User talk:Zoe/archive 16

now I am trying to put this in proper format bur I'm used to being a vandal in that position you have sure about proper format

I am not a racist

And I have not said anything racist 

this is a shared computer may explain any racist posts

And I thought about creating a legitimate account but I'm fairly sure you would all ban me Just to get back at me for being a vandal

COCKBLOCKER IS A SPECIES OF LOOSER WHO TAKES PLEASURE IN PREVENTING OTHERS FROM ACHIEVING ANYTHING EITHER. THE WIKIPEDIA SUBSPICIES GOES AROUND AND TRIES TO FIND FAULTS IN EVERYONE’S WORK.

KEEP BEING YOUR BAD SELF, ITS NOT LIKE BY FUCKING UP MY ARTICLE YOU HURT ME. WHEN YOU STRIKE WATER NO TRACE WILL REMAIN.

YOU SEE THERE ARE MORE COCKBLOCKERS IN WIKI PROJECT THAN ACTIVE CONTRIBUTORS, SO IT WILL NEVER SUCCEED ANYWAY. GAME ATTRACTS GAME. SO THIS PROJECT IS DOOMED ANYWAY. BY GETTING ME BLOCKED FOR EXAMPLE YOU ARE JUST SAVING ME TIME.

ITS IRONIC HOW THE HARDER YOU TRY THE BETTER YOU MAKE THINGS FOR ME. EVEN GETTING MY ARTICLE DELETED BECAUSE OF YOUR SPITEFULNESS, YOU MAY BE ACTUALLY HELPING ME, BECAUSE YOU ARE STIMULATING ME TO ACTION.

AND YOU ARE FOOLISH BECAUSE YOU ARE ACQUIRING DANGEROUS ENEMIES, YOU ARE JUST LUCKY BECAUSE UNLIKE YOU I DON’T HAVE TIME FOR VIRTUAL WARS, I ACTUALLY HAVE A LIFE.70.114.136.31

Apparently that life does not include a <shift> key. - brenneman^(t)(c) 04:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked out the anonymous poster's contributions, both as 70.114.136.31 and LevKamensky. LOL! What are these achievements and "work" of which you speak? Bishonen | talk 12:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to give you a heads up that he vandalized Eleemosynary's user page. I'll add it to his RfC. I figured you'd be interested since you two seem to have a little bit of a history. Karmafist 21:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Habashies VfD was inconclusive, but there seemed agreement that total rewrite was needed. Oh dear: see Talk:Al-Ahbash. As Shatner would say, "McKhaaan!" Tearlach 17:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, V: Boycottthecaf vandalised User:Wiffle0rz's user page a little while ago. I didn't feel right blocking him as it seems like the first bad faith thing he's done all day, but since you seem to be watchdogging him, I thought I'd brind it to your attention. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry; there was a long discussion at the Japanese MoS about how to name Japanese Emperors, and those "double" redirects are alternative names that we agreed that we should have that are pointing to places where the article was going to wind up. I'm moving the articles in now, and those redirs all become single redirs when I do so. Noel (talk) 02:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you protected the page. I saw the same thing on the Headline News ticker. As far as the IPs, look them up here. We're different people. --70.118.68.216 06:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think you should have blocked the user 24.64.223.203 (talk · contribs). You gave the reason as 'repeated vandalism to George W. Bush', but actually only the last one of their contributions was vandalism - the previous ones were in my opinion legitimate attempts to add information (it's only that the information was unencyclopaedic). We shouldn't be so eager to block new users, it gives them a bad picture of the project and the community. (In fact, I think we've just lost a prospective new user there, mainly because of inconsiderate reverting of their edits.) - ulayiti (talk) 08:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er, they were warned exactly once. You blocked them immediately after they were warned once - they didn't even have a chance to disregard the warning. The edits the same IP address has done yesterday can't by no means be assumed to be by the same person, since they were of an entirely different kind (and this is a shared IP after all). - ulayiti (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to drop you a note and thank you for your work on the VfD. I obviously disagreed, but you were right on the criteria and it was a good learning experience....and no, I'm not being sarcastic.  :) Wikibofh 17:46, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• BTW: Can you clean up (ie delete) List_of_Ultimate_Frisbee_leagues? It's now a redirect to a redlink. We might as well do it right. I left a note on Woohookitty's VfD page (as he/she did the VfD closure) but I'd just as soon get it finished. I think it could be safely covered under the VfD. Thanks. Wikibofh 01:52, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

User:Zoe: The recent additions to be bold were not an attempt to add "nonsense" to the page, and it is unfortunate and regrettable that it was viewed as such. It is just and proper that it was reverted. Please note that sending feedback to an IP-based "talk" page and then blocking it prevents any two-way communication, which is probably not very encouraging to non-admin-usernames. The feedback, while terse, is more helpful than utter silence, which is a common a tactic among other admin-usernames. You are a better admin-username for providing such feedback. This message itself is not an attempt to have the last word. If you post your rebuttal to that same page, mostly likely, a real person will read it and continue to learn what is acceptable and what is not. Note that there is a great deal of violence depicted in the Blade Runner page (and in the original movie in a highly graphic manner) and at many other pages dealing with subjects of entertainment and an ever-growing amount of gratuitous nudity-based photographic pornography at Wikipedia (mostly in user sub-pages) such as that referred to in User_talk:MutterErde/Nudity2. Note also that genuine violence that occurs in wars and in the crime-based stories such as Elizabeth Morgan, or the threat of future full-scale nuclear war, are glossed over or ignored entirely. Those phenomena can lead to confusion about what Wikipedia is all about, specifically if it is more about fiction or non-fiction.

Note also that username with a profile like Special:Contributions/Tregoweth, which focuses almost exclusively on entertainment and wife-beating pages is the same username that stripped the Elizabeth Morgan page of all of its supporting documentation (including the references to the Congressional records), and you will understand why some take a dim view of the future level of scholarship at Wikipedia.

