User talk:Zoe/archive 7

Did you access to the page about "L'étrange Madame X" ? Ericd 23:32 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

No, did somebody create one? -- Zoe

Some of these people have no clue how to check the article's history Zoe, nor what wikified means. Good luck ;) BF

No I'm reffering to http://frenchfilms.topcities.com/nf_L_etrange_Madame_X_rev.html

Oh, no, I hadn't, thanks for the reminder. -- Zoe

Oh Great Godess, controller of heaven, the earth and Wikipedia. What kind of moronic, idiotic, stupidity did you use to remove the name of the portrait of Amedeo Modigliani. Is this kind of ignorance part of the "Wikipedia Consensus" that you ONLY do because they tell you to? Don't think so. As I already said, you are going around screwing up articles posted by people who know what they are talking about. I repeat: Please stop. What you in fact did to Modigliani, and others I suspect, is in fact vandalism !...DW ESQ cc: Jimbo whoever

I have no idea what you're babbling about, DW. The caption under the picture is still there, is that what you're raving about? -- Zoe

What is it about Wiki that, as well as attracting committed capable people, also seems to draw the likes of DW? Ignore his abuse. The other 99.9% of Wiki users know you do a damn good job. It is a pity that we might have to ban DW; he does some good work. But even Jimbo seems to have had enough of this pompous, self-important cretin. We should open a special page: 'Today's ludicrous insults from DW' but it might exceed the browser limit too quickly. Keep up the good work. JTD 04:51 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

Keep an eye out. At 5.06 GMT DW inserted the word 'British' into the opening of the article on George Washington, claiming he was following your lead in inserting country of origin. (I've removed it.) Hopefully it was just a once-off bit of childishness. He has too much ability to waste it vandalising articles out of spite. I've put a warning on the List just to be on the safe side so people can keep an eye out in case he tries this stunt again anywhere else. What is it about Wiki that it seems to bring out the worst in some people? JTD 05:44 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)

Yes. I'm now aware that I have one of the "bad browsers". I usually will not touch anything that looks too large. But usually it lets me edit them and only then truncates. You could be right then that it was the user before me. Spooked me out. Thanks. Arthur

Zoe, would you please have a look at my suggestion for a naming scheme at Talk:Mormon (Mormon's record), and comment if I've made a bad suggestion? I seems reasonable to me, and I looked atNaming conventions, but i'm kind of ineperienced a wikipedia conventions. We probably also need strict feedback from a few Mormons on this. Thanks. Arthur 01:17 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)

I wish to apoligize for teasing you. As I would like to add some information on Salim I al Sabah, Kabbar, Abdul Aziz ibn Abdul Rahman ibn Saud, Najd, Faisal I, Political Titles of the Ottoman Empire, Warba, Abdulla II al Sabah, the First Kuwaiti Crisis, Abdullah ibn Hussein, Mashian, Failakah, Auhah, al Khalifa, al Jalahima, al Sabah, Abdul Karim Qasim, Jaber III al Ahmad al Sabah, Muhammad I al Sabah, the Second Kuwaiti Crisis, Zaki Arsuzi, Salah al Din Bitar, Ghazi ibn Faisal, Bakr Sidqi, Abdullah II al Sabah, Ahmad al Sabah, Abdul Ilah, and Percy Cox, as well as (obviously) the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty of October 1922, the Turkish Petroleum Company, the Basra-Baghdad Highway, the Berlin-Baghdad Railroad, and the Abudllah Khor Waterway, Nuri al Said, Abdulla III al Sabah, Aramco, the Kuwait Oil Company, and the Anglo-Kuwaiti Treaty of 1899; I would like to inquire as to what objections you might have to my doing so? Vera Cruz

Why did you erase the link to Texas on Laurel Clark?

Why did you erase the link to Texas on William C. McCool?

