User talk:Zoe/June1 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Latest on you[edit]

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 e

Pro-Lick's user page[edit]

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, 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[edit]

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[edit]

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.


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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]

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)


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'[edit]

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. 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)


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] <freakofnurxture|talk>


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] <freakofnurxture|talk>

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

Explanation of that edit[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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Re: "vandalism"[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 ""

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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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. SincerelyHolland Nomen Nescio 18:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Why again?[edit]

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[edit]

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

Abney Park Chapel: How do I reverse a redirect ?[edit]

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 ?



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

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 13:06, 16 April 2006.


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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

Please just perma-block User:, (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • edit filter log • 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 "" 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": (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • edit filter log • 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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

  • 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)[edit]

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.)[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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)[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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)


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


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)
"Attempt at silencing you?" Zoe, please. I don't want to silence you, I want you not to revert war. You placed the tag yesterday, and now you've replaced it twice. And the removal of unexplained tags is not vandalism, so reverting it counts as a revert. Please, don't be silent, just be a little less combative. I don't care one way or the other about African aesthetic, just about the civility level around here. Why not err on the side of more respectful? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, you could take it as it was intended, and as I tried to express it (with words like "why don't you discuss..."): as an attempt at drawing you into discussion rather than reverting, which is pretty much the opposite of trying to silence you. I didn't imagine you would actually break the 3RR, but I got your attention. The point is: be less silent. Communicate more. Please. We're admins; we should be good examples of how we want all editors to act, and that's to strive for better communication, less friction, more cooperation, less reverting, and more discussing. I've been seeing you all over my watchlist recently, ruffling feathers left and right by being very bold, and doing without discussing. I don't doubt your good faith, but I think someone ought to tell you you're quite clearly across the line. You've identified the boundary between WP:BOLD and WP:CIVIL. Thanks for finding that, good job, come on back across now. We all know you're working for the good of the encyclopedia and nobody's trying to "silence" you, for goodness sake. Just please, play a little bit nicer. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been threatened with blocking if I edit this page, so you win, I'll keep away from it, even though it is an egregious violation of Wikipedia policy. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please. "I've been threatened with blocking if I edit this page" is not accurate. I said that if you kept edit warring over tags while not discussing them, then I would block you when you cross 3RR. It's right here; you can read it. I have invited and entreated you to edit the page amid discussion. I repeat: Zoe, please help make this page better. Please do it by making a specific, actionable suggestion, then another, then another. Throwing tags on a page that other editors don't see the need for, and then refusing to say what the need is, just gesturing contemptuously towards the backlog, is immature and unproductive behavior. Why not be helpful? I'm confident you could improve the article considerably if you wanted to; show us. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I "know where that would lead"? a) No I don't, and b) that's no excuse to misrepresent my words. I don't have anything against you, Zoe; I think you're a good editor. Please let's treat each other as respectfully as we can. I realize that Deeceevoice is difficult to work with. Let's realize that this article is going to be all eggshells, and consider it a long-term project. I really believe that the best way to deal with difficult editors is to be a continual example of how Wikipedia editors should act - otherwise they just feel more and more vindicated in copying whatever vexatious behavior they observe directed at them. It's on my watchlist, and I'll bet a couple of other admins have jumped on with the recent AN/I posts. I'm watching CoYep and Deeceevoice's exchange with interest now - why not follow that, and see how it develops?

If the article just pisses you off too much, take a break and unwatch it. Other people will carry the torch. It's really not worth upsetting yourself over. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, what are you talking about, seriously? Do you think... what? That I think you're racist? What angle do you imagine I've got here? I've never seen you say or do anything racist, ok? I tried to say (by typing the words, literally) that I can't see into anybody else's soul or mind or wahtever. That includes you. I know very little about you, just that your edits have been on my watchlist a lot lately, through no seeking of my own, and I've seen you fly off the handle more than I would assume an admin would want to. Now, if you have a beef with me, get it on the table, address it directly, and let me reply. I assume we're both adults, tell me what's up. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you for spelling that out. I see where we disagree. I don't think that Monicasdude and Deeceevoice are trolls, because they have shown what I consider good faith. I think they're both difficult editors who haven't learned the ways of Wikipedia very well, and I think the way you're treating them is part of the reason. You are an admin - an example. You are teaching users who interact with you to edit disrespectfully. I'm asking you to stop. I think you need to grow up, and learn a better to deal with these editors that you're so ready to call "trolls" and then ride their backs like a fury. That's wrong. Some editors have bad attitudes. I believe in showing those people the best side of Wikipedia, rising above their assumption of bad faith, and winning them over. You seem committed to proving their shitty outlook right, by fulfilling all their expectations of conflict. What's your goal, to drive them away?
I don't imagine you're fully aware of the effects of your actions, and I think this needs to be brought to your attention. Please understand that I'm not trying to attack or disrespect you, rather I'm trying to point out to you a mistake you're making, which I believe is hurting Wikipedia, despite what I'm certain are your good intentions.
I look forward to your reply. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


The problem is that even if HRE's RfA gets restarted, it would not be a fair one either. I would not like to be on Linuxbreak's skin at closing time, as things are going... --Asterion talk to me 21:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The speedy deletion of this page is contested. The person placing this notice intends to write an explanation as soon as possible of the grounds for contesting the speedy deletion, either on its talk page or at Wikipedia:Speedy deletions, and requests that this page is not deleted in the meantime.

Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if it is considered that the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if the promised explanation is not provided very soon.

To the author: Please remove this template after the explanation is written. This template is only to alert to the fact that your explanation is currently being written. Thereafter, your explanation should speak for itself.

references being added


The speedy deletion of this page is contested. The person placing this notice intends to write an explanation as soon as possible of the grounds for contesting the speedy deletion, either on its talk page or at Wikipedia:Speedy deletions, and requests that this page is not deleted in the meantime.

Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if it is considered that the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if the promised explanation is not provided very soon.

To the author: Please remove this template after the explanation is written. This template is only to alert to the fact that your explanation is currently being written. Thereafter, your explanation should speak for itself.

references being added

koisor not finished[edit]

The speedy deletion of this page is contested. The person placing this notice intends to write an explanation as soon as possible of the grounds for contesting the speedy deletion, either on its talk page or at Wikipedia:Speedy deletions, and requests that this page is not deleted in the meantime.

Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if it is considered that the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if the promised explanation is not provided very soon.

To the author: Please remove this template after the explanation is written. This template is only to alert to the fact that your explanation is currently being written. Thereafter, your explanation should speak for itself.

page is incomplete there is more information that will be added such as album released etc.