172.198.170.230 19:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for cleaning up my user page after vandalism. :) -- < drini | ∂drini > 22:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I only just realized that you are editing here again, so welcome back! My rough estimate is that you get as many comments on your talk page per week as I get in three years—I don't know what I'm doing wrong. :) All the best, <KF> 22:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that.I really apreciate you doing it behind my back.--Fenian Swine 23:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, I would appreciate it if you did not accuse me of making racist statements without backing it up with proof. I was deeply utterly completly offended to be labeled like that, expecially since you lost your temper about it an threatened to block me. This makes the management of Wikipedia look bad. Please exercise more patience and use a level head in the future. I would like to be your special friend. Thank you. --Boycottthecaf 04:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And if you didn't make racist comments, you wouldn't be accused of it The thing is, you haven't pointed out where I have said anything racist, you are just lobbing that attack at me without proof. Please stop. That is inconsiderate. I believe your admin powers should be taken away if you cannot behave responsibly. --Boycottthecaf 05:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zoe! Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage while I was off guard. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If only I knew. I think it is related to me blocking a userpage vandal. This guy sent me about five e-mails as well. See WP:AN/I#User:Doogle777. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

She's from the Australian not the US series of Big Brother. She's listed in the 2001 section. I changed the redirect. CambridgeBayWeather 08:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know either but I was checking the creator's other stuff and noticed they had links to australia. CambridgeBayWeather 08:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It belongs on the Tuesday, because that is the date on every single one of the News Reports. UTC time, it was added to Mondays reports on the Tuesday, i.e, the wrong day. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:30, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

• It's not really that funny, considering you added this at 06:31, August 23, 2005.. Tuesday. --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:15, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia operates under UTC, not Californian time.--Irishpunktom\^talk 21:28, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, i used to think the same till Several of my edits were reverted and moved owing to being in the wrong day UTC. --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:37, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • cool, I posted there. --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:43, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty baffled by your message Zoe, perhaps you can rephrase your comments on votes for deletion, since I can't see anything about my votes there which is questionable, with the possible exception of an occasion where I merged some content into another article, not realising that this was not supposed to happen. In voting on that page, I have been very careful to read the guidelines before voting, and to try to apply the guidelines to the voting process, rather than my notions of what is important or interesting. Perhaps you can point out some examples of votes that you object to? Thanks, Trollderella 15:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Every single one of Trollderella's VfD votes has been keep. He has yet to vote to delete a single item. And even on articles which are clearly delete-worthy (like items which go on Wikitext or Wikisource), he votes keep. Zoe 20:26, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zoe, I'm sorry you think that voting to keep things is a problem, I was not aware that there was any requirement to vote to delete a certain number of things, I often pass over things that look like they should be deleted because they already have a lot of delete votes. I am not sure which things you are talking about that are 'clearly delete-worthy', the things that I vote on are things that I have looked at, and evaluated carefully against the deletion guidelines, and that I believe do not meet them. The fact that there is a voting system implies to me that there is some abiguity about how to treat them. I'm sorry if you disagree with my judgements, and disapointed that you seem offended by them. By all means, if you disagree, then vote to delete them - I won't take it personally, and would encourage you not to as well - I hope we can learn to live with different opinions, Yours, Trollderella 21:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Swine is an unserious non-contributor to the project and has been harassing me and other members of wiki. I demand some action, hopefully a permanent ban. Tunney 23:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.He vandilised my user page and even though you hate me I still expect you to act on these requests.--Muc Fíníneach 23:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apreciate that.He was a menace or a troll or whatever you want to call him.--Muc Fíníneach 00:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Good work banning Mr. Swine. He was an A-hole as you americans like to say.Tunney 00:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I see Mr Swine has had his "indefinate" ban revoked after 24 measly hours and he gets to harass me again. I implore you to ban him permanently for the good of the project.Tunney 00:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:MONGO removed your membership from Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit. If you object to this, I'd recommend you make some hay about it on his or the project's talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulu of the Lotus Eaters (talk • contribs) LULU

Anyone who thinks an obscene image belongs on every article in Wikipedia cannot possibly be in keeping with the scope of the project. It is a violation of WP:POINT...disrupting an article to make a point. Next time Lulu, sign your message.--MONGO 06:35, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

And aside from contirbuting zero to discussion, your sole contribution (in sharp contrast to the scope of the project) is this disruptive "membership" as you orignally posted it: "Zoe 06:48, August 17, 2005 (UTC) - I would like to see a standard which requires an obscene image on every page.]]"...and you threaten to block me if I remove it again...now that is admin abuse if I ever saw it. How about this, repost your membership like an adult, just sign and state that you disagree with the projects attempts to "censor" or something along those lines...I can deal with that. What would be the criteria for my being blocked since I saw your orignal membership comment to be a violation of [[WP:POINT] and removed it? Serious...don't get angry, perhaps I am overlooking something.--MONGO 06:54, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