I haven't even looked at the Laurel Clark article, so it wasn't me. I changed Lubbock, Texas to Lubbock, Texas because that's the appropriate link. Please leave a name next time. -- Zoe

Ok...why is that the appropriate link? Lubbock, Texas is far more useful to the user Vera Cruz

Writing it Lubbock, Texas is better because:

It conforms to the established standard, &
The article Lubbock, Texas includes a link in it to Texas, so the two links do not need to be divided.

Why isn't this format useful to you, Vera? -- llywrch 02:46 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

The twice-banned Lir/Vera is just looking to cause trouble again. -- Zoe

He is doing nothing of the sort. You are dismissing a perfectly valid point of view out of prejudice. I explained the reasons for doing it his way in Talk:Laurel Clark. Writing Lubbock, Texas inconveniences no-one but the person writing it, and makes life a lot easier for the reader who will want quite likely want to refer to the article on the state, and who will also quite likely be thoroughly annoyed at having to go through two intervening (and usually boring) articles just to get to it. One has to go firstly to the city page, and then to the one on the surrounding county, before one has a chance to get to the page on the state! Lubbock, Texas does not link to Texas; one has to go via Lubbock County, Texas to get to it. Now, will you kindly stop messing about with Vera Cruz's perfectly valid edits, and stick to making your more helpful contributions. Thank you. </rant> -- Oliver P. 03:26 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

Lubbock, Texas does now link directly to Texas. I've just inserted the link. -- Oliver P. 03:29 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry for ranting at you, Zoe. I'm just in a bad mood, I think. Probably exacerbated by lack of sleep. I really don't know why I'm still up - it's gone 04:00 over here...! Hope I haven't risen too far up your list of evil people. ;) -- Oliver P. 04:11 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

That may be Vera's intent, Zoe. But I find it hard to think good of Vera when I find the following response on my talk page, with no indication where I posted the question Vera is answering -- llywrch 18:14 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

Pretend that you don't know what Texas is. You are sure Lubbock is a town and you don't really care about it, but you want to know where Texas is located; using Lubbock, Texas forces them to go to Lubbock and then to Texas, whereas, using Lubbock, Texas requires only one step. I started using this after noting that not all towns have articles, and thus Sometown, Wherever is completely useless for finding out about the region. Vera Cruz

Are you working on February 2 yet? If not I was going to update it. If you are I'll of course followup with more events. --mav

That was quick, I only just added the Esotropia article within the last 20 minutes or so. Nice work :) --Chuggnutt

"alumnus. alumni is plural" Why not change all the alumni to alumnus on that page (Brigham Young University)?... B

Ok, just making sure I wasn't being targeted by you or something. Shame on me though for doing the same thing instead of correcting them. I did minor in latin after all. But heh, it was late too. B

I moved the following down here where it belongs:
THAT CARL CRAIG BIO IS PUBLIC DOMAIN AND NOT FROM THAT SITE PLEASE REPLACE

So who wrote it? If you did, tell us so. If you didn't what makes it public domain? -- Zoe

Did you see this at the bottom of the page? -- Permission is granted to download/print out/redistribute this file provided it is unaltered, including credits -- we can't guarantee that this information won't be altered. That's the nature of the Wikipedia. And credits are usually not included, except on the Talk pages. -- Zoe

If our ignoramus on Woman leaves any free time, maybe you could have a look at Cinderella: I added on some movies, but I'm sure you'll be able to add more or fix my mistatements about them<G> -- Someone else 08:20 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

Zoe, no you are out of line. The articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one long vile and racist attack on a suffering people. If you don't understand that I feel sorry for you. In Wikipedia, it is OK to write everything from a comepletely discredited Zionist perspective, but woe to the Anti-Semites who desire impartiality. The Al Naqba article was closer to truth than much else on Wikipedia. But you don't want discussion; so I won't discuss further. /Martha

Make them more neutral then, don't go over to the other side to try to make them one point of view. And if you think you can be better at it, please discuss it on the Talk page, don't suddenly come out of nowhere with no bona fides that anybone here knows of and suddenly try to tell us how to do things. Introduce yourself and let us know why you think things are wrong on the talk pages. -- Zoe