My RfA[edit]

Lutherbibel.jpg Thank you for voting at my RFA. Even though you did not vote for me, your counsel was appreciated. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWynekenTalk

Thanks! I do appreciate the advice. If someone wants to put me up again in a few months, I may just let them. So, what do I know about knitting in Spain? 8-) --CTSWyneken 23:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


Where did the threat you mention here occur? I don't see it. Friday (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you're taking things the wrong way. I hope that a few day's time will lend you a different perspective on this. Friday (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

what am I wrong about?[edit]

Zoe, hi.

You've been here a lot longer than I have, and been an admin a lot longer than I have. You've seen more of Wikipedia than I have, in extent and in history, and have every reason to know more about it than I do. It feels weird to be "calling you out" on your behavior, but what's happening is, I'm seeing you do things that I see many other admins telling new users not to do, and I find that confusing. I can share specific examples with you, if you don't know what I'm referring to.

Now, I know a little bit about people, and how people learn. I know that people learn by example. I know that "do as I say, not as I do" doesn't work. So, it bothers me when I see you, a respected administrator, displaying behaviors that, when other users mimic, they get yelled at. I think that kind of dynamic contributes to a poisonous atmosphere, and helps drive people away. I think it hurts Wikipedia.

Then again, you may know something that I don't know, and maybe you're just right. Maybe editors who are difficult to work with should be driven away. Maybe I overestimate the effect of admins' behavior on the behavior of new users. Maybe there's something I'm not even seeing or referring to at all. Maybe I should know better. If you can help me understand something about whatever I'm missing, then please do. I'm happy to have been wrong if I can learn something from it. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Bacchus, about your comments on my Talk page: admins are not supposed to be anything more than another editor, according to the rules of adminship, so there's nothing anywhere that makes me a role model. I'm an editor who wants to follow the policies of Wikipedia, and when those policies are ignored, in fact, flouted, then there's something wrong with what's going on, and something needs to be done, but if everybody just looks away, then where are we? Why do we have policies, if they can be ignored just because a minority of "voters" on an AfD or DRV can decide to ignore them? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I copied that here for continuity; I hope that's ok. Regarding "admins are not supposed to be anything more than...," that may be. It doesn't change the fact that new users see experienced users, especially admins, as examples. It doesn't change the fact that what you do actually influences others. Like it or not, you help define the community, and what it means to be a Wikipedian.
Please consider that you really are a respected long-term contributor, and that people really do look up to you and imitate your behavior. That's great, as it relates to your dedication to the project, which is inspiring, but they also imitate your willingness to edit combatively, and to read bad faith in others' edits, and to forego discussion while reverting. Do you want more people doing that? Please help enforce our policies by demonstrating them in your own editing.
Regarding what you see as the policy violations, I'd have to consider each case. I'm certainly against "flouting" policies, but I don't quite see that going on. Are you talking about African aesthetic in particular? I see lots of ways that article could improve, but it ain't all gonna happen overnight. Give it time. We'll work on it.
So I'll agree that "something needs to be done" - the article improved - but what exactly were you hoping to do by adding tags to the page without discussion? What was your plan there, before I butted in? The article didn't get deleted. It's not utter original research, and it's not utterly unverifiable. You're gonna have to deal with that. The best way to deal with it, IMO, is to accept that the article exists, at least for now, and try to make it as good as possible, or at least minimize its badness. If you run into static with prickly editors, solicit wider opinion, etc, etc... I don't have to tell you this stuff. You knew all this before I'd even heard of Wikipedia. If you really just don't want to deal with it because you hate the damn thing so much, please believe that other eyes are on it, and it'll be ok. You're not the only one who cares about policy, and what you think is apathy may sometimes actually be patience. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

No, not the bad bitch. I hesitate to declare anyone the baddest, at this point.

Seriously, I'm confident that all these problems can be solved, though I'm still trying to figure out exactly what solution you've been trying to enact. If you want to convince more people that there's a serious problem, then fine, I'm all ears. Let's take it one article at a time - you say that Deeceevoice is making up the sources that Cool (African philosophy)/African aesthetic is based on? Tell me more, tell me more. How do you know that? The Thompson book is real enough, isn't it? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that link. I've been following the CoYep discussion with interest. I imgaine I'll be weighing in soon.
Should I even ask about The Game (game)? You just aren't buying the Dutch newspaper as a reliable source? Or what? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand your argument about the Dutch paper, but I'm not convinced. I think both sides have points, which is to say, I think it's a borderline case, as opposed to a blatant policy violation. At some point, you do run into an infinite regress if you insist that your verifiable sources use verifiable sources, etc. The information has to begin somewhere. The way I'm seeing it now, the primary source is people actually playing the game, and talking about it, whether in blogs, or in "real life", or wherever. A secondary source would be someone like a newspaper reporter who picks up on a fad and reports on it. Once that exists, a tertiary source like us can come along and say "here's something that a secondary source has reported on".
I guess I'm curious what a source you consider acceptable for The Game would even look like. How does a social phenomenon become documented, if every documenter has to cite previous documentation? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to cut in, but it would be original research for us to go about evaluating the reporting of the Dutch newspaper. Such a high standard of reliability serves to undermine itself - the point of WP:RS and WP:V is to avoid having information be dependent on precisely that kind of original research. Phil Sandifer 05:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


I wanted to stop by and thank you for your constructive criticism of my RFA. It's helped, and is helping, to improve me as a wikipedian and an editor. I look forward to gaining your support in the future. Until then, keep on keepin on. SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I meant it in a constructive criticism way, as in something I can fix. Time spent on wikipedia (i.e. only 3 months) is something that I can fix. I appreciated your vote. Thanks SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ham's Automotive (advertising)[edit]

You deleted my page that wasn't up for three hours. I resent that, and find it ridiculous that you would do so.

Many corporations are featured on Wikipedia every day. What I wrote was a good article written from a neutral point of view. Unfortunately, I did not save the text (guess I learned that one the hard way).

I do not appreciate your censorship efforts. This was my first article on Wikipedia. Please clarify the reason you deleted my page...or, better yet, put it back.


So, you were the one deleted it. {{Lord Dude 02:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)}}


It is ok. You just keep pressing the subject. {{Lord Dude 02:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)}}


When did I vandlis? (pardon spelling) {{Lord Dude 02:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)}}


Shazeb Andleeb[edit]

The article "Shazeb Andleeb" was speedily deleted, but did not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion.

The comment in the deletion log reads that "wikipedia is not a memorial," but the memorials section at WP:NOT only demands that "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives". Shazeb Andleeb has a song written in his honour by Frank Black, who was not an acquaintance or relative, and that is surely a claim to fame.

