User talk:Zoe/Archive December 27th 2007.

/Archive December 27th 2007

Please don't leave

Please don't leave, Zoe. I'm very saddened by what happened in the last few days, but it can blow over. We've never edited the same articles, and would probably disagree on a lot, but I've always seen you as someone who cared a lot about Wikipedia and who was good for the project. I am quite sure that Jimbo would not want his hasty words to lead to any permanent hurt, and it's quite obvious from looking at his contributions that he was preoccupied with real life matters for a few days after his phonecall with Mr Pierce, which would explain why no notification of that phonecall was given to the community. It's also clear that his post on WP:AN/I was written hastily, as he had been away from Wikipedia for a few days before, and didn't post anything immediately after, so it's very likely that he forced himself to find time to make a post in order to close the matter immediately, but didn't take the time word it in such a way as to take into account that you were trying to protect Wikipedia and that you didn't know it had been resolved. His own words on his talk page two days later indicate that he did not have any wish to hurt you. Please, Zoe, don't let this lead to a permanent break with Wikipedia. You are highly valued here. Musical Linguist 17:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Newyorkbrad 17:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

A.) Thanks for archiving this talkpage!...I was tiring of seeing all the upset anons who were trolling your talkpage after you deleted their worthless articles. B.) If you leave, this will make MONGO unhappy...It's not good to make MONGO unhappy. So, take a break, heal yourself and come back to us...we need you!--MONGO 17:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Zoe, I just heard that you might be leaving. Please don't. You're a great editor and admin, liked and respected, and we need more of you, not less. Rest up for a few days by all means, but please bounce back. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Zoe, please allow me to add my voice to the chorus of your supporters here. I think it is grossly unfair that you are publically chided and made to wear the hairshirt, while others pat themselves on the back for going after Colbert and his viewers for doing basically the same thing. So please rest, have a break but by all means return and don't let the man get you down.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 01:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• DON'T LEAVE! __earth ^(Talk) 08:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't leave, a vandal hunter is always welcom.--86.29.246.1 02:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope you will return soon.--86.25.51.78 01:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I would personally like to thank you for leaving. You are the exact type of thing that is giving Wikipedia editors a bad name. Your insensitive attacks on Professor Pierce of NIU were the result of no illegal action on his part and indicative of some type of vendetta you seem to have with anyone who would disturb your preconceived notion of your peaceful wiki. There will always be vandals, and your devotion to keeping the articles as relevant, appropriate and accurate as possible is laudable. However, attempting to get a man fired from his job on ethical grounds (which I have no doubt you were attempting to do; an attempt to contact authorities above the subject has no place but in an attempt to somehow discipline that subject in a way that you can't) is nothing short of sophomoric and juvenile. Wikipedia needs editors who won't act like High School Freshmen on a hissy fit. Best of luck in your future endeavors. KTHXBYE 132.177.46.83 16:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

A few words

Zoe, the recent thread at WP:AN didn't go very well and I understand how frustrating it is to post there with a request for feedback and get a lot of hot or off-target replies. Threads occasionally take that shape (although they shouldn't) and it isn't pleasant to find oneself on the hot seat instead of getting thoughtful advice.

So I'll offer my best retrospective:

1. Vandal-fighting is a good thing. Wikipedia needs it. Thanks for doing it.
2. A good vandal fighter earns the wrath of trolls who gleefully exploit the chance to kick the vandal fighter when he or she is down. We've got thick hides or we wouldn't be sysops so we both know meaningless those attempts are.
3. Things would have gone better at WP:AN if you'd asked for feedback before sending off the message where you considered taking matters to the press.
4. If Jimbo hadn't stepped in, maybe a call to the student newspaper would have been in order if the problem happened two semesters in a row. I doubt the broader media would have taken an interest in the story.
5. Quite a few people stood up for you at the thread on Jimbo's talk page and he softened his statement. It would be a gesture of good faith if you made a reciprocal overture.

You're an asset to Wikipedia. Don't let a few brief fireworks get in the way of that. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 18:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

A few more words

Zoe, you are clearly (1) a dedicated volunteer, who (2) is intelligent and capable of making worthwhile contributions to the wikipedia. It must feel good to have people you have worked with before, return to encourage you, and offer their good wishes.

I agree with them, it would not be admirable for critics to come to your talk page, hide behind anonymity to leave cheap shots.

I have a few comments to offer you.

Zoe, I am going to remind you that everyone makes mistakes. I am going to suggest that the wikipedia will be a more civil, more collegial community if wikipedia community members all do their best to be open-minded when considering the possibility they made mistakes, and if we all do our best to openly acknowledge we have recognized we made a mistake. It builds trust, and makes it easier for our correspondents to assume good faith when we are obviously showing good faith.