Taking a side, Zoe? Ethnocentrism not something your over quite yet? Rabbi Michael Lerner - A link for you, Zoe. And "we" know where your bigotries stand, now dont we? -Stevert

Actually that really isn't clear in this matter. And that means that Zoe is doing something right. Your views are very obvious, however. --mav

I saw your comments on the Jewish religion, SV, so I don't need to say any more on that subject. But no, we don't know where my bigotries stand, why don't you enlighten us? -- Zoe

Zoe, I must take issue with wholesale reverts of everything Martha is doing. For example, I don't think the Irgun article needed to be reverted. Please take a moment to read the changes she makes before reverting. Graft

Never mind, it appears you are doing so anyway. Apologies. Graft

I second that. Its important to actually read the material before you revert it. As for claims of my anti-Semitism - I dont know what to say. Im not Jewish. excuse me, for seeing issues quite differently. Be well. -Stevert

I know you're not Jewish. That's pretty clear from the attacks you make on the religion. Neither am I, by the way. -- Zoe

Hi Zoe,

I only meant that not -all- of what Martha was writing was POV. Much of what RK writes is also POV, but I don't think that means we should go around reverting everything he writes. We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater, is all I'm saying. Graft

I agree, much of what RK writes is valid. but some of it is not, and Im happy to call attention to it, regardless of what people in their assumptions, might chose to label me. The canary in question is in the very bad habit of blanket reverting anything some of us do without even reading it. The fact that its tolerated speaks volumes. The fact that its supported.... well. What more can be said? Be well, again. -Stevert

RK, I disagree with you on reverting Palestinian exodus. I don't think the current version is NPOV. -- Zoe

Disagreement is one thing. That is Ok by me. But Marth's wholesale censorship of pertinent facts, especially from the Arab point of view, seems irresponsible to me. Martha is pretending that the Arab views of the 1990s and 2000s are the same as the Arab views of the 1940s and 1950s. That is not only wrong, but I would hold deliberately deceptive. I don't mind of other people take a crack at NPOV that article at all. And it would be informative to see how the Arab POV changed. I just disagree with the inappropriate form of historical revisionism that Martha pushes. RK

For one thing, that article badly needs organization and summaries of the relevant opinions. Right now it reads like a badly glued together mess of quotes, and it's very easy to take a side by selecting only certain quotes. --Eloquence

Aack! I should have gotten an edit conflict on My Sister Eileen but for some reason didn't. You may want to take a look at it: I don't think anything got left out, but it would be good to check. (There are a LOT of actors/actresses etc. that don't have articles yet, I'm surprised!) -- Someone else 07:11 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

Why do you think you should have gotten an edit conflict? Good work on all the new additions, by the way. -- Zoe

Thanks. I thought I should have 'cause I added "Wonderful Town" and then looking at the history saw that it had already been added (but it was already in there and I had to take out one version, so I was wrong about the conflict!) -- Someone else

---

Zoe, I left a response for you on my user talk page -sfmontyo

Hi. Please read my comments on User talk:Maveric149. Mintguy 04:17 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Hello, Zoe. I've just noticed that you've deleted quite a lot of things from February 11. May I ask what criteria you used to decide what to delete? -- Oliver P. 05:33 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

They were a lot of nonentities. We either need to make very day page thousands of links long, listing everybody who was every born or died and every event that ever happened, or we need to be more concise. Why list only a few of the people who won the men's and women's US figure skating championships? Why not list all of them? And then why not list every person who's ever won any country's figure skating championship? I'm pretty well-versed in American sports, and I never heard of these so-called American athletes in basketball, baseball, football, whatever they were. I did leave a lot of cricket players because I don't know how famous they are. -- Zoe