NO response, just a threat...and based on what...vandalism? It is not vandalism if my edit is in good faith and I see your edit as a violation of wikipedia:point. Nevermind.--MONGO 08:05, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Expect nothing else from this hippocritical 'admin' --18.60.3.22 15:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zoe, I wonder whether you saw my message on your talk page above, since you did not respond to it, but continue to make accusations on my talk page. I am not sure why you think my vote on Zambian Boys is problematic, (# keep, for the moment, at least. I am worried that there may be good reason why this band doesn't have many google hits. More research needed. Trollderella 16:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)) I may be wrong, and more research may well show that this article is not suitable. I voted as I did because I thought that the lister's reason (insufficent google hits) seemed flimsy, and it would do no harm to gather more information. I don't know what about that you found unreasonable, but invite you to explain a little more. Frankly, I find your tone a little hostile. Looking forward to hearing from you, Trollderella 20:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe, I beg to differ, I did not make a judgement about the author of the article, but rather assessed the article on it's own merits. I did not find that it clearly met the criteria for deletion. I agree that, on being made aware of the history of the contributor, it may need even more scrutiny, but, while I respect your right to disagree with my vote, I am beginning to resent your repreated accusations. You have not, so far as I can see, chosen to vote on this article, but it would seem to me that, if you disagree with my assessment, the correct course of action is to vote as you see fit, rather than harrassing users who vote as they see fit. Yours, Trollderella 20:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page Zoe, and on the Ladner Trunk Road vfd. Trollderella 20:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that on each and everyone of my votes for/against deletion you have drawn attention to the fact that I have few edits under my belt. My concers are two: 1) where is it stated that you have to have a certain number of edits to make your vote count, and 2) did you notice my claim to be an inclusionist rather than a deletionists? This does not mean that I am going to be adding useless information but it does mean that I would like to see that real articles have a decent chance of become usefull info sourses. Furthermore, I am fairly certain that I responded to one of your responses to my votes, but it seems to have vanished? Is this accurate or am I mistaken? Thank you very much HoratioVitero 22:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, my responce remains...HoratioVitero 23:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And almost choke on a carrot. [1] - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe, I don't know why you feel the need to constantly comment, in a way that I find rude and unwelcome, on my votes on vfd. However, I would invite you, next time you feel the urge, to consider whether your and my time might be better spent writing or editing an article, instead of trading insults. Thanks for sharing, yours, Trollderella 07:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe, I don't know why you find it hard to accept that there are people who disagree with you, but I suggest that you dial it down a little, for the sake of everyone's blood pressure. It's a vote. Please try to respect other's opinions. Trollderella 07:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, Zoe, you started this thread, with abusive comments, and are ending it with abusive comments. If you don't wish to have anything to do with me, that's fine - simply don't post abuse on my talk page. Trollderella 07:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe, I need admin feedback: Was what I did with the VfD notice on Judiciary Act acceptable? CanadianCaesar 07:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you say that Alex Linder is user:Amalekite? You seem certain. -Willmcw 07:59, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zoe. Björn J:son Lindh's name is just that - see Google search for confirmation. Regards, CLW 23:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks zoe! I answered you on my talk page.

Your presence has been requested at the above user's talk page. Joyous (talk) 00:52, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

He left a message on his talk page. I didn't know if you saw it or not. Joyous (talk) 04:13, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

You were part of the discussion for moving VfD to PfD. I would appreciate any comments that you might have about the process...if you're interested, please leave a note in the appropriate section on User:Ral315/Signpost. Your input would be much appreciated. ral315 01:02, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

I am not part of the GNAA, and don't appreciate you implying this. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Adequacy Style Troll you wrote: "GNAA trolling, supported by loads of sockpuppets." I wrote the article! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an AOL IP, so be careful when blocking it. Andre (talk) 03:51, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem. :) Andre (talk) 04:09, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. I just have an itchy delete finger when it comes to guys like that, I suppose... Cheers, Fire Star 05:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. I appreciate that. Looks like that pesky Gabriola came back anyway, but it looks like link spam to me. I'd say let's err on the side of caution and undelete. I can't tell you how much I appreciate your not dragging this through VfU. Owe ya one. - Lucky 6.9 06:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You betcha. I put "Ben Price" back. It looked like an attack page at first glimpse; seems this guy is legit after all. - Lucky 6.9 06:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

she is primarily a propagandist author/pundit and has even admitted she doesn't work in the court system anymore --Lamrock 08:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and tell me why it's so notable to bring this up in the 1st sentence of the article. --Lamrock 08:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

then i'll move it to a new paragraph. sound good?--Lamrock 08:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe, perhaps you can shed some light on this: I voted to delete two pages, Bisexuality in Brazil, and Chainsaw Scene (Scarface), but these votes don't show up on the lengthy, all-inclusive page, ohly the individual vote pages themselves. Any reason you can think of? BTW, thanks for your help on Coulter. Paul Klenk 08:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The truth hurts. 66.17.116.148

Hi - I don't understand the point of this comment at the help desk. Please don't bite the newcomers. If the band didn't exist (and I agree that it probably didn't) there won't be any verifiable sources. Letting him know that's the standard seems polite and sufficient, don't you think? -- Rick Block (talk) 22:10, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

The article may be a hoax. You assume the user is a troll. Perhaps it's some sort of urban legend the user truly believes in? What does it hurt to assume good faith? Do you think there's some danger that he'll fool the masses at WP:VFU? I don't think we need to make it a confrontation. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:32, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Zoe. User:63.227.171.19 has asked on the help desk why you left a {{Test4}} on his talk page when he claims he hasn't vandalised. WOuld you please leave him a response at the help desk and his talk page? Thanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 23:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) continues to behave strangely with respect to VFD closings - in particular, relisting any discussion with less than five votes even if they all vote the same (e.g. here), thus unilaterally creating a quorum policy, except when he already agrees with the outcome e.g. here; closing 3del/3redir results as "keep"; and closing VFDs as keep when he in fact already merged or redirected the article. I believe this to be misleading at best, WP:POINT at worst. Any suggestions on how to deal with this? Radiant_>|< 23:06, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

• With that in mind, please feel free to contribute to User:Aaron Brenneman/Scratch/Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway.
  brenneman^(t)(c) 07:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good gravy. This was the last straw for me. I've given him a 48-hour time out after some consideration. I hated doing it, but he's taking up entirely too much time and resources. Next time it's a week and a possible RfC. Damn. - Lucky 6.9 23:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying so speedily. See User_talk:63.227.171.19 . However, I am not completely satisfied with your reply to my talk page. You said you didn't remember what my serious infraction was, said you wouldn't have placed me on final warning unless it were something serious such as the "recreation of nonsense", and then left the final warning status on my IP.

Here is the list of my contributions to Wikipedia:

Special:Contributions&target=63.227.171.19 (I apologize for not knowing how to properly internal link a Special:Contributions page.)

As you can clearly see, none of my edits to Wikipedia are in any way vandalism. I may have edited articles multiple times after my initial edit in order to correct small spelling/grammatical errors -- but that's it.

Please remove the final warning message from my IP address. Thank you in advance!

Thank you again for the speedy customer service. You replied on my user talk page ( User_talk:63.227.171.19 ) this message:

"Anything that got deleted wouldn't show up in your list of contributions."

You did not remove the final warning on my IP. I assume you intend to leave the status that way.

This places me in the difficult situation of proving I didn't vandalize Wikipedia.

How do I prove I didn't vandalize wikipedia if supposed deleted changes do not show up in my list of contributions? In other words, how then, do I prove I did not vandalize Wikipedia? It is unfair to accuse innocent users of vandalism, have no record of their supposed vandalism, and then leave them with the burden of proving their innocence -- but with no means to do so.

