User talk:Zoe/archive 12

Learn more about this page

Zoe, I wish you'd take a break. You're bitter. You're a valuable contributor but I think you need a vacation from wikipedia. i hope then you can come back with some patience and say "Okay, there all assholes, I have to deal with assholes sometimes, let me be persistant consistant and fair" which I think you usually are. I'd really like to see you continue in your "old self" form. I prefer that you do edit my articles....(though I HATE it when you delete my references or un-identify them ;-) ) I want the real Zoe back rather than this shell of a Zoe which has replaced him/her/it -- Reboot

Hi Zoe. I was about to start adding more events to May 27 but just want to make sure you aren't either working on it now or plan on working on it soon. Cheers! --mav

> "MyRedDice has never met a vandal he didn't like"

s/vandal/banned user ? Anyway, I treat most people with a kind of detached amusement, myself included. Must be something in the bitstream. Martin

Hey Zoe. I just wanted to comment that it would be nice if you put some information about yourself on your userpage, as well as your "hands off" statement. You seem to be a very active and interesting user, and I'd like to know more about you. When attempting to understand a character in a story, there are a few basic questions: where did they come from? what are their motivations? I guess I'm curious as to what interests you in the wiki that leads you to contribute so heavily, what your areas of interest and expertise are, and general information so I can get a better feeling for what makes you tick. Although I understand that anonymity is a large part of hanging out on the internet, I've always found it frustrating to be faced with simply a username instead of a face and a history when dealing with people. I also understand that if you actively edit other people's articles, your userpage may draw vandalism; when reading about the vandal Michael, I saw that he had changed your page to list oral sex as one of your interests. Nevertheless, I think it's important to stand up for your identity, and I'd like to know more about you than your frustration. Nelson

Dear Zoe: Hi! How are you? I have a question, I always had this question actually...are you a man or woman?

Ask and you shall receive...anwers that is..lol

Other than that I just wanted to say hi.

Thank you and God bless you!

Sincerely yours, Antonio The Issue Martin

Dear Zoe: It was just a question....Im trangendered and dont have a problem with it. Im just curious to know if youre a boy or a girl...

thanks and God bless

Antonio Im Coming Out!! Martin

Oh, er, what? Okay, Zoe, I apologise for having previously assumed that you were a woman, based solely on your user name. Would you prefer it if we referred to you as a "she" anyway, or should we use singular "they"? ;) -- Oliver P. 11:03 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Zoe has far too comprehensive a grasp of this beautiful language to ever stoop to a singular they. Zoe has class. Tannin

What nonsense. Singular "they" is the most beautiful thing in the language. :) -- Oliver P. 11:50 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Did I ever say I wasn't a woman? -- Zoe

Not as far as I can recall. I just couldn't recall any definitive statement either way, so I was just apologising for making the assumption. I hope that clarifies things. :) -- Oliver P. 15:16 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hallo zoe! thank you for your message - I never said all is pornographic, but this is in the USA http://www.wikipedia.org/upload/archive/1/19/20030520015715!Clitoris.jpg we tried to get rid of some - uwe Kils 04:16 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Zoe, my apology for putting this here but Kils talk page is protected, and I am not a sysop. Perhaps you would do me the favour of putting this on his page please.

Kils -There has been a huge amount of discussion on that picture. You do not appear to have contributed to the discussion at all. What right do you have to delete material that you consider pornographic without first coming to some sort of concensus with other wikipedians? Theresa knott 10:11 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Dear Zoe, Dear Theresa,

please appologize, I never wanted to hurt anybody, I did not mean it this way. I have not seen the discussion. I lost, nobody took my cause. We had just some troubles endorsing the wikipedia in schools and for teacher and endorsing it with a funding possibility (like we did once with fishbase.org ). It was just a suggestion from an anonymous user account, which are anyway reverted immediately routinely. I could have understand the ado if I would have used my sysop power, which I always used only on owr own stuff. I still think it would be good to have some balance (for example was the fish article tiny compared to the plenty we found on the pages we suggested for an edit, and if images than of both gender would be fair. Good luck with the fine project wikipedia