Hmm... That's a good point about the page getting ridiculously long, but how are we to decide what to keep there? I'm a little worried that if the decision of who to keep is just based on how familiar they sound to you, then... well, isn't that inserting your own POV about what is important and what isn't? What we need is a good old NPOV criterion for deciding what to include, that doesn't rely on subjective judgements. Hmm. Well, for people, we could say that they can be included if they have a substantial article - say over 1 K in size - or something like that. That way it would discourage people from putting relatively unknown people in, or encourage them to do more work in writing articles! As for events, I'm not sure what criteria one could use. I don't know much about US history, but I gather that an African-American woman being hired as flight attendant in 1958 would be a pretty big deal, coming quite soon after the Montgomery bus thing and all that. And isn't the sinking of a passenger ship in which 322 people die quite a big thing? As I say, I can see why you want to shorten the page, but I hate to see information that people have gone to the trouble of typing in just going down the drain! I know this would be extra work, but I wonder if maybe instead of deleting the information altogether, you could just cut and paste it somewhere else, like the talk page, and then other people can work out a better place to put it...? That way the page would be shrunk, but the information wouldn't be lost. I hope that sounds reasonable to you! Sorry if it doesn't. :) -- Oliver P. 06:03 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Well, the information isn't lost, because it's still in the Older verstions page. -- Zoe

Well, most people don't go hunting through older versions just to check what's been removed. I do myself, but I'm just weird. ;) To go through every line in an "Older versions" page - and there can be dozens for some pages - just to find out what has been removed is quite tiring, believe me. It would be easier for everyone (except for the person doing it, of course!) if removed information were placed on the talk page, where they'd know where to look for it. Furthermore, talk pages are searchable using the "Search" function, whereas older versions aren't, as far as I can tell. So if you take out a note about an event which is only mentioned on a date page, no-one would be able to find it by doing a Search, and they'd probably just end up having to research when the event happened all over again. Why not copy the information into a relevant page, like, say moving the figure-skating champions to a figure-skating page or something? It really would make life easier for people. -- Oliver P. 06:31 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

But most of the people I deleted didn't have articles about them anyway. -- Zoe

You mean some of them did!? *gasp!* For those that didn't, you could always write stubs for them. Or send me the names, and I could write stubs for them. :) But in any case, I still don't see what's wrong with the idea of moving information to the talk page. You could just keep Notepad or whatever open, and then instead of "select, delete" you could do "select, cut, move mouse to Notepad, paste", which wouldn't take all that much longer, and then once you've collected all the cut bits, you just copy the lot and paste it into the talk page. Simple! :) Oh, go on, I'll write a message to the mailing list in support of your proposed sysop status if you do. Wouldn't that be nice? (Or has it been given to you already?) -- Oliver P. 06:50 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Hey Zoe: Moving the Bayamon article to it's new heading, I noticed you had asked the question of 'what is a holding bridge?" on the talk page. Honestly, I just noticed that you had that question, so Im sorry that Im answering so late, as the question was posted in September.

A Holding Bridge is what I use to describe such bridges as the Brooklyn bridge or the Golden Gate bridge. I used that phrase, because in Spanish, actually, thats how people call it. But I have no idea what the name of those types of bridges is in English. Maybe Cable bridge or something..I dont know...

Perhaps you could fix the article with the right name :)

Once again, thanks for reading my articles, and God bless you!!

Sincerely yours, AntonioMartin

Please tell us what you plan on accomplishing by doing this

Providing ground for Wikipedia:self-references updates User:Anne

Zoe, First Past the Post is the formal actual name of an electoral system. We already have a mess on Wiki where people seem to mis-understand different systems and are merging slightly similar systems (eg, though the entire political science world refers to Proportional Representation through Single transferable Vote - PR.STV (and use capitals to denote it) , Wiki insists on calling it Single transferable vote, which is not the same thing, particularly when by not using capitals you don't make clear that you are talking about the actual voting system, not a different aspect of the electoral process.)

