User talk:Zoe/archive 18

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Indigo_Kitchen

I made a correction to this nomination after you posted your vote. You may wish to check it out. Also, you may be intrested in thsi related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThereIsNoRadio. Thanks for your time. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 01:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Norse mythology

Could you please take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Norse mythology). A couple of editors are trying to force a guideline tag on it, even though it clearly did not reach consensus and violates existing guidelines. CDThieme 01:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and

(delayed reaction...) Welcome back :) +sj + 08:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Wonderfool

Hi there! I've just unblocked Wonderfool's indefinite block - I think it might be better to leave it as is unless there was some pressing concern to block indefinitely. I've left some ideas on WP:AN, so perhaps we can all follow up on this there. --HappyCamper 14:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, regarding your query here, I think I will take the issue as far as writing an e-mail directly to Wonderfool expressing my concerns, but no further than that. --HappyCamper 07:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Please review articles for UNdeletion

Please read my latest comments [here] and also the discussions I mention in my comment. I ask for your vote for undeletion based on the facts stated. Blooferlady 15:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

What not to post?

Hi, you recently deleted one of the articles on which I spent a good deal of time and effort. I'm new here, so I don't want to point any fingers... I just want to get a better idea of what I am and am not allowed to make articles about. Could you link me to something that will give me some good pointers? This particular article concerned a game clan. Thanks.

Grrrr

Hey. You deleted a great deal of a page that I had been working on for quite some time (like the post before me). I did a lot Wikipedian research to make sure I could do what I did. So mabye next you're about to go delete the whole fucking article, why don't you try and tell the person what YOU THINK is wrong with it. Mabye they'll explain it to you.

Chewygum

Hi zoe how can i translate wikipedia to my native tounge Filipino?

Dictators

So Zoe, have you revised your view that to call Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Pol Pot dictators is POV because "to some people, they're heros"?jucifer 01:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I know youa are not a nazi that is not at issue.

The question is do you still think it is POV to call them dictators? jucifer 01:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

How so?

Sorry, just thought I'd add to this. Stalin was a communist leader. Hitler was voted democratically. Mussolini and Pol Pot I think were both democratically elected. The term dictator is subjective. It is always a POV statement. You can say how they were elected, and you can assert that certain people have said certain things about them, but you can't say something like that outright. It's a bit like the argument on Osama bin Laden, where they try to assert that "Prior to 9/11 most westerners didn't know about OBL". Well I did, and I think he was in the news often enough from 1992 that you'd be pretty damn blind to miss it. I was pretty amazed to read the statement that to some people that was the first they'd heard of him. He was US public enemy number 1, from about 1995 or so, maybe 1997 tops. I thought that was why they blamed him for 9/11, to get rid of him. Statements like that are subjective. It is hard to deal with POV because you never know that you're making it. Yet everything we say is POV. I can never be neutral, nor can you be. Even if we put ourselves in someone else's shoes regularly, we still can't do it. One important thing is to use the right language in saying something. Often that's enough to stop POV. So, instead of calling them dictators, try calling them leaders, and then qualify that by talking about what kinds of things they did when they were leaders. You can't say that they were dictators as a definite statement, but you can say that the US government said that they were dictators. There is a difference. Zordrac 06:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

New page creation announcement

Zoe - The dictator of love

So... what do i do then?

I am talking about Elefantes. And about the vulgar language, I was kind of mad that you deleted part of my first article. Sorry. I'm sure you know a lot more about Wikipedia stuff than I do (and fetishes too). So, back the lyrics thing, what do you think I should do. Should I just put a link to wikisorce on that page. What are some other things I could do?schyler

Andrew Turski and User:Theandrew

Zoe, I googled up everything listed and it's all a stack of lies and nonsense; I marked Andrew Turski nonsense-speedy but I've got a feeling it's going to change. I tossed it on my watchlist.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 02:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Jaculis

Zoe, I was trying to give an example of "arcu" web domain usage of Latin, was not finished with the post when you deleted it [check the time of creation and edits], and still feel the rest of the post had merit. You discarded the references to Horace's work along with everything else. I wish you'd reconsider and edit out the portion that you feel objectionable instead of throwing out the "baby with the bathwater". FYI I ran across the domain name is a Google search. I have no business relationship with them at all, and could care less about what they were doing. To accuse me of attempting to promote a web site is rushing to judgement, and is hurtful, especially since I was in the process of editing the article and checking links, and was not trying to promote anything except an understanding of the term "arcu". I detest being accused of something I was not trying to do.