from Uwe Kils ("sailor")Kils 15:21 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You know I'm on your side re: Michael. You shouldn't take criticism so personally. Just refer people to Jimbo's mail and proceed as previously. --Eloquence 00:34 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The reason I undeleted Conflict (band), as I have explained, is that the page contained three paragraphs of perfectly good writing by somebody who isn't Michael. It wasn't based on something Michael had written, it wasn't an edited version of Michael's text, it was new. I don't think that people who are not Michael should have their work deleted simply because they happen to have worked on the same page as him. If nobody else had edited the page, or if Quercus or somebody else had just corrected a spelling or something like that, I would not have undeleted it, but quite a lot of new and valid info was added. I'm sorry you won't be helping in cleaning up after Michael any more. --Camembert

Zoe, as I hope you know, I am 100% on your side re Michael. I have said so on the w-list and on the deletion pages. Sometimes we have to be careful and subtle in how we deal with Michael, but please do NOT think wiki is against you on this. Many many people agree with you. lol FearÉIREANN 02:27 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Me too. You do a great job. Evercat

I left a response for you on Talk:Frottage :) As for not taking it upon yourself to babysit the brats anymore - its about time... I knew the gasket would blow sometime. You took too much upon yourself - forgetting that all you have to do is step aside and people will step up. Congratulations on shaking the monkey off your back - regardless of whether Michael or whoever is still around. - Steeb

I think Michael came from hell. Thats all I have to say. Thats my vote of approval for Zoe against Michael.

Antonio Princess Toni Martin

Sorry about the confusion according to the NFL record book Tornadoes smith03

Hey Zoe, just wanted to say, "Don't let the bastards get you down!" Don't be so quick to declare everyone's opinions for them... I've been trying to follow the discussions surrounding Michael, because I'm really concerned about the implications of vandalism for the wiki model, and I think that although like any other human with limited time, patience, and energy, you haven't handled some Michael-related situations perfectly, I'm behind you 100%. It's not like you're getting paid to maintain Wikipedia or anything, if only every organization had enthusiastic volunteers like you. Just don't let stupid people get your goat, they're not worth getting upset over... you know that in real life they're losers extraordinaire who spend all their free time watching Jerry Springer. And be optimistic. People tend to live up to their expectations. Telling people that they don't support you makes them less eager to do so. Imagine if your friend tells you, "you never call" or "you're never there when I need you", does that make you feel more friendly? Even if they've been a little lax about calling you, isn't your friendship more important? Don't get too angry with the wikipedians, they're your friends, they want a good wikipedia too. Promote a healthy, understanding community of goodwill, and the wiki will be better able to defend itself against malicious attackers. That said, take a vacation, and post some bad jokes or Beach Boys lyrics or something on your user page instead, leave people with a smile :-) --Nelson (Why do I always end up writing a novel every time I try to say something? Feel free to summarize and refactor, as always)

I'm new to this and don't understand all the conventions. Please explain to me why you removed my note to other contributers from King's Highway (St. Augustine to Mexico) Rich J 22:37 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hey Zoe, thanks for the nice message on my talk page. I will do my best with putting up some of my own *non-copyright* images, lol. Take care. --ManicGypsy

Zoe, ignore Graham's stupid attacks on the Votes for Deletion page. You have plenty of defenders there. (Tim has just come on to support a defence I wrote of you and other have too!) And for what its worth everytime I find Michael creating new pages of bunkum I delete on sight, not merely the text but the article. Other sysops do so too. So chin up and keep up the good fight. (Ok and be careful, DW is back. I sent a message about it on the w-list! lol FearÉIREANN 05:49 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

GrahamN is simply saying that all sysops have to comply with the Wikipedia policy on deletion of articles which are possible copyright infringements, as set out fairly unambiguously at Wikipedia:Copyrights: "If a page consists of nothing but a suspected copyright infringement, then you can also list it on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. If, after a week, the page still appears to be a copyright infringment, then it may be deleted following the procedures on the votes page." There is nothing about using judgement there: it says to leave it a week. If anyone wants to change that policy, they will have to argue to get that page changed. (I would oppose such a change, incidentally.). -- Oliver P. 05:58 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Moved from Votes for Deletion