I am not convinced Shazeb Andleeb is an appropriate subject for a biographical article, however the method in removing the article and the reasons cited do not seem wholly legitimate. 20:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

African American[edit]

I have some complaints to your fallacy:

  • 1. US refers to a country, not a fictious race.
  • 2. Africa is a continent having nothing to do with Africans besides being their continent of origin.
  • 3.The people native to to US are the American Indians. Why would we put White people in a continent they didnt come from?
  • 4.White people arent the only people living in America. The US belongs to White people as much as it belongs to Black people.
  • 5.Just because I live somewhere (US) does not change my race or ethnicity (White)

As you can see, you were building a straw man hypothesis1028 00:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is your errant General diSfortza. We saved you the trouble of executing him.

Re: James Chico Hernandez[edit]

Hi, any possibility that you can rethink your deletion of this? He seems to be at least marginally notable, based on the article. It did read like a copyvio, but I couldn't find it online anywhere, and it needs rewriting, but the person himself seems notable. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If you have no objections, I'm going to list it at WP:DRV. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I missed your message somehow. Yes it's a very borderline thing which is why I originally deleted it. I've restored it now, but it definitely needs a lot of work. GarrettTalk 20:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

User:N0 w0n[edit]

Sorry, Zoe. You were too quick for me. I didn't realise you'd already blocked. The JPS talk to me 23:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


Why did you block me? {{Lord Dude 00:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)}}


How do you block people? {{Lord Dude 12:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)}}

David R. Smith[edit]

I recreated the page because its fundamentally unfair that all the other candidates for the Senate race have their own Wikipedia pages but not Smith. It's simple fairness that he should have his own. PedanticallySpeaking 15:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, why did you delete an article about a candidate on the day before the election? If it was up for deletion review, why wasn't there a tag so that editors might have been aware that they were wasting their time trying to improve the article. -MrFizyx 18:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have merged some of the content from the David R. Smith article into the article arrived at by following the redirects. Otherwise one would find the David R. Smith link and start going in circles. It should be reasonable to delete the "minor candidates" page fairly soon as the primaries here in Ohio are today. Regards, -MrFizyx 22:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
No worries, I figured it was just a misunderstanding. BTW I think you may have created a double redirect. -MrFizyx 22:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

i apologize[edit]

sorry didnt realize i was in the wrong

It dawned on me[edit]

Wow. An apology above. This must be the place. :p It dawned on me that my apology to you in the last venue might not have been taken seriously -- for any number of reasons. So, I've decided to come here and try to do it right. My sincere apologies for having offended you long ago. I reacted out of annoyance and didn't consider your feelings. I appreciate the spirit in which your words were offered. And I owe you another apology for taking so freaking long to offer one. Peace. deeceevoice 17:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I certainly hope this might serve to create a more collegial atmosphere betwixt the two of you; each of you, IMHO, is a valuable Wikipedian and exceptionally bright, and, even as each of you acts in good faith and toward ends you view as propitious vis-à-vis the continued good health of the encyclopedia, I am certain that better editing will get done where each of you acts amicably (I mean to impugn neither of you nor to ascribe incivility to past edits between you; I think each of you has, on the whole, made a fair, logical case to the other apropos of sundry issues, but, for some reason, tensions rise irrespective of your good intentions) toward the other. We find, from time to time, users whose principal purpose is to push a POV, to vandalize, to troll, or otherwise to obstruct the good work of others, but this is certainly a case in which two quality editors, each with her own sense of propriety, have often had occasion to differ but who nevertheless remain committed to the encyclopedia, eschewing vituperation and preferring reconciliation, pro bono encyclopedio. Good on ya! Joe 05:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Have news articles[edit]

You deleted my article on Ham's Automotive a week or two ago, citing it was "advertising".

I have two news articles; "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself."(1)

Grand Rapids Press - 1990

Grand Rapids Press - 1992

May I now proceed without fear of deletion?

X, have you met Y??[edit]

FYI if you ask questions like these to Wikipedians, please put it on their user talk pages rather than in the village pump. Georgia guy 22:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  • The reason is because then they will be able to know it immediately. Georgia guy 22:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I've read it at the village pump and the answer was that that Wikipedian has been blocked and that they will expire in May 2007. But, is it possible that they will remember Wikipedia?? Georgia guy 22:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)



But it was deleted with majority of votes being Keep.

Plus,76 is a huge amount for a Serbian song,because there is no many Serbian sites,76 is probaby a record for Serbian songs.Please reconsider changing your vote.Thank you very muchDzoni 23:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Animal hoarding[edit]

It is customary for a {{pov}} tag to be accompanied by a precise statement of the issues, and why they are issues, on the Talk page, that is clear enough for an ignorant and neutral third party to understand. (After all, if the dispute continues, some such third party, whether meciator or arbitrator, will have to do so.)

I looked at that Talk page; and I don't see

  • What view the article is advocating.
  • Which sentences do so.

Please answer there. I am restoring the tag for now, since there clearly is a dispute; but unexplained tags really don;t help; they don't even do a good job of warning the reader. Septentrionalis 00:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Inshanee beat me to it. Septentrionalis 00:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That's really one sentence: it doesn't answer (for an ignoramus, like me or the reader).

  • What POV is being pushed?
  • What does it omit?

Most of it is accuracy disdputes, which have their own tags, ({{accuracy}} and the very useful {{dubious}}, in case you have not met one of them).

Brianbeck is a newbie or a sockpuppet being a dick. But if he were banned in ten minutes, I would have no idea how to fix the article from the small amount you've said. Please either edit the article (or am I misreading the history?) or indicate what you want. Septentrionalis 00:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


I appreciate that BuddhaWheel is a product that we sell, but when my article was first deleted I took out everything that was not strictly factual. Can you please explain why it was still not allowed to stand?

Thanks, Steve

Beeflin 19:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

BuddhaWheel again[edit]

Also, where is the text of my article? Do I have to keep backing up everything I write in my word processor just in case someone deletes it without communicating with me forst?

Saints Wikiproject[edit]

I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints.

