User talk:Zoeydahling

Image Use

Zoeydahling, is it really you? Any word on those images? Can we use 'em? --JayHenry 18:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Surely it's not that surprising that I have lonelygirl15 on my watchlist? I saw your edit to the article and came to say hello! --JayHenry 21:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Jessica Lee Rose rating

I've moved Jessica Lee Rose back to C class, full explanation has been provided.--Otterathome (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

Wikiproject Biography Peer Review is almost dead. The GA page meant WP:PR. Hekerui (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You can list it in PR, the Wikiproject is likely of little/no help, you can't list an article for both PR and GA at the same time though. Perhaps you should work on the article some more before listing it on PR, that's for more developed work (I just say that without having read the article in detail, so no offense). Simply use an existing GA/FA article as a blueprint. You can also check WP:BETTER. Regards Hekerui (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you need to. Besides, the PR is already there. Hekerui (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

For the details how this works look at what is written on Wikipedia:Peer review, it's pretty detailed, or ask an administrator - they will gladly help you out with such procedural questions. Hekerui (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: WQA - stale

Sure. The stale tag is to note that there have been no additional comments for a couple of or few days - this covers a broad number of possibilities (eg; nothing else can be done at this time, nobody is willing to deal with the issues raised at this time, everyone has moved past the issue for now, etc. etc. etc.) It is pretty difficult to demonstrate that an editor is engaging in complex conduct issues (like tendentious editing or gaming the system) at a venue like WQA. The best way to highlight problems of that nature (if they exist) is through RfC - article RfC to demonstrate how conduct is interfering with content issues, or WP:RfC/U which focusses on editor conduct and may be a useful avenue for you to try. If those steps also fail, or the conduct is becoming a serious problem, then the only alternative left is to request administrator intervention (ANI), or sometimes you may need to go further than that and request intervention from ArbCom in order to resolve the dispute - see also the later steps in dispute resolution. Does that help you? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You were advised above to file at RFC/U. You then unwisely unarchived something at ANI. It has been removed. Please take the issue to RFC/U as explained above and in ANI. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Monkey News Source

Didn't see that one coming.</sarcasm>--Otterathome (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep this up and I'll just create a separate account to tag articles.--Otterathome (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this yet another accusation of wikistalking for a user? After the ANI proved that User:Mathieas wasn't one, you really think it's a good idea to accuse another user of being one? Once again, I am obviously interested in web series, it is therefore not surprising that I would have related articles on my Watchlist. Please WP:AGF. --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You just edited an article you've never edited before straight after I did, that's stalking. The fact you had to revert yourself just enforces the fact.--Otterathome (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, no, not really. From WP:HOUND:

"Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles."

If someone is concerned that you're disrupting the encyclopedia, keeping an eye on your contributions is entirely accepted. "The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes because we need more users watching my edits after posts on WP:WQA and WP:ANI on my edits have been there for weeks.--Otterathome (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Community ban proposal

Can you please move your comment to the section above? Only uninvolved editors should be discussing this. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Zoeydahling. You have new messages at SarekOfVulcan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

TJCruft

See Talk:LG15:_The_Resistance, its back. --Milowent (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Marnette Patterson Official Site

I have been in contact with Marnette Patterson and she has told me that she, along with her staff will control the page, that means thats an authorized page. You can now add the link to the page Marnette Patterson. We will try to upload a video as soon as possible to prove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MHalliwell (talk • contribs)

Ok, i will tell Marne to make the video, and as soon as possible i will let you know, and you will put the links and protect the page from vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MHalliwell (talk • contribs)

There were lot of MySpace's pages on Marne's Wikipedia, claiming to be official, she doesnt not have an official MySpace page.MHalliwell (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance tags

Can you stop removing maintenance tags on articles without even attempting address the reason why they were placed. And not mentioning it in the edit summary makes it look like you are being deceptive.--Otterathome (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, you're going to have to be more specific because I have no idea what you are talking about. But as far as edit summaries are concerned, Help:Edit summary says that it is "good practice" to add edit summaries, but it is not required so saying that I am being "deceptive" by not adding one is pretty absurd. --Zoeydahling (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

On Melanie Merkosky and multiple times on Tubefilter.--Otterathome (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Merkosky was a nine-day-old edit when you posted above, and she did mention it in the edit summary.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What tags did I remove on either of those articles without discussing it either on the edit summary or the talk page? If you're going to accuse me of something, I'd appreciate if you would WP:PROVEIT. --Zoeydahling (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Otter, might help if she had actually removed the tag you're accusing her of removing. Take another look at the history, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

hey everyone, is this where the party is today? Its Otter's turn to buy a round. --Milowent (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What page is being referenced? Billbowery (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No idea, that information still hasn't been provided. --Zoeydahling (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Far as I can tell, this is the diff he's complaining about.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Lol, that diff makes me look very guilty, doesn't it? --Zoeydahling (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yea, seems like the truth is really being stretched (i.e. totally misrepresented) here! Billbowery (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Essay

• Any interest in helping to create an essay on "Masking the existence of notability"? Would be a good alternate view to Wikipedia:Masking the lack of notability A huge discussion going on in ANI today (search for "miami" and you'll find it there) made me think about this--Milowent (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback Billbowery

Hello, Zoeydahling. You have new messages at Billbowery's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Billbowery Billbowery (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Just made some notes and responded to you on my talk page :) Billbowery (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

2nd maintenance tag removal

This is your second warning for removing maintenance tags without an explanation or attempting to address the problem on Tubefilter, please stop, it is disruptive. If you are unsure what the maintenance tags mean, be sure to read the talk page where you can ask for further help.--Otterathome (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you are not an admin, you do not get to give me "warnings".

