Caroline "Sunshine"[edit]

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about. I wrote an informational article abotu something gained international media attention. Would you please exaplin to me what I've done wrong? User:VanillaX

Here's some articles, I will find more:

The Toronto link works, I'm sorry I think I had a | in it. Also, this is not false in any way, she was a convicted murderer in Canada. The reason that the article mentions no names is because Canada has a law stating members of the press in Canada cannot use the name of minors undergoing trial. Because Caroline "Sunshine" was 17 when she murdered her mother, her name cannot be used by the Canadian press. - User:VanillaX

I'm not going to be able to find anything with names, but here's a good article that mentions the $200,000 insurance. I'm really not making this up, it's the truth. - User:VanillaX

Evidentally User:70.251.68.7 deleted the speedy deletion motion, so I guess we're all done here. - User:VanillaX

I don't know what more proof you need, everything checks out, I've given you three articles that match my details as well as two other sites. - User:VanillaX

In that case, could you please give me a copy of that article so that I can store it somewhere else and repost it when their names are released once the case is over or I find evidence? - User:VanillaX

me[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zordrac/deletions#How_to_steam_roll_votes_and_influence_people

Oh, that wasn't about you. There was another incident that happened about a month earlier that inspired that. Quite a lot of examples of that kind of thing actually. I've seen 11 so far that I've documented. Seems to happen quite a lot.

Anyway, it said that you were helping with the Fortune Lounge Group, so if you are, thanks. :)

I hope that you don't think that I am against you at all. I am not. I am not against anyone. Some actions I question, but I am sure underneath all that you're a nice person. I hope that you're not still upset about it. Hrm. You won the decision and I got harassed because of it, so I don't see how you could be upset.

I could say the person who that is about, well, 2 people really, but I think that that'd be a bit rude, and I don't really think its fair to go around exposing people and stuff. I'd rather stick to generic examples. Here's a hint: the two people who its about are statistically 2 of the top 5 biggest deletionists on Wikipedia. lol. You're not, and I'm not sure if you are a deletionist. Me and you agree most of the time. I am sorry if you took that incident personally. I tend to defend the little guy a lot. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

It seems that My last few weeks on editing have been without a hitch. I haven't heard from anyone ever since My user subpage was kept. I simply explaned that I wasn't in a hurry to get the page recreated in the mainspace and I let the debate run it's course. Hopefully, You're still not offended by it. When I try for RfA again in months from now, I'll certainly admit My mistakes, but judging from the recent debate. That fact that I've refrained form those mistakes should be to My credit. In the meantime, I've been creating redirects for various pages I visit (i.e. IND 6th Avenue Line, etc.) I also added photos to some pages. -- EddieSegoura 07:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erm[edit]

Did you really mean to make this vote? Ambi 14:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

notes to myself[edit]

Viriditas[edit]

No Zoe, you are wrong to act without entering into the topic discussion and going with consensus.

Consensus is that the article is in pretty good shape right now.

There is a big history here and you are just being used by a very manipulative individual Viriditas who has sought to attack other users Canaen with knowingly dishonest, libellous and erroneous RfC.

It is not as simple as it looks.195.82.106.59 03:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it says that I can discuss this and so I am here to discuss this matter of Viriditas. Let's talk it through. I and others started this whole thing complete reasonably and rationally but have suffered a barage of tricks and abuse form this guy which I can document if it really matters.

You are defending the abuser and attacking the abused. What I have seen Viriditas do in his RfC against Canaen is unspeakable. All to clear the way so he can push his POV

There is no smoke without fire.195.82.106.59 03:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK Zoe, you state " Don't edit other people's Talk page comments, don't vandalize articles, and you won't get blocked. "

a) the idea of Talk pages is that you can talk to uses and there is no vandalisation going on.

There may be a content dispute, I would accept that and that it ought be addressed via consensus but the problem we face with a user Viriditas who will not adhere to that consensus but instead go to the depths of accusations against other an endless wikitricks to try and block out.

I am happy to document the history of this and qualify every statement. 195.82.106.59 04:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

On my user discussion page, you told me to stop marking edits I disagree with as vandalism. I'm not sure which you are talking about here (that is to say, there are perhaps several possibilities). It is never my intention to claim someone is vandalising a page simply because I disagree with them. However, as I revert a great deal of graffiti and vandalism, it is inevitable that I'll revert some edits, claim vandalism, and be definitely wrong. This is much more likely if the user ignored requirements to cite the information. Uncited information is meant to be removed by any editor who spots it.