Gloriole.svg You are invited to participate in Saints WikiProject, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about saints. We are currently discussing prospects for the project. Your input would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks! --evrik 16:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

El kondor pada[edit]

The article was rewritten from scratch by a different set of people. It was NPOV and verifiable. Please undelete it and afd it if you think it's necessary. Zocky | picture popups 18:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

El kondor pada[edit]

I've undeleted this article. The article is not the recreation of deleted content. If you think strongly that it should be taken to Deletion Review, let me know and I'll redelete and list it there. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 18:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

El kondor pada[edit]

Zoe, I'm afraid you deleted the article which was new (not recreation), and had extensive discussion on the talk page about notability. Do you mind reacting to the Deletion review quickly and undeleting it? --dcabrilo 18:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Zionists all around the world[edit]

How am I supposed to call them?:)))Dzoni 21:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC) I doDzoni 21:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Are you administrator?Yes or no?Dzoni 21:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC) You should have said so in the first place,cause last thing I want is to be block again.Can I call them Jewry in stead?Dzoni 21:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Zoe: Why don't you suggest to him that he call them things like this again: "O boy,you will be hanging if i get my hands on you,thats for sure,you`ll be hanging ,I swear to God,you cionists are good for nothing but hanging,because bullet is too good for you...Well,dont worry about thing,bitch,cause Im going to school you,as whatever you wanna know,Ima teach you 13-year old ass whatever you wanna know,but dont quote some dirty Jew "poets" and "writers",cause I red Protokoli Sionskih Mudraca and I know what are you trying to do,and please dont try to deny that you are doing it,cause,well cause I red the book and many other book on your dirty kind and I know all of your filthy tricks,so trust me,if we ever meet face to face,you damn right you`ll be hanging." That's your friend Dzoni, on the Dobrica Cosic talk page.

Profnjm 13:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of farms in Oppland[edit]

Thanks for your contribution to this discussion. Because I edit-conflicted with you on the nomination, it occurred to me that you might not be aware that there are four articles nominated for deletion on that ticket. It's updated now, just in case you want to change your vote. Stifle (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Because that Lesja one looks pretty good. Those other three, though... feh. ;-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Appreciate you taking the trouble to comment on the proposal for deletion of Lists of farms in Oppland. Since it ended without concensus, I am considering translating the rest of the Norwegian estate/farm lists to Wikipedia (these four are a part of a much larger set). Noticed you voted against—if you have specific suggestons on improvements that would make them more worthy of Wikipedia status, I'd appreciate your guidance. Thanks - Williamborg 20:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Bothering Me[edit]

You are sort of bothering me. When I create an archive discussion you delete it...Creating "The Storm you delete it. Why? ForestH2


Thanks for reverting the anonyumous AOLer on my userpage. Dr Zak 14:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Your warning[edit]

Your curt and snarky message was not very friendly. I would hope you don't talk down to everyone like that. PedanticallySpeaking 17:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, Zoe!
I don't understand your reply at all. Your first move is to bludgeon someone with the threat of expulsion? That's hardly a civil way to act and I thought we had a policy about that. What of our "assume good faith" doctrine? It is hardly likely to secure cooperation when you avoid making peaceful overtures to secure compliance and enter making threats. I think of "flies with honey". I gather this is your usual practice—to judge from the first comment on this talk page—and I do not think your approach is necessary of justified. Ave atque vale! PedanticallySpeaking 15:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

From the AFD[edit]

I noticed your following comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El kondor pada:

It's not my responsibility to contact a bad-faith recreater to let them know I've listed their improperly recreated article for deletion discussion.

Can you please support the accusation of bad faith with some evidence or remove that comment? Zocky | picture popups 20:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

None of what you're saying applies to the creator of this article. The article was not recreated by the same person(s) as the previous version, it's an entirely new article, hence not a reposting of the previous version, and unlike first two times, it was created under its actual name, not a name invented or misspelled by an idiot.

Any evidence of bad faith that would actually apply to the person(s) you are accusing? Zocky | picture popups 21:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I appologize if you're still looking for evidence, but if not, can you please either provide it, remove the comment, or inform me that you have no intention of doing either? Zocky | picture popups 22:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Heya, it doesn't help wikipedia if you yell at people TOO much, you know. :-) Could you do a quick doublecheck anyway to see if your yelling was warrented here?

(Incidentally, I noticed your "wikibirthday" is one day after mine. Interesting! :-) ) Kim Bruning 22:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Ethiopia and a report[edit]


 my name is ashley and i am doing a school project on ethiopia. I really need a sample of the Ethiopian writing. So if you find one please send me an email with the sample at Thank you bye !!!!!

                                - Ashley


Isn't it about time that you unblock marvelvsdc? I mean he gave a perfectly reasonable explanation it seems XSpaceyx 14:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but come on he's been blocked long enough, don't think you're going on some kind of powertrip now? = / XSpaceyx 19:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Repeat, it has GONE a long time you can't leave him blocked forever, don't make me unblock him myself now. XSpaceyx 20:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
That's not relevant just unblock him now... XSpaceyx 16:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't take it personally, please[edit]

I was reading your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El kondor pada, and I hope it hasn't turned into something personal for you. Most of the editors voting (and while it is not decided as an election, the process is officially called "the voting process" on WP:AFD) are doing so because they genuinely think it will improve the encyclopedia, and not because they have anything against you. Really. So don't take it so hard, please. We respect your work.

If you're not taking it personally, and I misread bitterness into your "So once again policy gets violated by voting." comment, then of course my apologies. AnonEMouse 17:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't participate in The Game (game) (so all this time until now I've been winning ... ah, the things you learn), but from skimming, it looks like a coincidence that you've been involved in both these deletion review discussions. I don't think anyone is out to get you. Other than you, different people seem to have been involved in each case.
Unlike The Game, though, which is frivolity, I would propose that El Kondor Pada is actually a good article to have in an encyclopedia. The Kosovo bombings were important, as was the Serbian reaction to them. Since there are so many Serbian editors who are saying the song was genuine and important in the bunkers, it seems quite likely that the song really was genuine and important. Given that, keeping the article seems the right thing to do. The rest is just "how the sausage is made", no? AnonEMouse 18:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I think they have the notability reference, the second link that dcabrilo listed, [8]. It seems to be by a notable writer. It's in Serbian, of course, so I can't read it myself, but have no reason to doubt the translation - dcabrilo seems to be quite trustworthy. AnonEMouse 19:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Mark and Stewart Udall arent dead[edit]

Mark and Stewart Udall arent dead. it wasnt a test you dumb fuck machine. I'm changing it again.


thanks, Zoe! bikeable (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

9tail Fox[edit]

I just noticed you did that. thanks for the note. I hadn't checked the UK sites, so thanks for double-checking. Thakns for blocking Nascar96000, too. bikeable (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Zoe- If you wait long enough before speedy deletion (I've checked the criteria), you'll get national references. You are deleting before I can put them on. This particular individiual's death and life work rated Australian national reporting, and he is of great significance to the the Indigenous community (of which I am not a member).