Who is your supervisor's name? And how do I get in contact with them?

This is the message you left on my user talk page (linked in my post above):

"There are no supervisors on Wikipedia. And there is nothing more I can do for you. Continue to make valid edits and there will be no need for further problems. Zoe 00:02, August 28, 2005 (UTC)"

I understand. I will take my concerns back to the Help Desk.

The article "96t" from the IP 63.227.171.19 was deleted by Zoe on 05:18 UT 26 August 2005. The content of the deleted article was as follows:

"Nine six t. commonly thought to be patent nonsense was 96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t 96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96tv 96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t 96t96t96t96t96t 96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t 96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t

which can be deciphered as 96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t96t NARF! as the cummulative sum of nine sixties or 540"

This is the sort of nonsense article that is very likely to be construed as obvious vandalism by an administrator. If the above article wasn't contributed by the complaining user at the IP personally, then someone else with vandal tendencies is using their computer. Regards, Fire Star 00:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have not posted this message to Wikipedia, and the only other users that share my IP address are my relatives who live in the same house, and one of them (coincidentally) moved out today. I will be having a discussion with this particular individual very quickly about the matter. If it is true that someone in my household has posted this bogus article to Wikipedia, you have my immediate apologies and assurances it will not happen again. Thank you.

Update. Issue resolved. It turns out that yes, this family member was responsible for vandalizing Wikipedia. I talked to him on the phone. This individual just mentioned to me that he has added "many" bogus articles to Wikipedia, and cannot remember them all. He mentioned he added an article about "tolphanite: the apparent hardened result of stale tofu", but I could not find this article on Wikipedia. I apologize for his behavior, and confess that the admins would have been absolutely justified in banning this IP address had they done so. Although this person moved out on their own today, I ask for Wikipedia to reinstate the level 4 warning on this IP address to send a message that this kind of behavior is not smiled upon and they were justified to place such restrictions upon this IP address in the first place. I will create my own account to enjoy Wikipedia from my individual private account. Again, Wikipedia has my most sincerest apologies.

I will post this message to both the User_talk:Zoe and User_talk:63.227.171.19 pages.

I apologise for using such aggressive language with you. I assumed I was being falsely accused of defacing your website and that the accusations against articles submitted by this IP address were made in error. I was wrong. Someone in my own household was responsible for the defacing of your website. Sadly, this individual is on their own now as of this very day, and I have no longer influence over the course of his life. He has received an earful of disappointment from me if such can be of any consolation to you.

You did the right thing by placing a "last warning" on my IP address. Bogus articles were being submitted from my IP address to Wikipedia, and although I did not personally submit the bogus articles to Wikipedia or had any knowledge regarding the dubious activities originating from my IP address, I am sorry for what happened as I am reponsible for the Internet account at this address. You have my greatest apologies that it turned out to be my IP address that was responsible for sending bogus articles to Wikipedia which damaged the integrity of your valuable, free, and worldwide resource. I will request of the legally recognized adult individual who is personally responsible, whom directly willed the defacing your online encyclopedia, that he submits a written letter of apology to WikiMedia Incorpoated.

You are doing an excellent job here at Wikipedia, and I am thankful to have donated to your cause. You have my assurances that the vandalism and any other malicious activities originating from my computer network against Wikipedia and/or any other WikiMedia projects have ceased forever.

However, there is a method to my madness, and the separate articles for churches in Hampshire County are necessary for they will be much larger upon completion. The lists will be too long to incorporate into the existing town pages and at a later date they will each have their own histories and contact information listed with them as well. Also, please do not mind my many Hampshire County stubs...they will be added to in the near future as well.

Once again, thanks. Jhohenzollern 06:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand...keep in mind I am new to editing at Wikipedia. But my larger goal was to have an article of a collection of articles about the churches...their individual histories, contact info, significant facts. While I'm not a religious person, I recognize as a local historian that these churches are very relevant to the local histories. But I guess until I can come up with the articles of articles for them I can move them to the community stubs. Would you care to share with me what a VfD is? Venereal something? ;)

Jhohenzollern 06:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also explain to me a little about your position at WikiMEdia?

I can assure you, I'm not a vandal and I understand your concern. Feel free to let me know how I'm doin' at any time and welcome back ;)

Jozef

Distantly...not the Hohenzollerns of Liechtenstein...if there are any? I'm a descendant of the Franconian line of Hohenzollerns, those that would later become the electors of Brandenburg, kings of Prussia, and ultimately emperors of Germany. I'll explain the lineage to you another time...I'm also a descendant of the Spencers. Why, oh why, did I end up in West Virginia? Jhohenzollern 06:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to know if you have watched any TV Shows that involve Omarosa. Based on the edit you've done (and the citation you pulled off), did everybody hate Omarosa for sure? How could Omarosa be a Shin Akuko (Real Villianess)? Did you watch Reality TV Stars Fear Factor? I never have watched anything involving Omarosa.

The only Reality TV Antagonists I know for sure are as follows:

• Kirsten Buschbacher
• Trish Schneider

They're both from The Bachelor with Trish Schneider being the worst villianess in the ABC Franchise.

Hello, why are you reverting my edits without discussion?

Whether Cindy Sheehan is or is not a Democrat is irrelevant. Your edit is merely inflammatory. Zoe 08:49, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

How can you say that her political party membership is irrelevant?

He protest has nothing to do with political party and everything to do with disagreement with the war. If, however, you would like to include a mention of her political party somewhere down in the body of the article, I will not delete it, but to insert it in the introduction is inappropriate. Zoe 09:01, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

"He protest has nothing to do with political party and everything to do with disagreement with the war." Are you saying that the philosophy of the Democratic Party (in particular, the anti-war stance by Howard Dean among others) and its strong tradition of political activism and political demonstrations has not influenced her?

"but to insert it in the introduction is inappropriate." Practically every article in the Wikipedia about politically active people includes their political party affiliation. Even the entry for Larry Northern contains his political party affiliation in the first sentence.

It's clear from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR that you are a returning edit warrior. I won't discuss this any more with you, I'll just block you if you do it again. Zoe 09:24, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Zoe, I really urge you to read through the Discussion's "Article Summary" section and think it through. It's a totally NPOV edit and is consistent within Wikipedia style guidelines and precedent. The failure to discuss is detrimental to the quality of Wikipedia's articles.