If you can find any instances where I reverted an edit, marked it as vandalism (or warned the user about it), the edit was cited, and was something I disagree with, please point it out to me. I will most certainly apologise for doing so and I assure you it has never been deliberate.

I will, however, try to be more careful in the future. --Yamla 03:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Katie Holmes edit was uncited. I didn't disagree with the content of the edit (though the grammar could have been improved). Anyway, you may wish to see my follow-up on CyclopsScott's page, as I did apologise to the user for mistakenly accusing him of vandalism. Again, I will try to be more careful in the future, though I will still revert uncited information as editors are meant to do. --Yamla 04:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia." ZOE, IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS, THEN THE WIKIPEDIA POLICY MUST BE CHANGED. This is quoted directly from the first few pages of the introduction, and many people wander onto this site and automatically assume that the GENERAL GUIDELINES are correct, and that they will be immune from personal attacks levied against them by people like yourself. I am writing a letter (paper letter to the president of the company, NOT email) to Wikipedia where I am going to be making a formal complaint against you. I truly believe that you have become "bigger than your breaches", and must be stopped. Yes, I have the documentation to prove the things I allege, including falsifying online reports about supposed "vandalism", and using blocks to suppress those who you do not like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.196 (talk • contribs)

That is what we are trying to change (see above). If I had my way, only a select few people would be allowed to edit the pages. We need to rid this site of undesireable persons with little or no formal training in science, history, or the arts. 99% of the people that edit the articles are silly people with no potential to contribute anything meaningful to the project, and therefore, I think that we need to radically change the way Wikipedia currently does business. Maybe we could do like MENSA, and require a certain IQ (based on tests administered by Wikipedia) before the article will be considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.204 (talk • contribs)

Do you really think that one needs a high IQ to edit wikipedia? And conversely do you really think all the vandals have alow IQ? by the way it would help a lot if you signed your contributions on talk pages. David D. (Talk) 22:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Translating "law"[edit]

Come on Zoe, gimme a break. I'm just starting the article. What's the problem with it?! It is not a Wiktionay entry, as you will see. Velho 04:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sprotected[edit]

Thanks for the reminder, it's a great new tool. I was desparing of a solution for handling a recurrent 3RR/vandal/problem user. -Willmcw 04:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

unprotection[edit]

...I blocked the user who was causing the various issues, so I thought that it was safe. I've no objection to leaving it protected, though. Nandesuka 04:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:Zoe, Nandesuka, we have to discuss this.[edit]

Zoe, Nandesuka, we have to discuss this.

You don't have to address me in the third person. I am here and happy to discuss matters rationally.

Firstly, you are being manipulated by this Viriditas who is very skilled in the wiki but not dishonest. Even when issues are pointed out to him clearly and honestly, he continues to push these erroneous accusation of sock and meatpuppetry to achieve his aims.

I also had issues with this user. Negatively commented in nearly everything I did in the first 2 weeks. -- Eddie 08:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, the good edit is the one that you are removing. Viriditas is just using his knowledge of the wiki to make the first accusations and block other contributors at will. It is he that is attacking outside of consensus.

We have sufffered many weeks of his doing so. He has conspired with two other contributor - who agenda were also refused by consensus - to attack this other user Canaen, damaging his wish to become an admin by making false accusation.

Despite his full knowledge that the allegations in the RfC are wrong, he continues to try andmilk them to block others.

There is no smoke without fire. He will not enter into discussion or go with consensus, he has on numerous occasions gone to censor discussion and remove contrubtions not just to the topic page but also users pages that do not suit him and so he is being tought an unconventional lesson. His friend Skinwalker has accused us of being " nasty veggiebasher " on other users pages trying to make anti-vegan allies and so I think it is fair to say their agenda is clear.

I can go into more detail if you wish.212.126.145.158 05:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint[edit]

I just wanted to let everyone know that a formal complaint has been made to Wikipedia in the form of a hardcopy letter to the President Jimmy Wales about Zoe. The letter alleges that Zoe has conspired to falsify vandalism reports in order to block certain users that do not agree with him. Zoe is currently a user with SYSOP functions within the volunteer organization, and has authority to block users who violate the guidelines of Wikipedia. The letter alleges that Zoe has abused his authority and is using the position as a "bully pulpit" to advance his agenda.