Sorry Zoe, but it had to go somewhere. VfD was up to 39 KB. -- Tim Starling 07:02 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

New River Gorge Bridge - copyright. Evercat 00:53 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Look I'm sorry, Zoe - I really don't want to pick a fight. Please don't bite my head off again, but seeing as you are such a stickler for rules, why do you so often ignore the one that goes Page titles should stay listed for a minimum of a week before a decision is made.? GrahamN 01:52 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  - I didn't know it was here. I deleted it because the anonymous user kept reinserting copyrighted material. But yes, you are trying to start a fight. You don't like me, remember? -- Zoe
    - Is Zoe indicating that anything not listed here can be deleted immediately? Pizza Puzzle
      - No, she used her discretion. Anyway, the page is now restored. -- Notheruser 02:31 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  - For what it's worth, the user blanked the copyright boilerplate (I reverted) and then proceeded to replace it with a slightly altered version of the copyright infringement. -- Notheruser 01:58 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    - Proceeding to replace it with a slightly altered version of the copyright infringement should be encouraged behavior, as eventually such actions will give us a non-copyrighted text. Pizza Puzzle
      - No, it's still a copyright infringement. -- Notheruser 03:50 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    - I think, rather than deleting copyrighted text, the proper behavior would be to render the material sufficiently different such that it is no longer copyrighted. Pizza Puzzle
      - I think that's too impractical (one would have to be quite familiar with the topic to reach such a goal). -- Notheruser 02:31 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
        It is not impractical. Next time you have this issue, leave a note on my talk page and Ill come de-copyright it myself. Pizza Puzzle
        It is impractical. However, if you're serious about your endeavor, I will gladly list copyrighted articles I stumble across on your user page (along with vfd). -- Notheruser 03:50 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
        Of course Im serious, all u do is treat the copyrighted article as a source and rewrite an article on the topic. Pizza Puzzle
    - So Zoe deleted it off her own bat without nominating it to be deleted, and without even discussing it with anybody? Isn't that a blatant abuse of her sysop status? What's going on? Has she been given some special dispensation to ignore all the rules she doesn't like, or what? GrahamN 02:17 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      - I think you're bordering on trolling. Anyway, the page has been restored, effectively making this a non issue. -- Notheruser 02:31 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
        I think it is *extremely* wrong to nearly accuse of trolling someone merely reporting a sysop action bordering abuse. The fact the page has been restored does NOT in any sense solve the issue at all. Looking at the Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion, you may see that it is not the first time that Zoe is in the grey area. It is not because someone quickly restore her possibly mistakes that it cleans her up from her possible wrong moves. User:anthere
        
        Who are you talking about here - "bordering on trolling"? And what on earth do you mean "non issue"? Unless there's something I haven't been told, then Zoe blatantly abused her privileged status here. The fact that the abuse has now been rectified doesn't mean she didn't do it, any more than reverting the work of a vandal means the vandalism didn't happen. GrahamN 02:52 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
        "Who, me?" Honestly, you said you didn't want to start a fight and then proceeded to list, in my opinion, trolling questions. I've seen a few sysops delete copyright infringements off the bat, but never saw cries of power abuse then. Additionally, all page deletions are reversible (to prevent said abuse). -- Notheruser 03:50 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
        All page deletions are reversible is true. But, it will hardly stay true if anyone mentionning a mistake is accused of trolling. And it can't be a proper policy to delete what does not appear ok at first sight, because non sysops can't see the deleted pages, hence not give their opinion about that. User:anthere
        