User:Jaculis

Zoe, I appreciate you understanding that I was not trying to be inappropriate. I have a question as how to cross-link terms in the Wiktionary from Wikipedia, and vice-versa. Is using the external link the way to go? or is there a special format for an internal link to a "term". Point me to the manual and I'll read it. I just don't know where to start. I agree with you that the the entry for Propel is more suited for the Wiktionary (which I didn't know existed until now). Thanks.

Talk:The great Karnataka Expansion

Talk:The great Karnataka Expansion

I am myself the original author of note that was earlier posted in another forum.--Malaiya 04:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

My Political Stance

I don't really have much of one and I can't fault 172's politics - he just has a think about dictators.

Could you please describe the part of WP:NPOV that makes it POV to call Hitler a dictator. I'm not being obstinate here - I can't find anything to that effect since dictator is an "objective definiation" which is clearly defined.jucifer 04:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually it isn't. It has different meanings all based on the POV of the user. FearÉIREANN 04:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Just in case you missed it

Wikipedia:Experimental_deletion as an offshoot of Wikipedia: Deletion reform. New deletion policy (proposed) to allow blanking articles. Zordrac 06:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Professional Hockey League

Thank you for your messages. My vote stands. Stifle 10:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

New page

I deleted the lyrics from elefantes and put up a link to Wikisource, but how do I get it where the wikisource link comes up in a new page?

Page move

Completely without announcement, an article was moved from its common English name Nidhogg to the old Norse version Níðhöggr, even though a proposal to move mythology articles to non-English spellings failed to gain consensus. You have expressed interest in simular page moves in the past. Please take a minute to look at this one. CDThieme 18:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

A merge to reduce the permutations of articles

There is a discussion about merging United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland into United Kingdom. If you would like to contribute, please do so at: Talk:United_Kingdom. Regards Bobblewik 17:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Big East Conference Gallery

Zoe, I noticed you deleted the gallery despite the fact you were the only one who seemed to want it deleted. The consensus so far has been to keep it. If you are going to remove the gallery from this college conference, you should go ahead and remove the galleries from all of the other conferences as well. The people who added them on the other pages might bark at you though as the general feeling seems to be that people like them. Do you want to put it back on there or should I revert it back? --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 03:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It would also be helpful to fully address the reasonable questions raised in Talk:Big East Conference instead of constantly deleting what multiple users think is useful content. --User:Masonpatriot

Zoe, Please don't misunderstand. I said consensus so far and general feeling. It seems this has been an ongoing problem just recently, but from what I see it does seem you appear pretty unwilling to talk before you act. No need to rush to delete...See what other people want, and if they want to keep it, then keep it. So far you seem to be the only person with a problem with it. Have you gone to any of the other college conference pages to remove their galleries? Maybe go ahead and try it and see the response you get there. If people decide to keep them off, we can keep it off. An actual answer to my questions would be appreciated. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 04:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Taking it to the Village Pump would be fine by me. In the mean time it might be better to add it back so it doesnt look like you are uninterested in discussion. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 04:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see new comment on Talk:Big East Conference. --ScottyBoy900Q 05:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I hate to be rude

I just noticed this from "List of Modern Day Dictators" and I am responding:

• Keep εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Considering the amount of discussion on this page, don't you think an explanation of your vote is warranted? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: wait a minute My vote is the way it stands, I used my discretion and I voted keep. Why that is a problem, I do not know. I am not going to ask you questions, I voted keep because I thought it was the approriate choice. I didn't ask you any questions on your decision (not to say that I would care about them). You want to delete it, fine...I chose to keep You want an explanation? Here, I think it should be kept, Here, I think it should be kept, Here, I think it should be kept, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Further explanation: Comments above have said enough. Please leave me (and my comments) alone. Just because you want to see the article gone does not mean you have to try to pry anything out of me (and if I did, you would probably keep arguging on moot points...I don't like hearing that kinda stuff). I want to respect you, do the same for me, please. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I left further explanation on the page in question. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Defense