sorry Zoe- I forgot to sign my last message re/ Fr Ted kennedy. I'm only new at this wiki thing Njamesdebien 03:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Central Asia[edit]

Hi, I'm trying to start some sort of working group to improve the coverage of Central Asia and related topics in Wikipedia. Leave a message on my userpage if you're interested. Aelfthrytha 04:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

About Wuice[edit]


Hello, how are you? I agree that Wuice should be deleted as nn, but I figured I'd give you one link I found that MIGHT verify that it's not a complete hoax. I found this forum thread that seems to give the same general description of wuice that the article does. Obviously forum threads aren't good sources, but it's possible that wuice is some kind of regional variant or antiquated term (though a very non-notable one). EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 17:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of work in progress - Ranking[edit]

Hi, I'm a newbie and have seen you deletion of my work in progress as explained in the talk for deletion page. Please could I have a feedback of how it would be possible of proposing this ranking system without being considered original research (which is not, as the tournament statistics are sourced). BR. Mpbb 19:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Tx for the feedback, Zoe. I'll try to talk with Neutrality. BR -- Mpbb 20:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El kondor pada[edit]

Please don't remove my comments from discussion pages. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

????. I must have edited an out of date version!--Asterion talk to me 20:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is I selected differs edits from My Watchlist. I then clicked edit page, thinking I was editing the last version but then you added your comments. Wikimedia possibly thought I was aware of being editing an old version and I was not warned. This has happened to me before. Well, I suppose I deserve it for being a lazy arse and not clicking on article, then edit page all the time. Apologies for misunderstanding. --Asterion talk to me 21:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That's weird, you'd think you would have gotten an edit conflict, or something. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought but it does not work that way, I just discovered. Try by yourself:

  1. Go to your watchlist
  2. Select Diff for the most recent entry
  3. Now hover your mouse over "edit this page". You can see that instead being, let's say, it shows something like, even if when you click on "edit" that is at that particular moment the most recent version.
  4. If you edit it and someone has added something going through the standard, you will overwrite their edits, as wikipedia assumes you know you are editing an out of date version (you only really get the warning the first time you click on an old version, but not if at the time it was the most recent one)
  5. Well, the moral of the story is to ensure I always edit using the link to "edit this page" from the article namespace not from the history/diffs window.

Cheers, --Asterion talk to me 21:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm, sounds like a Bugzilla entry. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


I moved it as a re-direct link to the bottom of the page. This is my Great Uncle's [age and I would prefer the mention of another person to be at the bottom as a reference as opposed to it being the first thing you see. Herb Cain is more famous than Herb Caen in my country/.

Okay, I just checked Herb Caen's page and my Uncle's name is at the top of his so.... sorry. I just thought someone was being difficult.

Did Caen write for the SF Gate or Chronicle?

Thx... learn something new everyday.

easy with the editing threats.... you'll pop a vein.

My bad[edit]

Sorry about that. I guess my little joke went a bit too far. I won't do it again. Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 23:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


To Hell with you![edit]

Well screw you! I'll save you the trouble, I just won't make any more edits.

Woodhouse College[edit]

I've been looking at the literature for this school, which has produced the whole Traditum Votum issue. It is a "Sixth Form" (= US 12th grade, or senior year) school. As best I can figure out, it seems to be for kids who may have a little trouble getting into university from the schools they're in. At a guess, it's for kids who are bright, but may not be the most disciplined in the world. (According to their website they do put kids into high quality universities.) At least that's the best I can figure out. Why, otherwise, would you move your kid to a different school for his last year? Fan1967 18:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If only they could use their intelligence for good instead of evil. ;-) Fan1967 18:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Who knows, once the AfD's over, I might even feel generous and tell them what "Traditum Votum" actually means. They were nowhere close. (My high school did teach Latin.) Fan1967 20:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
When you're educated by monks, signing up for Latin class is not optional. :) Fan1967 20:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Boom Shak A Lak[edit]

Thanks Zoe! but I didn't know that lyrics are not allowed on wikipedia. I didn't even know that lyrics are copyrighted. Before this song i had also submitted lyrics of another song. I will delete that.

I am new to wikipedia. may i add you to msn-messenger?

oh it's ok, i think wikipedia's user-talk page is enough to talk to you, and now i have learnt to to use this page for messaging. before this i didn't know how to use this page and that's why i asked you for msn messenger. ;)

fatal eyes

Invade vs Liberate[edit]

I must say that I don't really follow the logic of your position. Why don't you stop reverting? "Liberate" is POV, while "invade" is NPOV? Who decided that? It is factually correct to say liberate. Iraqis aren't pinning for Saddam's return, at least judging the election results since liberation (oops, invasion). The emotional response is the heart of emoter. Invade is a negative word for what happened, liberate is a postive word. Since there is no neutral word, the NPOV solution would be to alternate between the two. The edits haven't been just about one word anyway. I write referenced assertions, and that stuff gets arbitarily deleted too.

The Saddam article is ridiculously one-sided the way it is now. His links to terrorism are merely hinted in only one sentence, only to be brushed off. It's like an article about Al Capone that doesn't mention the Mafia. Even if you don't believe that Saddam really had links to terrorism, the topic still need to be discussed in detail. Bush believed Saddam was linked to terrorism and 9/11 and that's why the US has soldiers over there -- or at least that's Woodward story in Bush at War. Why would did Bush focus on Iraq after 9/11? If you had only only this article go by, you would be clueless. Kauffner 00:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Admin Coaching[edit]

Thank very much. I will put together a list of queries later on. I appreciat your help. Regards, Asterion talk to me 03:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


A link to the 9/11 Commission Report article should be sufficient, no? The finding that there is no evidence of formal cooperation should be discussed in that article. 172 | Talk 04:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

User: Hobson'sChoice[edit]

Hi Zoe,

You asked who User:Hobson'sChoice is on Demiurge's talk page. This account is yet another sock-puppet of banned user, Robert Sieger. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/ as well as his recent arbitration case. Please also see User_talk:Demiurge, User_talk:Ali-oops/Robert_Sieger and [9]. Thanks! - Ali-oops 05:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying to change the picture.

UHM WHAT?[edit]

Why do you keep deleting things I edit?!

Threatening to ban me won't help you know, it's easy enough to create a new account so that's not really a concern...