        First off, I consider it bad form that you just deleted your own comment above which I had quoted. Please restore it. Secondly, if you have seen other sysops deleting articles without listing them here for consultation, why have you done nothing about it? Pesonally I've only ever seen Zoe doing this, but then I'm not here all that much. I can't understand your relaxed attitude to this. But never mind. Just suppose your attitude was typical, and the consensus was that it is OK for sysops to delete anything they see fit to delete, then the policy should be changed. (I would fiercely oppose any such change, by the way, and I'm sure I would not be alone). Pending such a change, it seems to me that what you are describing is the wanton abuse of sysop privileges. If it is as widespread as you say then that is all the more alarming. GrahamN 04:22 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
        I didn't remove my comment, look above (this "discussion" is getting mangled with way too many asterisks). -- Notheruser 04:28 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
        
        OK, sorry. My mistake, you didn't delete the comment, you moved it. Now please "respond" to the "points" I made in the "discussion". GrahamN 04:44 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
        I'm not sure arguing will make much of a difference. However, I do believe sysops are regarded as trusted members of the community. -- Notheruser 04:52 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
        
        Yeah, we trust them to follow the rules. And to be honest, open and straightforward in what they are doing. If they demonstrate they can't be trusted act like that, they should lose their sysop status. GrahamN 04:59 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
        I will not support removing sysop status to Zoe, because she is making very good work and I globally trust us, and certainly trust to do what she thinks is the best for Wikipedia. But to be honest, I don't trust very much her on the spot decision of deletions. I think I saw her enough times in the grey area. I think if "trusting" means "agreeing eyes closed" to whatever sysops do by default, we don't have the same definition of trust. User:anthere
  - Graham! Sysops often delete stuff without putting it here if it is a creation of a hardbanned user and for a host of other reasons and are explicitly allowed to by the rules. When we delete we state a reason on the deletion log. If a mistake is made then it is undeleted. Stop being so melodramatic. What Zoe did was delete a page that contained a clear copyright breach where the user continually kept reinserting the copyright breach. In case you didn't know, copyright issues could get wiki closed down. What Zoe probably should have done is protected the page to prevent the user inserting their stuff, then put it here. But it was a simple mistake by a sysop who did not know the page was listed here and like all sysops was aware that the copyright problem could have had the most serious repercussions for the entire wiki project. But to ham this up and accuse Zoe of abusing her position is an outrageous slander and says more about you than about her. Pizza Puzzle made a sensible suggestion, though I don't know if they realise the full complexities of trying to uncopyright something. But Graham, stop making a mountain out of a molehill and issuing wild allegations against someone who acted to try to protect wiki (and that means your work on wiki, and mine, and Pizza's and everyone else) from being damaged because of a serious and continuing breach of copyright by some asshole that could have wiki closed down. OK? FearÉIREANN 05:28 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  - Agreed. Zoe was in a grey area policy-wise. All sysops delete stuff without listing it here first. It's just a matter of judgement as to what should be listed and what should be deleted on sight. Remember also that deletion is not permanent -- we have a Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. -- Tim Starling 05:37 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    - - But regular users can't see the content of deleted pages, so that's very hard for them to see that a sysop has been in that grey area User:anthere
    - This is not a grey area. Our policy page on copyrighted material - Wikipedia:Copyrights - has a section headed "If you find a copyright infringement", which clearly states: "If a page consists of nothing but a suspected copyright infringement, then you can also list it on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. If, after a week, the page still appears to be a copyright infringment, then it may be deleted following the procedures on the votes page." There is nothing about using judgement there: it says to leave it a week. If anyone wants to change that policy, they will have to argue to get that page changed. (I would oppose such a change, incidentally.) -- Oliver P. 05:46 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  - In this case it was a grey area because you had a user who continually circumvented procedures to continually reinstate copyright material. In such cases I have seen such pages deleted automatically by sysops in the eight months I have been here. In such cases that action stopped the user. Then sysops could look at the individual article and if thought necessary undelete it so that it could be dealt with here. (My solution in the one case I have dealt with so far was to do it differently - to protect the page to prevent the reinstatement of the content, put it here for discussion and then depending on the decision, it would either be deleted or unprotected and rewritten. But Zoe's method is widely used in extreme cases where someone insists on adding in seriously copyright material time and time and time again, ignoring all appeals to stop. Zoe was acting as many sysops have done in the past in such extreme cases. FearÉIREANN 06:05 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    - This was posted via an edit conflict, so forgive me if I'm saying exactly the same thing as JTD. Zoe didn't delete the page because it was a copyright violation -- she lists suspected cp vios here all the time. Zoe deleted it because in her words "the anonymous user kept reinserting copyrighted material". In other words, Zoe saw that a user was ignoring the boilerplate cp notice posted by Evercat. Instead of providing proof as requested, the anonymous user reverted the cp notice several times. Zoe clearly saw this as vandalism, and took steps to prevent it. Perhaps in retrospect page protection would have been a better course of action, but what's done is done. -- Tim Starling 06:08 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      - Okay, so she knows to use the page protection feature in future. As long as she doesn't do the same thing again, I'll be happy. -- Oliver P. 06:21 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  - Oliver, you make it sound like she deliberately did this. She was reacting to an extreme case. I mentioned the 'protection' route because it is something I have done a couple of times. Recently a particular vandal was sweeping through a series of articles planting garbage but for various reasons he could not be banned. A couple of sysops reverted everything then protected the pages or deleted the ones he was creating within minutes of he creating them. When after have an hour he found his new pages were gone and the ones he edited were reverted and locked he gave up and left (after verbally 'pissing' all over the sysops' pages). Once he was gone, all the pages were unprotected, the deleted pages checked over and all were so full of 100% nonsense (discussing his penis size, etc) that they were left deleted. So I don't know was there some special reason why Zoe opted for deletion rather than protection. Maybe there was, but she didn't do it out of spite but to protect wiki. And your (and in particular Graham's) attack on her are unfair. FearÉIREANN 06:51 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I am astounded at the casual attitude that is displayed in so many of the comments that have been posted in this discussion. If this place is to remain truly free and democratic then it is vital that all sysops are accountable to the rest of us, and that real consensus is always demonstrated before any deletion or ban is enacted. If there were a Wikipedia Constitution, these two principles should be in big capital letters in first paragraph. This is a very serious matter indeed. Why are so many people trying to play it down? If I was prone to paranoia I would point out that if a group of people wanted to stage a coup and gain complete control of Wikipedia, then a good way to start would be to spread exactly the kind of complacency that so many users are demonstrating here. GrahamN 15:32 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