I'm only defending the article. How do I do that w/o inadvertantly multiple voting ?Martial Law 01:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Skrewdriver

Thanks for letting me know about the copyvio procedure... I've put up the "new" version on the subpage. I wasn't really sure what happened to articles after the copyright notice was posted on them (WP:CP doesn't really make it clear), so I guessed. In any case, now I know. Thanks! --mdd4696 03:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Human consumption of dog meat

I think that if there were enough information for an article like the one about Beef, it would make sense to do that and call it Dog meat (which would fit with other articles like Horse meat). I think that in order to be neutral we have to treat dog meat the same as pig meat and cow meat and so on... but I think the main part of the problem was solved by taking out the text that was there, which I honestly felt was quite bigoted. Just because our culture has a taboo against eating dog meat doesn't mean that people from cultures where eating dog meat is acceptable are cruel and heartless. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 06:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Jean Armour Polly

that is how I was directed by a Wikipedia moderator to correctly note that.

Perhaps, you could tell one more specifically HOW to do that, not just that one HAS to do that ..... AS I said on the discussion page, I have no problem doing that leg work..... just needed to know HOW.

Thanks .... and have the day of your choice Eye 03:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: User:EddieSegoura/Exicornt

Please, talk to Me. (Email: Eddie@EddieSegoura.com) Why are You trying to delete My user page? I wasn't aware of it being on Google. Yes, the original page was deleted, but I saved a copy in My userpages. What's wrong with keeping pages there? Everyone does it. -- Eddie 04:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I've put the "Sock" junk behind Me. As I stated in My talk page (if You read it), it's water under the bridge and I'm willing to move on. However, I feel it is in My best interest to keep the page archived. Since not everyone knows the word (as I found out in this community), only a few people will do a search for the word. I don't see the page posing a problem to the Wikipedia site and many other people I asked don't mind having it up as a user Subpage. You claim as if the page is too vulger to be seen. BTW, a Google search didn't pick up the page. -- Eddie 04:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Romanians

They're all listed. Take a gander. Antidote 05:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Perfprm

Mind if I speedy that little Nintendo nonsense again? That user violated 3RR big time and this, um, subject has been his only edit. - Lucky 6.9 05:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Bless you. On my way.  :) - Lucky 6.9 05:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Your block on 70.146.128.237

I don't know if you meant to do a day and you accidentally did a month but I shortened the block to 1 month. I didn't see anything habitual. Looked like they just started vandalizing. Correct me if I missed something, which...is a possibility. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Knowledge Seeker and others have told me that 24 hours is usually enough for a first time offender no matter what they do unless it's a wheels clone. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I reextended it to a month per your request. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Apology excepted. It happens. Next time I won't question. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Whiner Line

Stop deleting the Whiner Line article. If you had waited 30 seconds it took to go back and re-edit the WEEI page, we wouldn't have this problem.

I disagree with saying that an article on the Whiner line is not meaningful enought to warrant an article. Next time you should do some research and find out that The Big Show is often the number 1 rated sports show in the nation and the whiner line is their most popular segment. I think that would make it notable. Zzz345zzz 07:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, this is another case of waiting more than 30 seconds before you jump to conclusions. I posted a link saying that even after the popularity of the show dropped during the jan-feb months (when the only sport was basketball) and still retained its number 1 ranking. I also don't understand how a show with millions of listeners is considered to be less notbale than such topics as 3 Arietis. Could you explain this to me?Zzz345zzz 07:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

OK daily may be hundred's of thousands. I still think you underestimate the popularity of the show. I think it is time you drop your vandetta against me and the the "stoopid" show. Also if you would answer my question about why this article is singled out when there are plenty of obscure content out there. Zzz345zzz 07:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok so now its moved to a page about the show. You happy now? Why do you keep skirting the question about the star? Zzz345zzz 08:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I just feel that it is as least as notable. I am merely using this star article, which is a little more than a sentence by the way, as an example of content that nobody will really be searching for. If there is already a major article on WEEI, I feel that the shows should be mentioned.