Hi remember me?

Who the #$%@ are you to tell me to not use a POV when you blatantly use yours?

Stop stalking my edits

--Lamrock 10:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalizing and get a life moron--Lamrock 06:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Zoe:

Since you are familiar with the website I would like to req. some mediation assistance on the multiple reverts/deletion from the website site regarding the link/subheading on Ms. Foster's ad work in Japan. If you could please check the current Talk page on J. Foster and this link [edits made by Patadybag] for background info. I feel Mr. Patadybag has made multiple reverts/deletion of pertinent relevant info which I put in a small paragraph/subheading at the end of the article. I really have tried to talk to Patadybag but he seems stubborn in making minor unfair changes which deletes interesting pertinent info. on J. Foster. I really feel I've tried to reach a compromise and be reasonable (see talk page). Any help will be appreciated. Thanks a lot. 66.248.121.159 13:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you redirect Janelle Pierzina? 66.17.116.148

Thanks to the Azerbaijani's, 'Ə' / 'ə' are now Latin letters as well as Cyrillic (and included in the editing bar of non-ASCII Latin letters on the edit page), so for Azeri locations, it's only logical to use them in the article title, just as Wikipeadia has articles on places like Østfold, Norway that use letters outside the English subset of the Latin alphabet. Caerwine 17:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I noticed you made a number of VFD nominations along the lines of "Article does not explain what makes this person notable." Are you familiar with the recently-added WP:CSD criterion #A7? Please check it out, you may find it helpful. Radiant_>|< 19:09, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

When you say "Oppose all votes," does that mean that you oppose inclusion of the disputed information in the article or that you oppose our taking a vote on the issue to begin with? --PatadyBag 20:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right if you think this survey is not very useful. I still would like any mediation comments if you have time/inclination on this Foster issue. What I'm trying to do is just include some interesting info about Foster's commercial work and provide a link. Thanx. 66.248.123.201 01:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, I'm just thinking, considering the number of awards that are presented every year, would a template for each year be more appropriate? Zoe 06:41, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Zoe, that's a great idea, but that template is just for the Awards by year categories. Because the content varies, most awards have their own specific templates, such as {{Grammy Award years}} and {{GovernorGeneralsAwards}}. -- Reinyday, 02:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

little boys shouldn't play with their big brothers' computers

Ha, ha... thank you for that, it made my night. :) Func( t, c, @, ) 03:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. :) I've finally found my purpose in life, to rid the world of that evil we know as "open proxy". :) Func( t, c, @, ) 04:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, I have now submitted a request for arbitration: User:rktect -- Egil 11:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zoe, You explained this to me a wee bit in the Castelo, Erik Joseph de Guzman VfD, but I just wanted to get it perfectly clear: What exactly is A7? From what I could figure out, it comes from its location in WP:CSD under reasons for speedy deletions: (A)rticles, no. (7), and refers to an article about a person which does not assert the person's notability, or an article which is nominated by the original author and nobody else has edited it. Is that right? Do I have the whole picture? Thanks a million in advance. --Blackcap | talk 20:55, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Let me join the throngs of people welcoming you back to the project. Personally I only started editing 14th of April 2003 so my memory of your leaving consists mainly of being impressed by the outpourings of comments by long time wikipedians.