"If I was prone to paranoia . . ." If??? This stuff is so paranoid it is mindboggling. FearÉIREANN

Only deletions that are questionable need be placed on VfD. We can and do differ a bit on just what should be listed and what can be zapped immediately though. Same thing for banning IPs. If we had to discuss each of these before they were done then we would be in trouble. --mav

What you are telling me is that there is some terrible external threat to us, and the only way to protect ourselves from it is to suspend democracy and give absolute power to an unnacountable clique. This argument seems curiously familiar from somewhere. GrahamN 16:43 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm telling you the way things are. And the dozens of junk page inputed daily and the equal number of vandalisms is a threat to productivity and making sure actual content is behind links instead of "al;kj;ljkl;kje" or "This is gay". If we had to vote on obvious cases then everything would grind to a halt. When was the last time you voted on whether or not to make a change to an article? This is a wiki for heavens sake! Your accusation of there being an unaccountable clique is insulting - we are not a clique since we hardly ever agree on anything and are very accountable because of people like you and ultimately Jimbo.

Saying from someone he is trolling when he is just exercing his right to speak up and protest is also insulting User:anthere

Where did I say he was trolling? Please read before you speak. Otherwise it looks like you are being dishonest. --mav

Actually, she was referring to my comment from above. -- Notheruser 18:51 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Nod. I was refering to I think you're bordering on trolling. Anyway, the page has been restored, effectively making this a non issue. -- Notheruser 02:31 16 Jun 2003 (UTC), not to anything you wrote Mav. I did not mean to be dishonest. But the place is messy :-) (anthere)

Anthere, they've had past spats. Please look here: http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:GrahamN&oldid=987954 -- Notheruser 18:35 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

So ? If someone is having repeatingly pbs with another person, he can repeatingly talk about it. I don't see what is wrong there. User:anthere

Just look at all the flack Zoe is getting for making this one questionable deletion. If I were her I would have froze the page and I suggest she do that in the future instead of deleting in a situation like this. However since it was the same person who created the page in the first place who was reverting the possible copyright violation notice without comment about the copyright status, then that demonstrates that the person doing the reverting was a vandal posting a real violation instead of legit user who was posting their own stuff from somewhere else or just made an honest mistake. So there is some justification for what Zoe did (although the vandal could then create a new page with the same content so I don't see the point really in deleting vs protecting). --mav 17:45 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Let's start at the beginning... 206.128.13.162 (hereafter referred to as "Gorged") contributions. Times in italics. Sysop actions in bold.