Also another admin, User:Lucky 6.9, has backed me up in saying that this show should be mentioned so get off my case. Zzz345zzz 08:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• zoe was this deleted out of process if not why was it speedy deleted 3 times like that [1] Yuckfoo 08:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Your rollback on Andreas Floer

Your admin status does not give you the right to just rollback edits without explanation. Please give a valid reason for removing a primary source used for the article. I am following standard academic procedure in citing my sources. What procedure are you following? --C S (Talk) 01:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

help

please do something about 213.157.202.247 (talk · contribs). thanks. --Hottentot 03:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

He just changed his IP, would you be able to protect the page then? --Hottentot 03:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks. --Hottentot 03:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

/rollback

I saw this page linked from your user page. Unfortunately, admins can no longer change people into bots by adding &bot=1. Only stewards can do this nowdays. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 04:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

User: contaldo80Contaldo80 05:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on citing references for the 'gay popes' thread. Would you please not that this page is still under construction and will be tidied up in due course.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deeceevoice

I'd like to draw your attention to the above RfC, wherein I've quoted some of your conversation with Deeceevoice. — Matt Crypto 08:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Zoe. I am sorry I didn't inform you your comment was on the deeceevoice Request for Arbitration. I didn't realize that was protocol. I've never dealt with one of these before and have not received much help (though several editors are unhappy about it). I tried to inform anyone who commented on the RfC mentioned above of the Arbitration request. -Justforasecond 20:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massholes

Have you ever driven on a New England highway? No matter what anything else may say, their "state bird" is usually flipped in the direction of other motorists. karmafist 15:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm reduced to spam and begging

Please come and voice an opinon at Wikipedia_talk:Websites#Straw_poll regarding the facts of "syndication" indicating notability.
brenneman^(t)(c) 03:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Geo Swan is at it again!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kade#L._Paul_Bremer_speech_at_Clark_University Kade 17:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

User talk:128.187.80.2

Please be more specific when making a vandalism claim. On what page did the vandalism occur? If multiple users show up under the same IP address (which I believe is the case here), how can an individual find out what the fuss is about? I.e., how can I know if the claim is against edits I've made, if multiple users edit from the same IP? More detail is welcome.

Deleted Danish Pedophile

Just thought I should let you know that our nasty bit of spam called "Danish Pedophile Association" has just been deleted once again and protected by yours truly. I hope this is the end of this horrid nonsense. I've left polite word with the user explaining how link spam isn't protected and I hope he leaves it at that. Have a great weekend. You da best.  :) - Lucky 6.9 23:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

And now we have users "following policy" unlocking this slime. It's still link spam/attacks and it's being restored since "the new content wasn't the same as the old." I think I've seen enough. - Lucky 6.9 01:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't undelete in order to "follow policy", I undeleted because the new content was at least trying to be an article. I have just as much disrespect for the rules as anyone! Friday (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Buffyverse Pages

I can understand the need to revert the redirections but is it really necessary to revert all the images, infoboxes and changes that I've done (eg Drusilla page)? I still a little ignorant when it comes to Wikipedia policy but I don't think undoing almost everything I've contributed is helping matters. Pinchofhope 04:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt help, Zoe. pfctdayelise 15:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

71.129.72.3

Just how exactly does one "Spam the recent changes page"? --24.221.8.253 06:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Zoe, what's up? I'm sure you had a reason, but I think 24 hours seems a little harsh, and I'm going to reduce it. Any thoughts? -Mysekurity^{(have you seen this?)} 06:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The screaming didn't start until someone installed an irrational block. --24.221.8.253 06:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

See User_talk:Chooserr#Block. Curps cocked up, and you piled on instead of investigating the anomaly. --24.221.8.253 06:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