As the real matter that spurred this comment: you might want to check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrators#Inactive and move yourself into the active list on that same page. -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 21:33, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zoe. Had to do some digging, but here: "It takes two sales a day to keep a book in the top 10,000." "A stable rank of just over 100,000 translates into total sales of about 250 books." "140 copies of a book published in 1999 gets you 300,000." "16 copies of a book published in late 2001 gets you 800,000." (All quotes from this link). Also includes tables, and an explanation of how the logarithmic rankings work. Hope this helps. Proto t c 08:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe,
Sidaway's antics are driving me crazy. I need some of my own medicine before I burst a vein in my temple.
brenneman^(t)(c) 06:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe,
Well said at AFD:Homa Sayar. Following comments by User: KissL, I am
making sure I understand policy better so that I can action my to do list.
brenneman^(t)(c) 01:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest in cases where you wish to merge several articles into a single article (Big Brother (USA TV series)), you use the standard "Template:Mergeto" tag. This centralizes the entire debate and voting process into one spot. It prevents needless repeats of the same arguement in the vfd process, and gives one point of reference for future debates. Also, it's always best to discuss controversial changes, like a contested re-direct, before implementing them unilaterally. This avoids pointless reverts. --rob 11:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Define "ghoulish vandalism". 165.230.149.164 23:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a sick joke; the water coverage in New Orleans does fluctuate from time to time. 165.230.149.164 23:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're referring to in your message to me. When did I do this? -Ethan0 04:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think I do remember now. It would have been 078-05-1120, which is mentioned in social security number. Read "SSNs invalidated by use in advertising" for its history. I don't remember precisely what I did though. Might have been a redirect to that section of the article. -Ethan0 18:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe,
I was pretty confused by that at first as well... but Mr. Happy has actually been kind enough to use the AfD talk page. ^_^
brenneman^(t)(c) 05:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not smart on the article, but can you check and make sure the version of GWB you are reverting to is the best? I might have made a mistake, but I think you're taking out content by accident. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm afraid that was me after the guy sent me a rather polite e-mail. If he's wreaking havoc again, open fire. - Lucky 6.9 06:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did a deleted page article on it after you did, but it was deleted in error later on. Feel free to recreate it if you want. The anon was a ranting lunatic on the talk page, BTW. It started as a 48-hour block but that guy just wouldn't quit. He's on permanent wiki-administrative leave.  :) - Lucky 6.9 06:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Owe ya a bunch. I've protected the talk page since he can apparently edit it despite the permanent block. Hope that was the right thing to do. - Lucky 6.9 06:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's a nice idea, but like so many nice ideas, it doesn't take much for one joker to come along and rub everyone's nose in it. Signing off...see ya soon. - Lucky 6.9 06:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have a small foolish question. Many people (including you) put in an edit summary that says "Reverted edits by 1.2.3.4 to last version by Username", and the link to the user is to their contributions page rather than to their User Page. For the life of me I can't figure out the right syntax for doing this, myself. Boojum 14:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahah! Thank you for the answer (that it's part of the admin rollback tool) - I don't feel nearly so foolish for not having found it in the list of templates.  :) Boojum 14:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After the discussion at the Cam Wilson Afd, I'd like to nip in the bud any tendancy to grant speedy candidates a "free pass" to VfD. It would be great to have your moderating influence at this discussion. ^_^
brenneman^(t)(c) 14:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're quite busy with AfD but if you have a moment could you reconsider your nom of Margaret Turnbull as I think I've proven notability. Only concerned because I'm trying to fill out pages linked from Planetary habitability. Thanks, Marskell 16:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I don't get it. If the HabCat is notable the people who created it have a legitimate claim. Video game characters make it through but academics often don't. Marskell 09:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take it personally. We were just comparing the control of content the wikipedia administration has to that of the Nazis. Yeah, it's quite a stretch to say that. That time period in history, believe me, is covered extensively in the schools now. It's something that they seem to spend years talking about. Wikipedia is far, far from being like the Nazis, of course. We're trying to tell you how we feel. And, by the way, the guy who wrote that is in his late 20's, I don't know about his perspective. Originaltrilogy.com is a huge community of extreme fans who wish to see the original trilogy on DVD in their unaltered form. Besides a petition, there are many projects going on all the time on the site. Mostly fan preservations of the OT using laserdiscs and VHS's. The site was started in 2003, and has a significant amount of people interested in thew original trilogy on DVD. A large percentage of the fan base for star wars wish for this. That is why we feel a page for the site is significant. Adamwankenobi 21:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zoe! I read your thoughts on G4 at the discussion Aaron set up. May I apologize for coming across as an obtuse, lawyerly bureaucrat with too much to say and too little reason to say it :) ? As I think back on some of the previous occasions where we've been on the same discussion, I now realize I must have seemed incredibly ponderous. I'm so sorry Zoe. Truth is, when I raise a question about a rule, I am always concerned about it purely on the question of its merits. I never write about them with an agenda, or with an intention to make things more difficult for WP policy enforcement than is already the case. Indeed, in many of my recent comments on rules like G4, for instance, the objections I've raised would "disadvantage" my own personal views where the inclusionist-deletionist spectrum is concerned (my own views are much closer to, for example, Geogre, as opposed to, for example, Kappa. Although they are identical to neither.) I take the view that if a rule is ambiguous, or if it is so impractical that in truth it is never followed, we should always try to bring attention to that and rectify it: clarity is worth all the world. This sort of thing can be momentarily tiresome (and I truly appreciate that it can be awful for those, like you, who have duties to perform and march on despite the uncertainties— and still do such a fabulous job). However, if we fix problems, and try not to create new ones, there may come a day when they are few or none. Also, I've always liked your work as a sysop, and am fond of your mettle and spunk (I'm silently cheering when you go for the loonies creating yet another ridiculous page on yet another ridiculously non-notable person). So the suggestion that I might take you to RfAr made me smile— I'm much more inclinced to give you a barnstar for plain good sense, Zoe. :) In fact, I'd love to bestow on you my own Most Eminent and Distinguished Award, but unfortunately it was specifically created for biomed contribs (and I'd have to consult the Privy Council of All Things Pompous and Important in Encephalonia to get that rule overturned). Will you accept a handshake instead, M'lady :)? —encephalon | ^ζ  06:30:55, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

How you do go on, sir! Don't I? Thanks, I think. No, no need to think, Zoe. Those are 100% genuine compliments. :) It's just very frustrating with people like Tony Sidaway... My view of what's been happening re: Tony is a bit more complicated, Zoe. I think he's a good fellow, talented at what he does, has strong views (sometimes intemperately expressed) on certain policy issues that are at odds with views held by many other equally fine contributors. A significant source of the dispute is simply that both views are compatible with how the policies are written, especially in regards the post-VfD review process, which is currently very ambiguous. I'm hoping the mediation process leads to an amicable solution.—encephalon | ^ζ  08:05:31, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

Zoe, the G4 text change discussion is drawing to a close. Aaron, Rossami, Splash, myself are ok with the proposed change. I've just asked Tony if he wouldn't mind commenting, and I certainly hope you will— you haven't commented there since announcing your marked displeasure at my ruckus-instigating activities :). We'd value your thoughts —do drop by. Latest version here, for your convenience. Regards—encephalonέγκέφαλος  16:04:43, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

They are mooting that an article should exist for every book ever written. Please don't hurt them.
brenneman^(t)(c) 08:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your vote on the GNAA FAC, User:Zscout370 replied to your concern about stability, and I spent a while studying the history of the article. As best as I can tell, he's right and you are mistaken. I was wondering if you had seen his reply, and if you were going to reply to him or revise or remove your vote. --Gmaxwell 01:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So that means that if I find some open proxies and make some silly vandalisms on every article I dislike when they go up for FAC, that you'll come around and oppose them? ... and that there is no action the editors of the article can take to remove your oppose, since they can't prevent such vandalism? Cool! --Gmaxwell 04:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Except it isn't at all the case that the article in question has been vandalized two to four times a day since its creation. I spent a good 15 minutes walking through the history and if you exclude today and the times it's been up at VFD the rate of vandalism has been fairly low and fairly typical for a Wikipedia article, less then some of our more frequently vandalized articles. If you review the FAC criteria and the past discussions what you'll find is that pure vandalism is not a valid criteria for judging an article unstable. The intent of the stability requirement is to ensure that the article is free of edit wars. This basis fits in line with all of the other FAC criteria, because it is actionable, whereas your assumed rule of stability against vandalism does not fit because it is not actionable. In short, if you are opposing because of vandalism you need to be specific in your oppose vote because stability implies something else, and non-actionable opposition will not be considered in the final decision. --Gmaxwell 04:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