From my perspective, your interactions with me have been marked by a lack of any sign that you were willing, or able to engage in civil dialogue, or consider the possibility that you may have made a mistake.

In my opinion, those entrusted with administrator privileges should not see this as freeing them from the obligations to try their best to be civil, and assume good faith. Rather, I think administrators should do their best to present an example of civility to others.

In my opinion if an administrator does not feel they have the time, or energy, or some other necessary resource, to be civil to those who have civil questions, about their exercise of authority, then they should take a tea break, or a wikibreak, and allow another administrator, who does have the resources to exercise their authority in a civil manner, to take care of whatever problem they have come across.

My comments may upset some of your friends. But I've done my best to be civil here. If you are planning to take a wikibreak I think this is the best time to encourage you to reconsider how much effort you devote to civility.

Candidly — Geo Swan 00:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Geo, there's a lesson for all of us here: when a thread gets "hot" and a certain percentage of responses are off target it becomes very difficult for the person who asked for advice to interpret and respond to it appropriately. If there's something valuable in a statement that begins on false premises, the premises get in the way of the good advice. Then later brief opinions that don't specifically address the earlier misunderstanding become difficult to interpret. No matter how conscientious the original poster is, that person reads those replies wondering Does this relate to what I actually did or is it tainted by false assumptions too? When I see that dynamic on a thread I don't hold the original poster so responsible for accepting and responding to feedback as I would expect after a calm and reasoned discussion. I like to see an attempt. We should also make allowances for how difficult that is. Durova^Charge! 00:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What they said.

Seriously. Come back. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly seconded. —xyzzy_n 19:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Zoe, how can I suggest that a page be locked because of vandalism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rameelraymundo (talk • contribs).

I've answered this. Tyrenius 03:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Come on back

I only ran into a couple of your edits and you visited my talk page once and you were friendly. Take a break, relax a bit then come back.--John Lake 06:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur with all of the above. Wikibreaks are good; excellent editors leaving is not. Eluchil404 16:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Admins are needed - And the community believes you are a good one

Zoe. Despite this complaint by me about your actions, as per the discussion there the support for you was overwhelming. Nevertheless, your own reversion [1] and comment of "leave my user page alone" (paraphrased) is rather sad against your own actions here. My comments 2 weeks ago would have seemed to be accurate. Take a break!

Your are so clearly valued that a respite from your work here is obviously needed, and I have only ever commented on your actions out of concern for the project. I sincerely look forward to welcoming you back when your atitude has refreshed and your vigour in defence of this project is renewed! Pedro1999a |  Talk  20:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Apology

Zoe, I wanted to apologize for creating crap that you had to clean up and for anything else i have done. Geo. 01:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I Want To Be Sure

I've recently noticed this: [2] and want to make sure that I am not involved in this. If I am, I haven't been notified so I am unaware. There was a slipup last time something like this happened so I just want to make double sure. -WarthogDemon 04:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Zoe, I've gone ahead and answered WarthogDemon's question. Sarah 05:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:Films Newsletter

The January 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Nehrams2020 06:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Support

I'm just leaving a few words to say, for what it's worth, that I supported you during the Pierce thing, and I continue to. I think you did a good job, and so do plenty others. But, more than that, you're a fantastic admin, a brillient editor, and a wonderful person. If you decide to come back you can bet we'll all be wearing smiles this big; :), but if you don't good luck to you in whatever you undertake next. Thε Halo ^Θ 00:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Abet Required

I want to know how to add contents to any page. How can I do it? I need abet. Ralphmagic

You've earned it

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Your efforts to protect Wikipedia and its editors is deeply appreciated.--MONGO 05:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A message from Crustaceanguy

Zoe, I'm sorry for any trouble I had caused you. I believe you are a reasonable and fair administrator, and Wikipedia needs you.--Crustaceanguy 21:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Your hard work here is much appreciated. It is very unfortunate that in what appears to be moral panic, you are the target of such harsh overreactive words by someone who is generally unaware of what is going on in the community - I'm pretty sure I can relate to that situation. I hope you come back some day, Wikipedia would be the poorer without you. >Radiant< 11:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly second Radiant's post. There are few people who I have disagreed with so much and yet thoroughly enjoyed working with as you, Zoe, and the rebuke you received was most unfair. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope you will be back sooner rather than later