They aren't threats, they're warnings, and they're as valid as if an admin had made them. Admin status only confers the power to perform the block; it does not grant a monopoly to remind people of the rules. All of the warnings Chooserr posted (I saw several) had reasonable basis, and if Chooserr had asked an admin to perform the block a reasonable admin would have complied. Now go find me a reasonable admin. --24.221.8.253 07:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Make no mistake. I consider you to have been complicit in the assault on Chooserr. I also am accusing you of attempting to intimidate me. --24.221.8.253 08:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Attempting to intimidate me and calling me a troll are personal attacks. --24.221.8.253 08:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

hartranft

This is not Vandalism, it is an entry about the creation of the skit, which is a true event. Not nonsense. Okay. It is meant to explain the story of the feelings of dan hartranft towards KFC. I thank you for the suggestion of the sandbox feature, and the help. but please, it is information about the skit that people should be allowed to read about.

You do not scare me with the warnings. they are just human attempts to destroy free speech. i created those pages in order for people who didn't want to just accept the original theory of the creation of the saxophone, for people to read more about the kfc skit that they have heard so much about. i wasn't sabotaging other people's pages. i was creating my own page, and if someone was curious, they could look it up, as i have done. but you have insisted on covering those knowledge hungry eyes.

Image:RoyScheider.jpg

Hello - Your image has no copyright info and has been listed for deletion in 7 days. I'll spare you the giant template :-) -SCEhardT 23:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Blanking

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia, it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --84.64.41.72 09:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I checked this out and it appears that Zoe removed content with good cause, therefore it was not vandalism. Peyna 15:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Worn out

I'm going to have a good whinge here, I hope you don't mind. I'm starting to not have fun here. Like, really really starting to not have fun here.

Tony's character assassination on the ArbCom was pretty bad, and got me down. Knowing that nothing will happen to put even the slightest damper on him is worse. Seeing Snowspinner rabbit on about me trying to "ram through" consensus makes me sick.

I've always avoided the useless "inclutionist/deletionsist" labels. I start to feel, however, that those people who self-identify as inclusionist simply do not play fair. Does a higher calling give you the license to be dishonest? We're drowning in shit, and some people delight in piling more on.

I look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greeneyes and see that a few people waxing philisophical is enough to out-vote common sense and even the incredibly weak WP:WEB. Oh, wait I forgot that one of the "keep" guys just wrote in the phrase that would keep this comic in. He must have learned that from Snowspinner. Of course, I'm the one who needs to be banned from editing policy pages.

I'm worn out, and just wanted to say that I've always enjoyed seeing you around. So, see you around.

brenneman^(t)(c) 22:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

No Legal Threats exception

Whatever IP edited the Dershowitz page, if that IP also made legal threats or there's proof that the person who was editing made legal threats elsewhere, that IP probably should be blocked. If it's really Mr. Dershowitz, I doubt he cares. But of course, with Jimbo personally handling the issue nobody's likely to do that without his say-so, and I agree that that's a bit unfortunate for our policy. My solution is just to not treat it as a precedent, but simply as exceptional. -- SCZenz 00:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV of BlueHippo Funding (formerly Blue Hippo

Hello Zoe. I went over the BlueHippo article and toned it down like you pointed out should be done on the talk page. I'm still not sure about it though. Could you look it over and tell me what you think? BadgerBadger 00:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion review of Thomasine Church

I wonder if you might have been looking at the target of this redirect when you commented about this on Del Review rather than the deleted history? -Splash^talk 02:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The discussion is whether the currently-deleted history of Thomasine Church (a redirect) should be restored. The original AfD debate that deleted it did so because of verifiability and the request would restore that so-far unverifiable material. The request on DRV does not relate to the redirected-to article at all, only the deleted history of the redirect itself. Saint Thomas Christians is a fine article, and is not a dupe of the AfD'd article: [2]. -Splash^talk 02:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, no probs. -Splash^talk 02:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

More BlueHippo Funding

In light of what you and Aquilla have said, I tweaked a little bit. But now I'm not sure if I made it better or worse. Do you think you could help figure out the best way to cover the security and pricing issues? BadgerBadger 03:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Westmount article

Please stop editing the Westmount article. 70.26.196.220's version is the version voted on by the school.