I don't think you know enough about what you're doing to be adequate at doing it. Maybe you should think long and hard or even do some research before you delete my stuff again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banksy1988 (talkcontribs)


Just because of my curious nature, what did Template:Ick say exactly? =) --mboverload@ 17:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Noooo, I'm not protesting it, I just wanted to know what it said --mboverload@ 01:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crime Fiction[edit]

May be of interest. Arniep 00:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This blog indicates that that the students who are making the above film may have been involved in the Rikki Lee Travolta James Bond/My Fractured Life hoax as a ploy to get attention/funding for the above film. It is stated in this article [10] that it was directed by Will Slocombe of the award-winning student film “Stoke Mechanics”, but google shows no evidence that film existed or received any award. An article at the Chicagoist [11] finishes with: "Were there any worries about posting up so many stories about conflicts on the set? Will: No. If Apocalypse Now, The Godfather, Gangs of New York, and Citizen Kane are any indication, breathless stories about actor-infighting (and insleeping), directorial egomania, and suit skepticism all sell newspapers, which in turn sell movies." Arniep 00:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Zoe[edit]

Dear Zoe, I know the writer of the Three Lakes article that I have been changing personally. I have permission and I would appreciate it if you would not assume that it is a copyright violation. Just leave it alone please. Why do you care anyway?? --Unsigned


G'day Zoe,

you recently deleted (and protected) the article NuGeneration under A7. I'm not sure the article doesn't warrant keeping (needs a copyedit to be shorter, though): they have produced an EP and a full-length live album and they have (according to the article at least) played many popular live concerts, including one at HSBC Arena. They may be a case of a band popular enough to be worth keeping, and I believe they at least deserve an AfD discussion. Would you please consider undeleting the article? Thanks, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

i SUGGEST YOU SHUT UP Banksy1988 16:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia expects you to be civil to follow contributors or you risk having your account suspended. Please cool down and come back to the table with a level mind. Thanks! --mboverload@ 17:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics on Wikipedia[edit]

I just put the following on Village Pump:

Surely not all lyrics are copyright; if they author has been dead long enough, they're public domain. I could post everything by say Sir Arthur Sullivan. However, I would regard that as unencyclopaedic.

Runcorn 19:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

NuGeneration Again[edit]

G'day Zoe,

"you recently deleted (and protected) the article NuGeneration under A7. I'm not sure the article doesn't warrant keeping (needs a copyedit to be shorter, though): they have produced an EP and a full-length live album and they have (according to the article at least) played many popular live concerts, including one at HSBC Arena. They may be a case of a band popular enough to be worth keeping, and I believe they at least deserve an AfD discussion. Would you please consider undeleting the article? Thanks, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 15:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)"

I agree with that. The main wikimedia foundation page says as the first headline: Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. It wouldn't make sense to delete a page on the band without any justification on the matter.

You sent me a memo[edit]

Then the headline on the main page should be modified.. =/ Misleading people isn't my idea of a credible source or encyclopedia, which this site is indeed not in that case. Besides, no one even looked in to the matter very far, and you won't even budge. This suggests you are either lazy, or very headstrong to the point where it affects your work on here.

Sorry if my opinion or veiws seemed rude.

P.S. After reading over this "User Talk" page, it would seem this is a regular thing for you too.

Brownian Motion Ultimate[edit]

Why did you tell me to assume good faith? That doesn't seem relevant, when I hadn't said anything to you at all. I also don't know why you decided to tell me that Claremont beat Brown at something, though I appreciate the news, as I'm a Claremont fan. Was your message on my talk page meant for someone else? Jimpartame 02:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I said it was a good article on a notable sports team, which is true. I also asked why it was nominated for deletion, which is also true. None of that explains why you wrote such things about me on my talk page. Jimpartame 03:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Unblock Jimpartame[edit]

Please unblock him. He didn't make any vandalism. Arnþisdunja 06:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User's first edit; never a good sign. Joe 06:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


So... does like... everyone hate you? Or did I just catch your page at a bad time?

Answer to your question[edit]

User:Arndisdunja is my wife, User:Arnþisdunja is an impersonator. Haukur 00:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for unblocking me. Rest assured I forgive you for mistaking me for a vandal. Now we can both get back to our purpose here: writing a great encyclopedia! Jimpartame 03:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


User:Jimpartame has just done two edits to Canada that are considered vandalism, specifically with deceitful edit summaries. Since you had blocked him previously, I'm alerting you about his behaviour, just out of a block. -- Jeff3000 05:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've replied to this on my talk page. There's no vandalism involved, much less two vandalisms. Jimpartame 06:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Please take a look at Amokolia, recently created by User:Jimpartame, and its AfD. Thanks. --John Nagle 06:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitic people[edit]

Vote They are attempting to close the +cat AGAIN, please vote to KEEP. SirIsaacBrock 10:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, do you consider advising you that an unannounced vote on a +cat that you previously voted to keep is spam? If so, then I apologize. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 20:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


Did you see the discussion at WP:ANI#Nomination_by_PZFUN.2C_and_Speedy_keep_of_several_articles_by_Slimvirgin? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh indeed I did. I actually went and talked with Slimvirgin about it, and we came to the agreement that Slimvirgin would personally renominate several of them. Which apparently she did. PZFUN on his side agreed to trust Slimvirgin with carrying out wikipedia policy.
Now people are still yelling at PZFUN, without sane reason.
Kim Bruning 20:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
It is Category:Judaism_stubs, just stubcleaning. (see also reply on AN/I) Kim Bruning 20:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia's policy for redirects allows for misspellings. See Wikipedia:Redirect. Asain is a common mispelling of Asian and Butan is a common misspelling of Bhutan.-- Dark Tichondrias 21:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say there is a limit on the number of redirects allowed per page? -- Dark Tichondrias 21:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like the newest Asian stubs to have content and I would like misspellings to redirect to the right page. I can't add content to the stubs and make redirects to them at the same time. It's not an either/or situation, because I can make the redirects now and add to the stubs later. --- Dark Tichondrias 21:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You can't handle the truth! You small f-facist, you.

Please do not delete dykedolls[edit]

DYKEdolls is a private held doll manufacture company.

Mission Statement: We help gays and lesbians collect realistic and top quality Lesbian Dolls in the U.S.

Product/Service Feature: The biggest benefit we provide to our customer is realistic type lesbian dolls. Gays and lesbians look to purchase dolls that are reflective of their community. As a very small company, we will be able to adapt very quickly to new trends so that we can continue to create dolls that are reflective of the gay and lesbian culture and community. By purchasing our Dolls, the customer, for the first time, will have an opportunity to purchase Lesbian dolls based on their lives.