Other users who have had specific problems or complaints against Zoe are encouraged to send a HARDCOPY LETTER to the following address:

Wikimedia Foundation Inc. 200 2nd Ave. South #358 St. Petersburg, FL 33701-4313

This is the only physical address I could find on the site, so if someone else could share the California address with us, maybe we can send letters there as well. I think we would have a better chance of removing this person from their position if we send letters to a physical address rather than email (although I would also encourage that method also). Unsigned by User:207.200.116.196

This is stupid. See WP:NLT, No legal threats. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "this is stupid"? I think the record speaks for itself that Zoe has abused his authority. He has "erased" most of the bad comments from his comments site from many, many people who have been blocked by this guy apparently to cover up his flagrant abuse of his authority. Also, I don't believe that the anonymous user above was making any legal threat. The user was merely stating that he wanted others who had a problem with this guy to send their complaints to Wikipedia so they can deal with the problem directly.

Merry Christmas!![edit]

**MERRY CHRISTMAS**, Zoe/archive 19! A well deserved pressy!--Santa on Sleigh 22:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfA[edit]

Good luck on that. I don't think it will happen any time soon, but I will give you a word of warning -- so long as you keep User:EddieSegoura/Exicornt, I will vote against any RfA put up for you. Zoe (216.234.130.130) 16:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Okay, but if it gets any positive support then I know I'm moving in the right direction. You probably say that because I only had that subpage at the time You tried to get it deleted and nothing else to show for. Now I have a bunch of legit edits piling on (I don't know if redirects count). It's hard to belive You'd judge Me on the basis of that page alone. -- Eddie

Complaint against Zoe[edit]

I would like to add a complaint against Zoe for deleting several entries that I created as they were considered "advertising."

The entries in question were BodyBalance, BodyPump, BodyJam, BodyCombat, BodyAttack and RPM.

No explanation has been given why this is construed as "advertising" especially when corporations are given their own wiki entries see Optus, Pizza Hut and Telstra for examples.

All entries I created took my several hours to write and collate and contained only factual information and not advertising and I request the reinstation of the articles in question.

I have no affiliation with Les Mills, I am merely a participant in several of their group fitness classes...

In response to User:Zoe's post in "my talk" area... I would like to state that the wiki entries created were under development and I was in the process of requesting other users involvement in creating and developing the entries. I would like the entries reinstated, even on a trial basis of a month so that the entries can be further refined and expanded. Zoe, please can you respond to this request? Ben

Oops. I thought that that little incident that I found was a one-off. Don't tell me that User:Zordrac/deletions#How to steam roll votes and influence people really is an accurate description of you? Oh dear Zoe. That wasn't meant to encourage you. It was hoping that you'd stop. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalize[edit]

What page did I vandalize? 68.77.139.51 05:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Mistake[edit]

That one edit made to the create a new article page was not made by me. I tried to save once and it said it had already been edited since. I did not do any of that. It should not be credited to me. It is a mistake on Wikipedia. It is also a mistake on you for accusing me of it, please take away your warning of me and I would also like an apology from you. 68.77.139.51 05:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not blank the half the article. I don't know how it was put under my contributions. 68.77.139.51 05:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You Are Wrong[edit]

It was not me who blanked it or added the "ha". All I did was add an article to be created. The first time I tried to save, it said it had already changed since I started. Then I was able to do it again and it worked. I did not blank it or add a "ha". This must be a wikipedia error. Please do not accuse me of something when it is an error of some sort. You trying to do good but you are not aware of what is going on. I would like an apology. 68.77.139.51 05:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You won't get it from ZOE. Look at her history.

Bigfoot[edit]

Yes people will shoot and kill any tresspassers. Yes, law enforcement will arrest and imprison the hoaxer for a LONG time. These are the charges: Criminal Mischief,Breaking and Entering a.k.a. Burglary,Conspiracy,Fraud,Tresspassing, Public Disorderly Conduct. Any hoaxer can be imprisoned for a LONG time in a State or Federal prison. People who live in a Rural area will shoot to kill any intruder, so anyone perpetrating a Bigfoot hoax could not only face criminal charges, he/she can also get shot and the shooting would be ruled as justifiable. I have kin who serve in law enforcement, and I am in regular contact with law enforcement personnel, especially Sheriffs' Deputies who have to process the crime scene involving a intruder/tresspasser in which he/she was shot, some fatally shot. In some states, it is legal to kill tresspassers. Most land is POSTED, and violet and purple paint is also used. This color of paint serves the same function of the "POSTED" and the "NO TRESSPASSING" signs.

When these people, hunters, other armed rural people spot one of these creatures, they will shoot at it, and if there is a person perpetrating a hoax, he/she will be shot, even fatally shot.