The whole point with using capitals is to make clear that you are dealing with the formal process under the formal name. First past the post could mean an election result, a variation on the process or a topic unrelated to elections at all. FIrst Past the Post (using capitals) is the formal name of a clearly defined election system, just as Single Transferable Vote is a formal name of a clearly defined election election system, and Proportional Representation through SIngle Transferable Vote is the formal name of a clearly defined election system. If things have formal names, deliberately given to them to distinguish the formal system from a general description on something related to the topic, they should be used. There is absolutely no logic in not using capitals for what capitals are intended to do, formally distinguish definitions & titles from anything else. (I've had the nightmare of correcting essays of students who get all confused because they cannot recognise a name or definition from general information. Wikipedia is simply going to make people even more confused if it decides not to use capitals on formal names that are intended to be capitalised. Or maybe we should just forget about capitals and mix up queen and Queen, write about pope john paul the same way we would write about slippers. And then wonder why people cannot make head or tail of it all.) I am rather bolshie on this I know, but I have had the experience over the years of being b*******d by lecturers for writing first past the post when I should have written First Past the Post or pr.stv for PR.STV. Wiki should be about raising people's standard of accuracy and level of english, not dumbing down. High standards shouldn't just apply to the contents of articles. They should also apply to the titles. 'First past the post' makes no sense in political science terms and no sense grammatically as an article headline. JTD 03:19 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

Hey, Zoe. Check out my edit on Servant. You might want to put that article/user on your radar. Danny 04:04 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thanks for being a great editor. You're often criticized, but I wanted to make sure you know I think you're a valued contributor and I almost always agree with you, even when I don't (if that makes any sense). Thanks for being committed to the project. Tokerboy 07:37 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

Very true words. I feel the same. :) --mav 07:56 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

Are you working on February 18 yet - I was going to give it a go but I don't want us to be working on the same thing at the same time. --mav 03:48 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

mav, I'm working on it right now. -- Zoe

OK - I'll work on something else. :) --mav

Ahh.. sorry I thought I'd created that test page in my user workspace and not the encylopaedia workspace. Mintguy

Dear Zoe: Hi! Thanks for fixing the Bayamon article with the phrase suspension bridge. Your observance is deeply appreciated as is your helpness.

Thanks and God bless you!

Sincerely yours, AntonioMartin

Dear Zoe: Well, thank you, and thank you again!!! LOL ...thanks for asking the question first, and then for letting me know who fixed the page. Im going to thank him right now.

God bless!!

Sincerely yours, AntonioMartin

Hey, I forgot that I read and then accidentally deleted your e-mail when <euphemism>my short-term memory wasn't functioning properly</euphemism> and, of course you can call me Tuf, as I am in fact quite tough, indestructible to all normal weapons (and also a cat, one of the rare Virginian-kind with opposable thumbs). Tuf-Kat

If you have a spare moment there is a formatting question at Talk:Historical anniversaries/Example. --mav

Yes, Zoe, I am planning on linking all those (very very very small) pictures into a page (actually I already have) and I -promise- I **Promise** that it will make sense why I did. really.

To discuss the theological and historical idea of the construction of the "mother temples" around the world (all 7) takes the pictures. Trust me, I'm not blasting pictures all over the wikipedia, and I'm not going to do some weird religious screed. I'll be NPOV and try to be demure.

But I understand your concern. Really. But there's a point. Give me 48 hours to get it all cleaned up ok? Rick Boatright 06:41 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)~

Zoe, I don't think changing the word 'with' to 'on' on the [UN . . . Iraq] page solves the problem. on and with are both used, the former by anti-war people, the latter by pro-war people. So we have just moved one POV and replaced it for another. I've another suggestion: instead call it ' The UN Security Council and the proposed Iraq war'. That way you avoid any hint of bias, by all words that could be seen as in any way expressing a POV and instead calling it a term that all sides would be able to use: the Proposed Iraq War. What do you think? JTD 00:28 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Reply to your rude comment.. --KF 00:49 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

Hey Zoe!