==Stop Your Threats and Listen== Either my computer or my Internet service has been malfunctioning. I haven't even been doing anything incorrectly. Go to Moriori's user talk page for an explanation. As for your accusations that I am a vandal, that not only violates the assume good faith policy, it is libel. I am the wrong man to bully and bluster in this way as you will learn in arbitration. You crossed a line against me on several levels and I will request every possible punitive measure against your libel and threats on the highest level of arbitration. Felix Frederick Bruyns 06:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah! What he said!! You're out of control!!! ^_^
  brenneman^(t)(c) 23:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

23:27, September 5, 2005 Zoe blocked "User:219.133.65.40" with an expiry time of 1 year (spamming)

It is very unusual to block an IP for more than a day, since many IPs are dynamic and get used by other people. Is there something special about this IP? Dragons flight 06:37, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

What else do you expect from a renegade 'shoot first, ask later' "ADMIN". Obscene, disgusting, sickening, wrong, corrupt, shameful but predictable from this 'user' A very long history of POV abuse of admin powers. --66.137.110.49 17:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I got cleared. Thanks. I forgot I sent the email to you; I'm sorry for not sending another when things got straightened out. Joyous (talk) 11:05, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Zoe,
I've been looking over old AfDs and I see a lot of clear deletes (e.g. to Tony Sidaway's standard). If I did the legwork (checking histories, etc.) and the paperwork (closing the AfD) would you be interested in doing the dirty work (hitting the "kill kill destroy" button)? I could post a link to the article here, you zap it. What do you think?
brenneman^(t)(c) 04:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, but you do know how to send an unworthy article into oblivion! How about this one: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Technics pr804. No keeps, three votes plus nom. I've closed the AfD already, you just delete the page: Technics pr804. See the beauty of this plan?
brenneman^(t)(c) 05:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And it's red. ^_^ Thanks for that, see what people can accomplish when they work together. Thanks for the offer to nominate me as well, but I'll pass. I'm not sure at this stage that I could be trusted to use my powers for good instead of evil. Plus as I've only been signed in for two months, I'd vote "maybe later" anyway.
brenneman^(t)(c) 03:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for pointing that out. I have fixed it all up from my problem... just a stupid mistake. gren グレン 19:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it infamy!. Sorry, this leapt into my mind on seeing your nomination. --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be taking part in a building an encyclopedia that contains an article like Ron and Fez. - brenneman^(t)(c) 06:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree to delete anybody's comment, not even personal attacks. But I believe everyone would be most happy if you give her/him a hand when she/he's facing personal attacks. :-D — Instantnood 06:42, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Frankly I cannot agree. The better way IMHO would be keeping the comments with personal attacks displayed, and bringing it to a sysop. Serious personal attacks can lead to administrator actions such as warning, blocking, and arbitration. — Instantnood 19:24, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Cool. I didn't know that. :-P IMO it's better to take action against such behaviour, say, RFC, rather than help these people clean their records. — Instantnood 19:31, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, you appear to have little tolerance for what you deem as "personal attacks", yet you do no seem to find it an issue to make condescending remarks on others as well as their city/country. Before you think it neccesary to remind others on wikipolicies, you might wish to reconsider the difference between someone rejecting your comments in a content dispute and someone directly making an attack on your personality.

And I am curious. Why do you drop such a message in Instantnood's talk page?--Huaiwei 10:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you put the admin nomination for Nandesuka in the wrong place on WP:RFA, so I have moved it to the correct place for you. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zoe, thanks for the support on my RfA. It hasn't quite finished yet, so I'll do proper thank-yous later, but I thought I'd drop by here to let you know that you've voted twice...at #63 and #76! -Splash 20:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please click the above. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing that would change my mind about blocking him. Zoe 05:02, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I don't blame you. I just thought you'd like to see. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Katherine Beck you said that Katherine Beck was a contributor to The New Yorker. Did you see her in it, or have any source, or was your statement based on the article? I'm trying verify the facts of the article, since so far, no facts are verified, and some are largely disproven, as I explain at Talk:Katherine Beck. If I'm mistaken, I'm happy to be corrected. --rob 02:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since you indicated you based your vote on the article, which now appears to be fake, I thought you would be changing your vote. I am a little confused as to why you're voting to delete famous real(ity) people but standing by a vote to keep an apparently unreal person. --rob 23:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zoe,

What particular policy does this apply to? I couldn't find it at WP:NOT. (the single in question is already out... is there a point at which its valid on wikipedia?)

thanks (you can speedy it if you want its a stub anyway) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 05:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you seem to dislike new members, but I've been using Wikipedia for ages, and have contributed anonymously before now. I decided if I was going to be adding information about projects I started, it would be best if there was some background user there to know where it came from. I am not trying to be vain, I did not know that making a page about myself was considered as such as there are many others that I was mimicing to maintain some form of consistancy in the database. I added information about my Aeon of Darkness project because I believe it is useful information that users might want. Just because I am a new member does not mean what I have done is worthless. Please refrain from trying to delete and ban new users and their posts merely because you have a long history (I'm not actually sure of your reasons, so I'm making a huge leap here). Instead, go into the information and look up the background on it. I have not said that my project is the best in existance (although similar wikipedia articles have suggested that for their projects), nor have I provided useless information. Instead, I have contributed a discreet amount of information for those who might be interested and are looking for more information on the subject. This is an open encyclopedia, and that's what makes it so great. It has the power to have information about anything useful. Please don't resort to censoring simply because you do not agree with something.

If I have made any assumptions about your motive in error, please make a larger effort to inform me about the aforementioned subject, as I am insulted by your quick dismissal of my works and effortless "sentences" to support them.

Thank you for the links of criteria, as I am a new user, I had not stumbled upon these yet. This is why I said, "I was not aware that was considered vain."

However, I must point out that this only frowns upon the page that you already took care of, and not the pages giving information about the Aeon of Darkness MUD. Are there other criteria pages I am not aware of?

The criteria for inclusion notes a 'google' test, search for aeon of darkness and see what you think. Although this is still talking about biographies and should not be applied to other such information.

However, on the 'importance' page, wikipedia notes two tests:

• There is clear proof that a reasonable number of people are or were concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a large municipality).
• It is an expansion (of reasonable length, not a stub) upon an established subject.

Firstly, the two articles are an expansion on the subject of MUDs, Realms of Despair, and the SMAUG codebase. Secondly, there is clear proof that a large number of people are interested - by a google search, or by visitng the website and looking at how many players there are (several thousand).