Your "at work" anon account / Maoririder & AfC

Howdy, Zoe. I noticed you've been editing anonymously lately. While I trust it's you, you may want to "validate" the anon's user space by adding a signed note there, just to make it obvious.

Anyway, the reason I came here: You asked Maoririder to stop filling up AfC with requests. While I agree that most of his requests are annoying, it might actually be better this way – we are warned which articles he has created/is planning on creating and nip them in the bud. On the off chance he stubs out something useful, we can help him expand it. Make sense, or am I crazy? android79 01:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Wahine Volleyball

Can I get a better definition on what you call vandalism? I feel I have made a good faith effort to reword and present the essential information about the Wahine Volleyball program, in a neutral point of view, your lack of a 2nd warning, without clarifcation of what you mean makes me question your intentions for removing your information. I feel you are the vandal for removing information about Christanity and it's effects on the Wahine.

[[3]]

--Masssiveego 05:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Scientology centers

(on User talk:Wikipediatrix:) My feeling is to create an article on every one of those centers and list them, instead of just the cities they're in. Like I said on the AfD page, the church lists you mentioned were lists of churches, not cities the churches are in. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The article was borderline at best as was, but since it survived I've been busting arse to bring it up to a standard of being useful for something. What do you think of what I'm doing with it now? The detail is mindnumbing for anyone not already interested in the topic, but as what passes for an expert it's the sort of thing I'd find a wealth of useful detail. When it gets longer I'll probably break it up by continent (that being how the CoS internally organises them) - David Gerard 15:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Image galleries

You recently commented at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Proposal_to_modify_WP:NOT_an_image_gallery. In a related development, another, in my mind, valuable Image gallery is up for deletion (AfD). Please comment as you see fit. Dsmdgold 15:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Mulla Nasruddin

Thanks for letting me know, Zoe. He's been editing into Ari Ben-Menashe that I work for AIPAC: actually into the article, not just the talk page. [4] And deleting referenced information critical of Ben-Menashe. Seems to be his no. 1 fan. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

thoughts on the deletion process

Always interested in new insight surrounding wiki deletion process, I wonder if you have any reactions to my thoughts collected at user:here/delete ? Any response appreciated, feel free to respond here on your talk page. ∴ here…♠ 06:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I will oppose any deletion process which involves blanking of a page. That's vandalism. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised to hear that. I would expect otherwise considering your tenure here dates back to a time when the deletion process was quite similar to that of which you now oppose. Perhaps you could expand on your experience? ∴ here…♠ 19:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

welcome back

i've been awfully busy since august. i only just saw that you were back. i'm glad you're back in the mix. you're needed here. Kingturtle 06:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Elyssa Rundle

Why did you remove the copyvio tag from the Elyssa Rundle article? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, doing a bit of late-night RC patrolling and made a mistake. Dan100 (Talk) 08:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi

You did some excellent work helping to keep Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for decency neutral.

Would you be willing to add the same insight to Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG ? --Victim of signature fascism vote for the arb com 17:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Article notability

From my RFA page:

• Anything that would fit into any encyclopedia, of any sort, should be eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia, provided it's neutral. Cool. Let's start an Encyclopedia of Zoe's house, where I can photograph every square inch of it and prove that the doorknob on Zoe's back door really is tarnished, and a picture of my cat lying on his back and write an article on Zoe's cat's favorite sleeping positions. Zoe (216.234.130.130 23:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC))

The problem with that proposal is that it's completely unverifiable without original research. Verifiability, in other words, covers most things deemed non-notable already. Otherwise, I would agree with you. —Simetrical (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem with that proposal is that it's completely unverifiable without original research. Not at all. Like I said, I could take pictures and prove the doorknob is tarnished, I can take pictures of the cat in his favorite positions and extensively edit the article. I can invite a friend over to verify the information and put it up on his blog with pictures. That's your verifiability. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

