relevant as the entire document highlights nothing but contentious issues...however I beileve Bill Oreilly likes to be in contentious issues.

As to the specifics of why I erased it....you provided no dispute quotations taken from Bill Oreilly. He had some zingers that nailed Dave hard what was chosen was the weakest of his points vs the strongest of lettermans...

Rewrite it. Oreilly's comment about not calling people who blow up innocent women and children on his show as a devestating blow to Letterman and a clear clever and concise statement.

Cindy the Dolphin

As the nominator in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cindy the Dolphin, you may wish to visit the bride's AFD over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Tendler. To be fair, I also contacted the author of the article. --Rob 09:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand

I work for Network General, and am just trying to set the record straight as 'a lot' of companies (incorrectly) use our trademarked term 'Sniffer'.

Zoe, By what criterion of Wikipedia's policies are you proposing the deletion of the Adapt Technologies page?

How do we report repeat vandals?

Zoe, I just reverted (to the best of my ability) some pretty bad vandalism by 65.121.169.154. It seems others are doing similarly and have been for a good period of time. How do we best report such problems? See [[7]]

Kukini 16:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit summary

Just because I said j00 n00bs doesn't mean my edit was invalid j00 n00b.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zoe&oldid=34534913"