I saw you speedily deleted ParisCum.jpg. Just a gentle reminder, but, as far as I'm aware, pornography is not a criteria for speedy deletion. I'm not sure that this image should have stayed on Wikipedia, but next time you may want to put it on images for deletion. Thanks. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 06:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It never fails to amaze me how people feel the need to lecture me as if I have no idea what is going on around here. I deleted the porn image becuase it was being used for vandalism. Just as I would do for a vandal's article which was an attack page. I will delete every image that is used for vandalism and vanity, and I will continue to do so. Zoe 06:54, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

There is a reason that the penis images remain on Wikipedia. Just because they are frequently used to vandalise, that is not their sole purpose. Also, I wasn't trying to imply you didn't know what you were doing, but I wanted to gently mention it so I didn't come off as trying to tell you what to do. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 07:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I also created Category:BEV_FAQ and Catagory:BEV?? (CatAgory:BEV???). Might want to remove them aswell... Any suggestions for places to build such a FAQ? User_talk:D0li0#BEV_FAQ

I notice your comments at two AfDs

• In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SEPTA Route 2, you wrote:
  • "Transwiki to Wikitravel and delete. Only bus terminals and bus routes in Singapore are required to be kept." [2]
• In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilydale Baptist Church, you wrote
  • "Delete, nn church. Apparently only nn churches in Singapore are required to be kept." [3]

In AfD, Singapore-related articles are subjected to the same process. I cannot understand why you make these comments, especially since you are an admin. --Vsion 07:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you feel frustrated by those AfD discussion. Actually, there are quite a number of Singaporeans voting Deletes in Singapore-related articles (I can point them out to you if you want, but it would take some time), so there are varying opinions among Singaporeans also and they are respected. Regarding the "anti-Singapore bias" you mentioned; honestly I don't know the details of that discussion but it could be a misunderstanding. Someone else raised the point about Countering systemic bias which I think is valid. As for the bus-terminal, I also do feel that some are wrongly equating bus-terminals to bus-stops, and lack the local context to understand the difference. In any case, AfD outcomes are based on consensus, and everyone should respect that. --Vsion 07:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Assume good faith. :) - Mailer Diablo 19:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you had to some concern over another user's creation of church pages separate from their community articles...would you be a doll and delete those articles since I'm not sure how to...I've taken the liberty of merging the articles. Thanks. Caponer 01:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know I could do that ;) Also, would you happen to know how to add the map-it links to communities with all of the different maps? Caponer 04:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe, message for you at WP:AN/I. [4] Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:20, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Could you supply diffs, please? See AN/I again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:43, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

You said he'd done it four times, but you supplied only one link, and I've looked through his contribs and can't see the other times, so I'd appreciate it if you'd supply diffs. The whole point of posting about a block on WP:AN/I is to get input from other admins, and so this is the input. I'd really appreciate seeing some diffs. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:51, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Zoe,
I'm now going to have to resist using all sorts of pet names for you, I've never been blocked before! Here, this should buy me a 30 second block at least: Cheeky Monkey. Pumpkin. Sweetums. Kitten. Napalm Girl.
I do admire you're gung-ho spirit, I must admit. Sadly, I think Radman may have gotten the better of you here, but man he's irritating, isn't he? Remember though, "Don't feed the tr... um, guys who'll give you a pet name just to make you mad." I reckon you're in for heaps of shit from your fellow admins, but try not to crush their spines, ok?
Always Yours,
brenneman^(t)(c) 07:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see Yosemite Sam's moustache in that pic... Tomer ^TALK 07:17, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

One question I don't have an answer for is what should you have done? Low-level needling of this sort can drive even the calmest to neck-biting fury. All I can say is that I sympathise fully, but worry for the longer-term impacts. If this goes all "poor little guy, blocked out in the rain," then behavior like that will be harder to control in the future. Why can't admins give a shock to the testicles of people who are uncivil?
brenneman^(t)(c) 07:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone who's uncivil has testicles, it seems. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:33, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

And the cost of all the wiring for the thousands of users who DO have testicles would require a whole 'nother donation drive. Fernando Rizo T/C 07:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you, who cares about the ones with testicles? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:43, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very kindly for your support for my nomination. I promise your trust will not be misplaced; I may occasionally be slightly buzzed with power, but never drunk. ;) · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:23, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, you're absolutely right about that, the professor thing is intriging. I sorta think we should soften the lying part for the moment if it is limited to that issue so the tone of the newsblub is not taken as a POV swipe at the guy. It certainly belongs in a longer article.

What is your opinion on whether and when the Los Angeles story needs to go down to one or two sentences. It was prepared as a breaking story to alert folks in case this was related to the threats over the weekend. Kyle Andrew Brown 23:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chileno de Corazon 00:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm pissing off. 144.53.251.2 05:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

replace message from User:Aaron_Brenneman aka User:144.53.251.2. I guess Aaron got fed up with the keep at all costs crowd. I can't say I blame him, I can relate to his problem of being branded a deletionist for disagreeing with their POV's. From what I saw they usually miss the point of any discussion completely (possibly with intent) and behave like bulls in a china shop. David D. (Talk) 05:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was stupid. Of course I had to be logged in. And sorry I was short in the message I left before. But, seriously, this can all get stuffed. It's supposed to be fun, you know? Tony I can handle, he's narky but rarely venomous. Heck, I can handle N75, he's a jerk, big deal. But getting zero support? Being told I'm the problem? Forget that. I'll go play frisbee or something, it's probably healthier. I've replaced all the speedy delete tags.
brenneman^(t)(c) 05:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe - I'm giving you this wikipic to mediate on because you always seem so very stressed about something. The work you do around here is appreciated. Now take a breath and relax :) →Raul654 08:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zoe, replied over there. --Blackcap | talk 06:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have permission from Dr. Godlas, the original writer to post this to Wikipedia. I can forward the email if you wish.

I am asking past editors of the Karl Rove page to weigh in on a survey. If you can spare a couple of minutes, please visit this page: Talk:Karl Rove/September Survey, read the introduction, and answer the three questions that have been posed. Thank you. paul klenk 09:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]