00:46 16 Jun: Gorged created New River Gorge Bridge on
00:52 16 Jun: it was correctly replaced by the copyright boilerplate text by Evercat
00:53 16 Jun: Evercat lists the page on VfD
00:57 16 Jun, Gorged blanked the article.
00:58 16 Jun, Notheruser reverted Gorged and reinstated the copyvio noice.
00:59 16 Jun, Notheruser tells Gorged on hir talk page to "use the sandbox for testing"
00:59 16 Jun, Gorged edits West Virginia (adds an external link)
01:01 16 Jun, Gorged recreated an edited version of New River Gorge Bridge
01:03 16 Jun, Evercat explains the sitation to Gorged on hir talk page
01:04 16 Jun, Gorged makes a minor edit to it
01:07 16 Jun, Zoe deletes it
01:07 16 Jun, Zoe blocks Gorged from editing Wikipedia.
01:52 16 Jun, GrahamN queries deletion
aprox 02:00 16 Jun Hephaestos (presumably) undeletes the article.

I hope this is off some help to someone. This is reconstructed from logs, etc - hopefully they're accurate. I couldn't find any other Gorged edits except these five - were there any? Martin 18:12 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

OK, comments:

Gorged seems like a typical newbie. He reinstated the possible copyvio once (it's been incorrectly asserted that he continually reposted it - that's not the case). I don't feel that he deserves the epithet "vandal". Oh, and he did give the source of his text as an external link, so it's not like he was trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
Personally, I'd have just reinstated the copyvio notice, and possibly left a note on Gorged's page, rather than deleting the article. Others here have suggested additionally protecting the page. I hope that Zoe will follow one of those suggested approaches in the future.
I feel it was a little premature to block Gorged, based on a single reinstatement of a possible copyvio. I just unblocked him.
Thanks Evercat! :) Caught a possible copyvio, listed it on VfD, explaining the situation to Gorged on hir talk page. Excellent work, I think - can we have a small ripple of applause for Evercat please! :)
Notheruser's revert and talk page comment - they're surprising. I actually wonder if the page history has been corrupted, somehow?
The entire process - from initial posting to the deletion and block - took around 21 minutes. I wonder if a more leisurely approach might have paid dividends.

Martin

I've recently made it a habit to leave "please use the sandbox" on anonymous user's talk pages as a way of "tagging" potential deleterious users and guiding confused users to an appropriate place for testing out Wikipedia (non-deleterious users). It seems to work most of the time (maybe they realize their actions are being "watched" or maybe they just get bored). -- Notheruser 18:46 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Without meaning to sound too dramatic, people who often check Special:Recentchanges are on the front line of a constant struggle against vandalism and the like. Without them, Wikipedia would soon be flooded with nonsense. But since there are so many edits, snap judgements have to be made, and mistakes are going to occur. This particular instance does not seem to be particularly serious. Evercat 02:50 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

hallo zoe, hallo Martin! regarding:

Are you releasing copyright of these images you are uploading to Wikipedia? If so, then why do you need to say they're copyright by you? If not, they can't be here. -- Zoe

yep, yep - it'd be good if you could add something like "released under the GFDL" to the image description page, just to clarify... Martin

yes, of course are we giving you the rjight to use our images, this is legaly done by clicking the "uplead" bottom. Heep up with your fine work! we will help you - we are not the Vandals you think we are - Vikings 23:01 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think my position on this particular "discussion" is easily discernible. :) -- Notheruser 03:05 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Add topic