Do you live in a urban area ? Martial Law 05:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that people will shoot at these things was MY edit, NOT User:Beckjord's edit.

Is there a reason that this cannot be stated at all ? Any regs in effect regarding this ? Martial Law 05:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC) This is NOT Vandalisim, a personal attack,etc. at all.Martial Law 05:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a SAFETY matter, NOT proving,nor disproving the existance of any creature, no more, no less. Martial Law 07:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beckjord re what Martial Law is pushing[edit]

I have edited his items, unless DreamGuy interfered, to make it simply plain that it is not wise to do a hoax in rural areas using a monkey suit. You risk getting shot by local people. That is all. Hence, the chances of a hoax using a monkey suit are very slim to none. Skeptics do not seem to get this, or they do not want to.

beckjordBeckjord 06:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That brings up an interesting point. If I dress up in a monkey suit in an urban area, will I get shot. How about a suburban area? What if I am on the outskirts of a "major metropolitan area?" Finally, if I dress up in a monkey suit in Aintry County (you remember Deliverance), will I get shot? I just want to check out all the possibilities before I go out this weekend.

?s answered, non-fiction source supressed[edit]

Urban area, someone may shoot you, especially if they're on something, your appearance startles them, they believe you're up to no good.

Suburban area, same.

Outskirts of metro area, definately.

"Aintry County", definately.

I have a copy of The Ten Creepiest Creatures In America by Allan Zullo. It also has a police incident case file concerning a Bigfoot actually seen in Texarkana itself. The book is non-fiction. Tried to list it in the Sources section in the Bigfoot article, it keeps being removed by User:Dreamguy or a ally of his, as being "nonsense". The police don't go for any nonsense. Filing a false police report is a felony. Think that is nonsense ? Prints were found by police in the area. By the way, it is abuse, ridicule, by "skeptics" that nearly got me shot( gunshot ) by someone that was in the Fouke,AR area. Did'nt know if he was kidding or he'd really do it. I was there myself investigating this matter. I am no longer in that area. The "Fouke Monster" is also mentioned in this source. How is that for WP:V ? - only to get it removed. This is NOT a personal attack,vandalisim,etc. @ all. Appreciate your time. Martial Law 02:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: Merry Christmas and have a Happy New Year'. Martial Law 02:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Needs to Review the Rules and Def. of "Vandalism"[edit]

Removed anon text dump of WP:VAND

Inquery[edit]

Who is complaining? It appears vandals dont like you, that means I lova ya. ^-^' --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. We need to stick together if we are to rid the Wiki site of all these undesireables. I would propose that we start by putting blocks on people that we suspect of vandalism. If in doubt, BLOCK. I think we need to block for a year or more, especially if we feel that the person will have no potential to be a bona fide contributor. Also, we need to stop being nice to these people. Just go ahead and put a block on a person if in doubt, and be as rude as possible to discourage editing. Finally, and this is the most controversial, I think we should require some sort of testing to be done to make sure that a potential candidate has at least a certain intelligence quotient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.204 (talk • contribs)

Bravo. Lets get them and thrown them in jail too. Just out of interest, if you are a serious editor, and you seem to be, why don't you start a user account rather than editing from a AOL IP? David D. (Talk) 22:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I don't register, Einstein, is that it is people like you who give this site a bad name. The above commentary was meant as a sarcastic response to what I see as the "holier than though" attitude prevalent in this project. I had no idea that my "straw man proposal" would be accepted hook, line and sinker by someone so easily. You get the 2005 Sucker of the Year Award! Congratulations! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.204 (talk • contribs)

Mmm, you didn't recognise my sarcasm in response to your own? Oh well. You seem to have a pretty bad attitude in this interaction. May be that is why you are anon posting here so you don't have to ruin your good user status? Certainly it would seem to be you that is giving wiipedia the bad name.

If you really think that your valid edits have been reverted and treated as vandalism mature discussion would be a much better way to go about resolving the issues you have with Zoe's reverts. Certainly i would back up Zoe's reverts if she is reverting an anon editor. Some anon editors may be making good edits, but many are not. Therefore, you should really thing about getting a user account. Unless, of course, you are just trying to hide something. In that case carry on. David D. (Talk) 22:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Been collecting Wikipedia Shortcut sites....[edit]

The intent of collecting these "shotcuts" is to provide a means of quick access with out bothering a Administrator about some Wiki protocol. A Admin. indicated it is a good idea. Is these short cuts a violation of Wikipedia protocol ? Martial Law 03:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]