According to the standards I used in some of the AfDs . . . yes. Now that you point it out, and now that I've had time to consider, I have taken back some of those votes. Only reliable sources are acceptable, and your friend's blog is not reliable. If there was for some reason a newspaper article about your doorknob, or an Encylopædia Britannica article, or whatever, then it would be verifiable and suitable for inclusion if anyone could make an encyclopedia article out of the verifiable information (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, of course). —Simetrical (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

That misunderstands verifiability - where will these pictures and friend's testimony be stored? Somewhere reputable, and with a high probability of being around in ten years? Phil Sandifer 06:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Which misunderstands verifiability? I said that the pictures and blog are not good enough for WP:V unless put in a reliable source, and therefore Zoe's friend's blog wouldn't be good enough to allow him to add stuff about his doorknob or cat to Wikipedia. —Simetrical (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hence my replying to Zoe and not to you. :) Phil Sandifer 03:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Personal attack

I regard the following as a pesonal attack by you:

I regard the following exchange as a personal attack by you:

• Speedy keep Please read WP:BIO before nominating any further biographical articles. CalJW 02:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:CIVIL. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC) It was intended as a sharp rebuke, and your response demonstrates that you deserved it. I hope you will now leave off, remembering that you started it. CalJW 03:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing maintained

Here and here you removed my additions of {{Maintained}} from article talk pages. Both have been reverted by another user. I find this inappropriate. First, unless Maintained is deleted, it seems reasonable for me to add it to other pages. If you think it shouldn't ever be used (as indicated in your edit summary) that should be addressed the TfD, not by removing otherwise legitimate uses of it. Second, the fact that there is an ongoing TfD which is current 30-12 in favor of keep suggests that your removal is an attempt to circumvent the consensus of the community. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for the tip. Did you need an afd to say just that? --Striver 04:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Do not personal attack people in talk pages. Your charge of article ownership is completely unfounded in factual evidence. --Stbalbach 23:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Please

Please, try to be productive. Your actions are very counterproductive. If you are concerned about the template, simple leave a message at Template talk:Maintained explaining what is wrong with the wording, and, if possible, suggest alternate wordings that do not imply what you consider ownership. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-18 23:34

• Interesting, considering that I state the exact opposite of your claims under the template's "Guidelines". — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-18 23:40
  • Anyone who wants to know how to use the template will have to go to its talk page, where the guidelines are right at the top. And I have now placed these guidelines right on the template page. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-18 23:44
    • Alright, that's fine. Just add a clarification to the template. But your clarification was over the line. Give me 5 minutes. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-18 23:50
      • Done. Is that acceptable? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-18 23:53

Please change to Keep if you think it has a chance in some form, not necessarily this form. I support the clarification, so, and will enforce it. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-18 23:56

Explain? in reference to Satanic ritual abuse

Zoe, would you like to explain to me how a summary of the findings of academic journal articles constitutes slander? Do you actually think that the article, as it stands, is an objective or factual account? Biaothanatoi 05:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Why can't people add me to Wikipedia?

Zoe -

You probably don't know me from Adam. My name is Mark Pesce, and I'm the co-inventor of VRML (look it up) and a well known speaker about interactive & technology issues worldwide. I was recently a participant in an event in Melbourne with Amanda Beersley of your foundation. My five books have sold around 50,000 copies worldwide over the last decade. I'm on the TV weekly here in Australia.

yet, for some reason, when no fewer than 4 people have tried to create bio pages on me - even though I am referenced at least 3 times in the Wikipedia itself - they have been denied. The last time - just now - it was by you.

Could you please explain why?

cheers,

Mark Pesce

me

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GH avisualagency™

Deletion of Eight (band)

Why was Eight (band) deleted? I removed the copyrighted content and rewrote everything in my own words...? Please put it back, that took me ages...

--Nzhamstar 04:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you put back the stuff that I rewrote? --Nzhamstar 04:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Zoe :D --Nzhamstar 21:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia contributions

Please contact me re: your interpretation of vandalism. I respect your input and wish to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive way. Please articulate your criticism of my additions to Wikipedia in a more specific manner so that contributions are respected and honored.

thank you

thank you for helping me understand wikipedia more concisely. i appreciate your input.