Second of all, you might have noticed the above section where you accused me of such where you still have been unable to provide diffs to back up your claim.

Third of all, the changes were dicussed on the talk page so you have no business reverting them until you can prove they belong to the satisfaction of a consensus of editors.

So cut it out. Please :) --Zoeydahling (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't need any special status to give warnings, I haven't replied above as it appears you've gotten in to a discussion about it with other users. I didn't revert all changes. If you provide an explanation on the talk page, it is important to mention that in the edit summary instead of trying to squash reasons in to the edit summary box. I look forward to discussions with you on the talk page.--Otterathome (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

All the other editors have said is that no one can find any instances of the thing you are accusing me of, so if you have proof of such, by all means, please provide it. --Zoeydahling (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course, [1][2]. Anything else?--Otterathome (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, what you're accusing me of is removing templates without discussing it in the edit summary. What you just linked to were two diffs where I removed templates and discussed it in the edit summary. --Zoeydahling (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

1. "a simple google news search will show that she is notable. this article is just a stub, which means it needs expanding. that's all."
2. "i disagree, i think the "synthesis" here is totally within reasonable bounds (its not saying source X says this about source Z). if you want to get a third-party editor involved to voice her opinion though, i'm open to it."

I don't see any mention of the removal of any templates in those edit summaries. Just want to make this clear, more appropriate edit summaries would be:

1. "a simple google news search will show that she is notable. this article is just a stub, which means it needs expanding. that's all. so removed notability template"
2. "i disagree, i think the "synthesis" here is totally within reasonable bounds (its not saying source X says this about source Z). if you want to get a third-party editor involved to voice her opinion though, i'm open to it. so removed SYN tag"

Hope that is clear enough for you and we have an understanding.--Otterathome (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the templates and explained why I did so thing in the edit summary. That's hardly being "deceptive" or "removing maintenance tags without an explanation." I gave an explanation. I was upfront with my reasons and I see no reason to change how I go about doing this for two reasons: One, edit summaries are optional, you do not have to include them, so I am already ahead of the game by doing so and Two, I did explain exactly why I was removing the tags. There is nothing "disruptive" about going about removing the tags in the manner I did. --Zoeydahling (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tubefilter. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I misunderstood 3RR. I thought it was about removing the same exact content over and over, not just reverting any content in general. And honestly, my edits were all along the lines of "this is still being discussed on the talk page, please do not keep adding it until consensus has been reached," so I was trying to use the talk page as suggested. Anyway, sorry if I violated the rule and I'll try to be more careful about it in the future. --Zoeydahling (talk) 01:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Tubefilter vandalism warning

Uh, replied to this here, as I'm not sure how this edit comes anywhere close to vandalism. --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't figure out why on Earth I would have identified the edit in question as vandalism, and I offer my sincere apologies for my error. The warning message has been removed and I hope that you accept my regrets for my error. Alansohn (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. --Zoeydahling (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

TF discussion

Are you going to continue with the authors of the sources discussion? I was still waiting for you to tell me what's in the eventbright source which isn't on the main website to suggest TF staff didn't write any of it.--Otterathome (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied on Talk:Tubefilter. --Zoeydahling (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

LG15: The Last

Which of the sources are substantial coverage?--Otterathome (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And with Vincent Caso.--Otterathome (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I could go through and point out each one to you, but ultimately, it doesn't matter. Consensus about the quality of the sources has already been reached, and the community determined that the sources met WP:N well enough to merit inclusion on this wiki, so a notability template should not be added to the page. --Zoeydahling (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The template isn't about the quality of the sources, but whether they cover the subject in a trivial manner or not so that it meets WP:N. But if this has been shown in previous discussions, do copy and paste it here.--Otterathome (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The community decided that the sources meet WP:N well enough for inclusion (which, among other things, means they determined the sources were not just trivial), otherwise, any one of the discussions you opened would have been closed as delete. I am not going to copy 3 AfDs, a merge discussion and a DRV here, you can look them up yourself (the links can be found at Talk:LG15: The Last and Talk:Vincent Caso). --Zoeydahling (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The template shows it doesn't meet WP:N because all the sources are trivial, why you can't just refer to past discussions and tell me which source(s) are not trivial is very strange.--Otterathome (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I linked you to the past discussions, feel free to read them. If you noticed, the conclusion was that the articles should be kept, which means they meet WP:N well enough to merit inclusion on the wiki, so whether you personally, or I personally think that the sources are trivial or non trivial is completely irrelevant. A consensus has been reached that indicates the sources meet WP:N well enough to merit inclusion. It's time to WP:LETITGO. --Zoeydahling (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You said exact same thing at Talk:Tubefilter#Notability_maintenance_tags. AFD is to find out if an article should be deleted, not if it meets certain guidelines (though that is a part of it). An article being kept at AFD and meeting guidelines are two different things.--Otterathome (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable sources on Tubefilter

I'll be removing the two sources which we have no conclusive answer to who the author(s) are, so we cannot be determine if they are reliable or not. See WP:RS.--Otterathome (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Start working on your unblock rationale, then, because that's disruptive and WP:POINTy. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)