Glad to see an admin's got my back :-D --Charlie( @CIRL | talk | email ) 01:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Fred Hopkins[edit]

Hey Zoe. I just created this article as a quick, small stub, which is why I'm the only contributor. I debate that it's worthy of deletion; he was a prevalent jazz musician worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.Ben Tibbetts 01:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

A little something[edit]

Greetings Zoe, just thought you should be aware of this list as you are mentioned by name. Cheers. Netscott 15:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

May I ask you, why you feel attacked by that page? Did the title offend you or do you just want to censor my userspace? Or are you ashamed, that you blocked an editor for "removed Muhammad images"? Raphael1 20:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Jamal Abdel Nassar book[edit]

Hi Zoe. I've just left a note at Talk:Gamal Abdel Nasser#Year_of_publishing. The anon is right. The year is 55 and not 59. Cheers -- Szvest 17:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

Yeah! The map is awsome ;) There are plenty of other similar maps on that website. Re Nasser, this is what i could find:
Copyright, 1955, by Public Affairs Press 2162 Florida Avenue, Washington 8, D. C. Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Catalogue Card No. 55-7692. Cheers -- Szvest 18:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

Deletion of Jugopedia[edit]

What about all of this? The existance of similar articles granted the the Jugopedia the right to be published, nevertheless, Jugopedia was deleted. The Inciclopedia, Wickerpedia and Kamelopedia have no evidence of notoriety, more than the Jugopedia itself. I think that the NPOV was violated. Within one week I'll check again these articles. If no evidence of notoriety has been added by that time, I'll rewrite the article on Jugopedia. Please don't take this as an offense or a threat, it's only a claim for rights. KetinPorta 19:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The Use of Scientific Names over Common Names[edit]

Thank's for your response, Zoe! Actually, I didn't know that blackbirds were members of the genus Turdus; it's a funny name, so I don't think I'll forget it very soon. Interestingly, all Turdus species are commonly known as the true thrushes. I didn't know until now that a blackbird is actually a thrush, as its common name does not suggest this. Robins are apparently also members of the same genus: Turdus migratorius is the American Robin (no doubt because it migrates). And, thanks to its full scientific name, Turdus merula, I now know that the blackbird and the Dutch "merel" are one and the same (I live in the Netherlands). Actually, the Dutch common name is similar the species name, and probably not by accident.

Of course, if Wikipedia were to start changing all of the its page names for biological organisms to scientific names, I would never expect people visiting the blackbird page to start thinking and talking about it as Turdus merula. On the contrary: an officially sanctioned common name such as blackbird should be mentioned prominently at the top of the article and used liberally throughout.

However, the point I'm attempting to make is that, for Wikipedia, scientific nomenclature is an extremely useful tool for organizing articles: a thorny issue that will become increasingly important as the number of articles continues to grow. It prevents duplication (of articles and their contents) and encourages authors to fill in the blanks. It also gets both authors and readers alike to think about the big picture. Scientific names are to biology what the theory of evolution is to the tree of life: it's the glue and the organization that holds it all together. I'm aware of the current polity, but using scientific names for page titles and common names as redirects gives us the best of both worlds -- even in the case of the bird articles.

The snake articles that I'm working on are also pretty hard to work with. All of the well-known species have multiple common names, many of which are used for other species as well (puff adder, black snake, sea snake, etc.). After that, there are a whole bunch with obscure common names or no common names at all. I first started working on the Bitis gabonica (gaboon viper) page, but soon moved to Viperinae (viperines) and Viperidae (viperids) in order to work from the bottom up to tie everything together. This way, I found that I could describe the general characteristics of many groups of species (families, subfamilies, genera) at once, which will allow us to describe the individual species later on without having to repeat general information already stated. There's still a lot to do, and I wish we had more pictures, but I'd appreciate it if you were to let me know what you think of the overall result. --Jwinius 20:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Zoe : What?[edit]

Vandalizing? Me? I', from Argentina, anonymous, hablas español?

Regarding Battle of N'zoth[edit]

Hey Zoe,

I saw the "rewrite" you added on to my article, and I think we should work together on fixing it. I do admit it is a bit specialized, and some of the terms I use may be not understood by most people that look up Wikipedia. So, leave me a note and we'll cooperate.

See ya,

RelentlessRouge 11:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Fairy Idol[edit]

I've recorded the show on tape (including the credits and all), and I've provided the link for Norm MacDonald being unable to attend the recordings. I'm also a big fan of FOP as well, and I TiVo'd almost all of the episodes. So, Zoe, do you think it's good enough to warrant the removal of the uncited tag? If not, I'll do some more cleanup. Damn anonymous newbies, putting up useless crap! Grrr.... Duo02 *Shout here!** 14:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

my user space[edit]

take the deletion thing off, you cant touch my user space.

"also a way of helping other editors to understand with whom they're working." I am letting people know who they are working with.

ok i will make a contribution to wikipedia by editing some of the articles.

can i delete the thing saying its being considered for deletion now

Requesting that you undelete or undirect the page "A History of the Backus Minnesota Church of the Nazarene"[edit]

I created this page on 4-20-06 and it says that you redirected the page. The page is blank that you redirected it to. Can you restore the above titled page? The information on this page was only historical in nature - it was not opinion or religious. It gave the history of the organization of the church with dates and names. I may not be going about having this page undeleted properly, but as a new user I would seek your graciousness and help me out.

Thank You

Greg Baker

undelete Abstract People[edit]

I'll have you know, I was the manager for Abstract People you fool. Undelete the article NOW!


...What exactly did i do to deserve a hoaxer label? I deleted false information...someone confused Barnet town with Barnet borough, so i deleted the schools from Barnet town and was about to replace them to Barnet borough.............................Banksy1988 23:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Unimportant church page.[edit]

Okay, I understand what you are saying. Here is my dilemma - I posted this for an assignment for an online class that I am taking. I need to show my prof that I did the assignment. If you could put the page up for a period of 24 hours I could let him know to look at the work. OR - if you could just allow me to copy the information off the page I created and then I could paste it into a Word document to prove that I did the assignment then you could delete it.

I don't understand the blank link - I did not intend for it to link to a blank page.

thank you for your understanding,

Greg Baker

Please inform your instructor that posting non-noteable things on Wikipedia is against the rules and that he should strongly reconsider any further assignments related to Wikipedia. (I'm just making a comment, this is not the official response of Zoe) Good luck. --mboverload@ 03:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
(another comment by another user, not necessarily Zoe's response) If your assignment has to be on a wiki, maybe you or your professor should set your own MediaWiki installation. --Charlie( @CIRL | talk | email ) 05:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Please look at the history[edit]

I don't see anything wrong with that at all...infact, if you look at the history, you removed that name but it was inserted by someone else a few hours later Banksy1988 12:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

edit: I believe the user who added it was jampartame or something?! Maybe you shouldn't jump to conclusions so quickly...

just wondering why[edit]

I was just wondering why you deleted my page "Adam Trevillian".