Zoe, you deserve the respect and good faith of the community, and by and large, you already have exactly that. I'm troubled by how this played out, but we still need good admins; we still need you. I hope to see you back in action soon. — coelacan talk — 09:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Year old message

Hello, it seems I just received a message from you. I think it was delivered to my IP, which is dynamic. The message said that I would be blocked from editing Wikipedia if I vandalized another page. As much as I agree very strongly on a policy of control and moderation, and I have a deep respect for those who employ their time and efforts for a work of such magnitude, I have to state that, as of my knowledge, I have never vandalized any pages, actually -- through my accounts on the Italian and Esperanto version of wikipedia -- I have started and/or improved pages; one of the pages I have started has reached a Star award. Unfortunately I do not have any control over what other users do when they connect to the internet through this address. I hope that by an eventual ban of the address itself I would still be allowed to modify and revise pages when logged with an username. In conclusion I hope I haven't bothered anyone with these lines. I felt like stating in a polite and open way what I was thinking. Feel free to delete them. My user name on IT and EO wikipedia is Mnl; my ip-address (as of now) is 82.48.225.175. Thank you for your attention.

That was a year old warning - I've said more about it here. NoSeptember 21:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hope you will return

I'm sorry to see your leaving message - I do hope you will change your mind and return. Wikipedia needs passionate admins. Bwithh 22:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Add another wellwisher to the list. Vandal fighting admins tend to be quick tempered and low of WP:AGF but in my observation of your work, you seem to rise above the muck and have clearly been one of Wikipedia's best. I would encourage you to reconsider and return after a sufficient break. The community needs shinning examples like you to be a role model of how an admin should be. 205.157.110.11 23:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia without Zoe

is like an egg without salt. Not really even worth it. Carptrash 08:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I haven't said anything up to this point, but I need to pile on... This is our greatest loss as a project. More than RickK. More than Radiant when he skipped out for a few. Just... damnit. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a big loss. I'm still hopeful she'll change her mind. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Zoe once took a two-year wikibreak. I hope this doesn't last that long, but I hope what brought her back the first time brings her back again. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to say the same. Yuser31415 23:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

She took a two year wiki-break? Wow. Did the encyclopedia collapse in that time? I'd be very happy to see her back, but "greatest loss as a project"? I've just been commenting on another page how there are millions of edits a day to Wikipedia, and how even the most prolific editors are merely drops in the ocean (prolific admins are another story). I think we sometimes forget that Wikipedia is so large and so diverse, that one or two people dropping out, or leaving, here or there, doesn't actually make a big difference. You'd probably have to get several tens of the most active people leaving to really see a difference, and even then, some of the slack would be taken up by others anyway. I've often thought we should all take the view that if, for whatever reason, we personally stopped editing Wikipedia tomorrow, the project wouldn't collapse without us. If the contributions we have made are rigorous enough and backed up with reliable and enduring references, then those contributions should stand the test of time. That is the dispassionate view, but as a person, I'm always sad to see anyone who is really engaged with Wikipedia, and enjoying being here, feeling they have to leave. That is always sad. Carcharoth 00:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, she wasn't just an editor (I think very good editors are not that common) - she was primarily a very productive admin. There are only about 814 active admins on English Wikipedia[3] at this time to deal with 43,000+ active (5+ edits a month) Wikipedians (presumably not counting anon IPs) and ~4,500 very active Wikipedians (100+ edits a month) [4] Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 07:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

User Evading Block permitted by Admin

Hi,

I have just reported an abusive confirmed sockpuppet user Sarvagnya who has been let off the hook previously. He has also used both sockpuppet accounts Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti in a vote fraud here. It looks like there is favoritism going on towards this user here. Note: This user started harassing me after ARYAN818 was blocked. It seems that the Hindu Wikipedia editors are trying to take revenge against me. If you could look into this I would appreciate it. Regards. Wiki Raja 05:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, it's very sad, but Zoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has left Wikipedia a little while ago :(. Yuser31415 23:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Your kookaburra

Zoe, I love your kookaburra...so much I sent it to an ex-girlfriend.Proabivouac 08:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

hey

this is user sf49rox. i just logged onto my account and i was blocked? could this have been because i was at the local library (where i am now) using the account? can you please unblock me? thanks 71.62.10.130 16:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

w00t

"I can find reliable sources that my house exists, but nobody is going to want to write an article about it."

This is an awesome quote from this user ^_^

And Now You Have Left . . .