Last time you and I spoke, I had been here a week or so, and you seemingly forever (to a newcomer like me, anyway). I inappropriately called you out when your were being entirely reasonable. But newcomers like me (and you were one, once) don't see what's happening here until they get used to the culture[?].

Anyway, the business of (crap, what was it called?) Amerocentrism is a real one, I think. Please! Bear with me. I'm not angry at anyone, and I've learned to read your edits with appreciation.

It's not, for me at least (maybe there are others who are angry), whether Americans talk about what they know. It's whether they impose a US viewpoint on non-US issues. The example that most affected me is the page on Japanese cuisine. The current page is written almost entirely entirely by me, but I've seen four (five?) people edit that page with an eye to how Japanese cuisine has affected the United States. No one has edited it to say how it has affected any country in Europe, Asia, or Africa, however. There is an odd "Amerocentrism" that has affected the discussion of a cuisine 4000 miles away.

I deleted some of it, crunched most of it into a single topic at the end of article (so as not to censure Americans), but I'd still rather delete it all. Japan is not America, you know?

So i think that sometimes people are not unhappy about Americans talking about what they know (your really decent phrase), they're unhappy about Americans talking about stuff that has nothing to do with them as if USA is the topic.

Best wishes,

(and I totally respect you)

Arthur 01:52 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

My understanding of the deletion policy was that pages shouldn't be just be summarily deleted in the middle of a dispute about them. That's what the Votes for deletion page is for. -- Oliver P. 02:32 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

I recall a policy that one shouldn't delete pages until a week after they were listed, especially in the case of possible copyright violation. If you read the top of the VfD page it says, in bold no less, Page titles should stay listed for a minimum of a week before a decision is made. In this context I'm thinking of Pathological narcissism, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Inverted Narcissists, all of which were listed on the 22nd Feb and deleted today (23rd Feb). One would prefer to have waited for a week (29th Feb). Martin

Hiya Zoe. I think the martini stuff can be deleted. Danny 03:50 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, Zoe, perhaps I should have explained myself a bit better! I meant that my understanding of the deletion process is that when someone wants a page to be deleted, they put it on the Votes for deletion page, and, after it has been up for discussion for at least a week, another uninvolved sysop can delete the page, if that's what seems to be the general consensus.

It's just that on a few occasions now you have deleted pages in the middle of an ongoing conflict about whether they should exist or not. For example, on the morning of 16th February, you deleted one page (2000 Elections) four times in quick succession. Clearly someone thought the page was worth having, and you disagreed. So you should have put it on "Votes for deletion". I don't think it should be up to you to unilaterally decide that a page is worthless. What made me bring the issue up last night was a similar event. I'm not sure if I can remember the details correctly, because the history has gone. But it went something like this... Someone had made a page about a supposed swear word in Arabic. Someone else blanked it out, and then someone else added some more text. And then you deleted the whole page. Later this morning, you went on to delete several other pages that had been listed on "Votes for deletion" for only a very short time.

Now, I'm not making any comment about whether or not all these pages were worth having or not. But I don't think it's up to you to make unilateral decisions on the matter. That's what "Votes for deletion" is for. It specifically says on the page, in bold lettering, "Page titles should stay listed for a minimum of a week before a decision is made." That way the matter is no longer solely your responsibility; other people can debate the merits or otherwise of the disputed pages, and there's no need to get into "deletion wars" with people. -- Oliver P. 16:43 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

Leave it go, Zoe. I'm sure your suspicions are correct, but SM is behaving as well as any of us right now (better than some!) and seems determined to start afresh. If there is a return to the bad old days, I will be the first to join with you on this, but for now, why don't we just take her on face value as a useful Wikipedis contributor? Early days, but she's doing just fine. Tannin

Hello Zoe. Could you give me some reasonable pointers on how to compile an article in line with Wiki-principles? Especially how to use "outside" material, links, articles..etc..A link to a howto page would be highly appreciated too.. Starquake Thanxs, for tips, ZOE. Starquake