Please justify legitimate article deletions[edit]

Dear Zoe:

I observe that two of the three contributions I made to the Canadian Companies Listing were deleted. If I understand the editing history logs correctly, these deletions were by your ID.

Please advise why you would do such a thing. My understanding was that this resource was open to legitimate contributions. I do hope the WIKI is what it purports to be.

Kind regards,

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Exchangesynergism (talkcontribs).

ban this ip[edit]

please ban this ip, you baned it 6moths ago for 6months, this is a high school, many students are now planing to srew up wikipedia now that the school is un-banned, its happended alto since students have realised, i cant stand people fukcing with wikipedia....

Holy Shiite[edit]

I'm pretty sure I'd marked the page Holy Shiite (an album by Dayglo Abortions) as a stub the first time, but you deleted it without so much as marking it for speedy deletion or anything. My re-entering the STUB was based on a belief that I must have missed it, as I'd been creating a dozen or so album stubs to work on.

Please allow me the CHANCE to complete the entry before summarily deleting it.

Xinit 06:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Please don't Bite, and delete something I have written unless you can tell me more about why you are deleting it, I am just getting familiar with this whole thing. I am trying to learn what I can. Thank You! --Trickse 10:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

SF Bay Area photos[edit]

Hi Zoe - I am (cautiously) offering to take photos in the SF Bay Area and upload them to WP myself, if you want to use them. What do you need? Her Pegship 14:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I get around the East Bay quite a bit. And I'm a librarian, thus the urge to organize...and a mom, which means my real life is MUCH messier than that. I'll see what kind of photos I can get. I work in Oakland, quite close to Berkeley, so I can get you some of that if you like. Cheers, Her Pegship 19:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi I tried this userbox

Wikibooks-logo.svg This user has a page on Wikibooks.

but it not pointing to my user page in wikibooks which is User:Flatron

Anwar 06:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Warring Factions article deletion[edit]

Why'd you delete my Warring Factions article? Advertising?? Ohter computer games such as Planetarion also have informational articles up about them..

KingAlanI 01:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


Your post apropos of Vlad III Dracula brought to mind an unintentionally funny edit summary I recently saw (I'll omit the diff in order that this comment should not appear to be a personal attack on the editor): Stop deleting rumors and speculation unnecessarily and without explanation.  :) Joe 23:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The king of all clean-ups[edit]

Words fail me. I'll only say Filipino hip hop and then imagine the look on your face when you click. - brenneman {L} 07:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Somehow I've ended up playing good cop there... very odd. - brenneman {L} 13:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


There WAS an explanation; "Yes, this street naming thing happened just this week. Thus, it can hardly qualify as a "Popular Anti-French allegation", unless you think that this section of the article is just there so that Francophobes can justify their phobia with every news that fit their agenda. Tocquevil 18:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)"


If userboxes should be delted because they have nothing to do with building an encyclopedia, let's start deleting Barnstars and other awards. They have nothing to do with bulding an encyclopedia.

It seems to me you think Wikipedia is enyclopedia, and nothing more. Your wrong. It's also a community. Without community, Wikipedia would be doomed to fail. In fact, any wiki is a community. Think about that next time you vote Delete unencylopediedic template at TFD. The Gerg 18:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


If you're considering something to be vandalism it doesn't make it vandalism. It seems like being a sysop make people think in a god-mode. -- tasc talkdeeds 17:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


{{test:subst2}} [12] :-) CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Linuxbeak RFC[edit]

You typoed the ux in Linuxbeak making it Wikipedia:Requests for comment/linxubeak intead of Linuxbeak. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 03:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Zoe, I'd appreciate it if you could withdraw the RFC. With the arbcom request I've put in, the RFC does nothing except aggrevate the situation. You and I both know Linuxbeak has a long history of good contributions to wikipedia, and I believe the RFC is counterproductive. Raul654 03:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is my attack[edit]

Well, I hace confessed to vandalizing for the past several months, and for permanently scarring my reputation. I want to state now that Tex's contention that I haven't left is entirely false, I only came back on the 23rd to voice my opinion against RobChurch, and his RfA. Well, my attack: I am sorry for being the CIyde vandal and for my attacks on John Reid. I am sorry that I came here, stressing myself, and others out. To further emphasize this, I did create an account with the intention of it being constructive after a three month long meltdown. Hopefully, I will be able to edit constructively, and I am sorry for all the trouble I cause. Yes, people reform, and to be honest, the point of the vandalism was to attract attention to what I see as incivility, and the reasons several of my friends have left here. But vandalism is vandalism, so I better quit before I get in trouble. I am sorry I was ever apart of the project. I DONT want to be a Brian Chase. But, at least I did edit here constructively for a year and three months before I went haywire.εγκυκλοπαίδεια*14:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocking of user:Anittas[edit]

The long-term users deserve a minimal courtesy of explanation of reasons of blocking. I can name a handful of objective reasons besides normal civility. Please don't forget that this is not only between you and Anittas. Your actions must withstand a scrutiny of a third party. Otherwise the whole episode may look like an exercise in totaliarianism or "admin cabal", as they say. `'mikka (t) 00:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I am well aware that anittas may be quite stubborn. Still, it took me about half an hour to figure out what exactly was going on in your case. It is tempting to slam a nuisance person, but I don't think that the issue was escalated so as to become disruptive. A block is a serious and offensive tool. Please keep in mind that some people apply a short-term blocks, like 3 hours in such cases, as a warning.

My unblocking:

  • It was a symbolic act, since the block expired itself.
  • "official policy": are you aware that you are talking like Anittas now?
  • I symbolically unblocked the user because I have found the recent behavior of others (several admins!) at his user page rather disgusting. If you think it was not, please be aware that I will keep my eye on you: aren't you one of these rogue trigger-happy admins? `'mikka (t) 01:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Zoe and Mikkalai...[edit]

I would encourage both of you to return to your corners, so to speak. Take a deep breath both of you. I haven't looked deeply into the situation, but Mikkalai, you need to drop the whole "I'll follow you around because you're one of those types", and Zoe you need drop the whole "How dare you?! I'm telling ANI" thing. Neither of you are being very civil. I would suggest perhaps a cup of tea. Fighting between editors does not help the community. If there is anything I can do to help, let me know. Thanks, buddies. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 03:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Some vandal help?[edit]

Could you look at and consider a block, this article seems to be getting trashed. Thanks --Geneb1955Talk/CVU 03:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)