I must say, this sucks.  :/ -WarthogDemon 07:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February Newsletter

The February 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 talk 00:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to GeoSwan

It came across to me as if you were asking us not to refer to any of them as vandals. I realise that's not the case, all you're saying is that most of them are vandals but not all of them. I know I've seen you around, though I don't remember where, and I haven't checked your contrib history but I don't remember your edits being bad, so perhaps you were collateral damage. But that doesn't change the fact that we appreciate the vandal fighting that Zoe did. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

RE:Edit war on Bharatanatyam

Hi,

It has been a while we have chatted since the user:ARYAN818 scene. I was wondering if you could take a look at this report here. We have had a few users blanking parts of the article and messing with the citations properly quoted. Your input would be much appreciated. Regards. Wiki Raja 22:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Actors and Filmakers

Hey see my proposals at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Actor and Filmmakers and the main WP Film and Biography talk page. Know anybody who is interested? Actors and all film people articles need a body on wikipedia to upkeep them asthey need more focus -it would be a part of Biogrpahy and Film. If you are interested or know somebody who would be, please let them know and whether you think it is a good progession for the project or not. Please leave your views at the council or biogrpahy main talk page. THanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 14:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

still miss you

And the trolls still miss you too.[5] =) I hope everything is going well for you IRL. I understand why you left and I don't blame you. But if you ever come around these parts again, I would really like to welcome you back. — coelacan — 18:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Me too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

March WP:FILMS Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by Cbrown1023 talk 01:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination

A new WikiProject has been created, in part to head off potential difficulties like the situation you faced. Your participation would be very welcome if you return to Wikipedia. Warmly, Durova^Charge! 19:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Ananthabhadram/archive1

Can you take a look at the article Ananthabhadram put out for a peer review? Aditya Kabir 17:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Block review

Zoe, would you be willing to review User:Friday's indefinite block of Lewis ? See User talk:Loomis51#Editing others' comments for the discussion. At the very least the block seems to be excessive, and Friday has a history of using blocks against those with which he disagrees over Ref Desk issues, while ignoring serious transgressions of those on his side of the issues. StuRat 20:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Still missing you

I still haven't given up hope that one of these days, the magical Z will pop up at my watchlist again. We'll always be waiting for you, Z girl. Please take good care, and hurry back - I miss you <:( Love, Phaedriel 03:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

April 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The April 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by BrownBot 22:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You Need a Smile

Chris has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Save an egg, crack a smile. :)

^{I agree!}--86.25.49.91 04:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

May 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The May 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated notice by BrownBot 22:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:MaeWest.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:MaeWest.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Anrie 13:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Minneapolis

		The Original Barnstar
		To Zoe, on the occasion of Minneapolis, Minnesota reaching featured article. -Susanlesch 21:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Order of the Torch deletion

Hey Zoe,

I was wondering why my post for "Order of the Torch" had been deleted...it said something about Vanity, and i was trying to find a reason for that but i failed to do so...

please explain...

thanks -—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdhaw001 (talk • contribs) 11:40, July 2, 2007

Stay and prove Jimbo wrong, don't leave and prove him right!

I borrow these words from Lsi john.

My friend, we've never met. And perhaps never will.

I know nothing of your editing, nor you of mine.

However, I will leave you to consider these words:

Thomas Edison failed 1000 times before he successfully invented the light bulb.

But, he didn't see it that way. What he said was: "I found 1000 ways not to make a lightbulb before I found 1 way to make one".

Running away won't solve the problem.

Stay and prove Jimbo wrong, don't leave and prove him right!

I almost left because of a failed RfA, and that's my point. Being a Wikipedian, you have to experience the dark side of it eventually. It's a tough experience, but It got through it. If I got through it, you probably can too. I also have a second point. Jimbo isn't the smartest person on Earth. He may me the co-founder of Wikimedia, but that doesn't make him the smartest person ever. He must think he is. Please come back. If you were to leave, we'd lose a great editor. I will urge you to reconsider, but it's your call! See ya around (maybe). JONJONBT talk•homemade userboxes 04:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

PS Jimbo, you can block me if you want, I was just speaking my thoughts. Zoe is a good editor! Why did you make her want to quit?

Non-free use disputed for Image:JoanCrawford.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:JoanCrawford.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 03:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are you telling him this after he's been gone for so long? Cheers,JetLover 00:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

And still missing you

Seven months without you, and I still miss you like the first day, Z girl. I hope you read this, and know that you're not forgotten, but sorely, deeply missed. May this find you well, and I cross fingers that every day that passes is one day less until you return here, where you proudly belong. Love, Phaedriel 19:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:ElbridgeGerry.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:ElbridgeGerry.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 07:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Calliopejen1 07:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:JEdgarHoover.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:JEdgarHoover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you! Calliopejen1 00:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)